• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Withnail1969 said:
In some respects they are textbook KGB tactics. Keeping the suspect up all night, lying to the subject, making dire threats, interrogating the subject with a large group of interrogators to intimidate them - I'm sure all that would be in the KGB manual.
Click to expand...
These are a rather loose definition of KGB interrogation techniques aren't they? The CIA document shown earlier didn't say "make them stay up until one in the morning once" or even "make them stay up all night once". As for lying to the suspect, there are lies and there are lies. Is any police force using KGB techniques when it tells a suspect something that isn't the case? If police forces all over the world do this, then why call them KGB techniques?

Finally the large group on interrogators. As discussed, Bruce once claimed there were 30 in the room, the figure has been dropping over time. Are we certain how many it was? How many counts as intimidation and how many is in the range of normal for a suspected murderer?

I take it you aren't arguing that what happened to Amanda is particularly like the techniques mentioned in the CIA document?
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
These are a rather loose definition of KGB interrogation techniques aren't they? The CIA document shown earlier didn't say "make them stay up until one in the morning once" or even "make them stay up all night once".
Click to expand...

'Make them stay up all night' was definitely part of KGB tactics, and is widely used by police forces all over the world, just like the Perugia police. Other KGB/CIA/Gestapo tactics included stripping the captive naked, as occurred with Raffaele and Patrick.
 
Last edited:
Withnail1969 said:
'Make them stay up all night' was definitely part of KGB tactics, and is widely used by police forces all over the world, just like the Perugia police.
Click to expand...
Right, so given that when phrased vaguely enough all police forces use KGB interrogation techniques, what are you trying to claim?
 
shuttlt said:
Right, so given that when phrased vaguely enough all police forces use KGB interrogation techniques, what are you trying to claim?
Click to expand...

Not in the UK since interrogations are video recorded and suspects have the right to a lawyer and must be informed that they do not have to say anything until a lawyer is present.
 
Withnail1969 said:
Other KGB/CIA/Gestapo tactics included stripping the captive naked, as occurred with Raffaele and Patrick.
Click to expand...
Presumably strip searches do go on all over the world in police stations as well? Particularly to people who carry knives when being questioned by the police about fatal stabbings (this is still an agreed fact I presume?)
 
Withnail1969 said:
Not in the UK since interrogations are video recorded and suspects have the right to a lawyer and must be informed that they do not have to say anything until a lawyer is present.
Click to expand...
So in the UK nobody is interrogated at night?

Not taht it's directly relevant, but the recent case quoted by Halides seems to have been videotaped without it helping very much.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
So in the UK nobody is interrogated at night?
Click to expand...

Not without a lawyer present if the suspect wants one and not without the entire interrogation being video recorded. If no recording is made available by police the interrogation is invalid and must be thrown out. If the suspect was not actually arrested at night then questions would definitely be raised in court as to why they were being questioned at 4 am, for example.
 
Actually Withnail,

At the risk of asking a question I don't know the answer to...can we elaborate on what would have happened in the UK.

Amanda comes in to St Mary Mead police station as a witness at around 10pm and begins being questioned some while later. Is a lawyer present? After a couple of hours she says she witnessed the murder. Does the interview/interrogation then stop and she is arrested, or does the interview/interrogation continue?
 
Chief investigator Giobbi claimed the ability to detect guilt from observing minor quirks in the suspects behavior. It's about as scientific as dragging out the ouija board and contacting the deceased for information.

When you already have decided who's guilty, you can simply focus your efforts on extracting a confession. It's easier that walking the neighborhood looking for witnesses, or collecting video evidence that might contribute to your understanding of the crime. All you need to do is to screw up the lives of a couple of young people. Keep them up to all hours of the night every night to wear them down. Lie to them, threaten them, keep them off balance and away from legal advice. Crank up the intensity and eventually one of them will crack.

The basic process of solving a crime in Perugia hasn't changed much since the days when they were prosecuting witches.
 
Withnail1969 said:
Not without a lawyer present if the suspect wants one and not without the entire interrogation being video recorded.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Could you clarify the position if the witness/suspect hasn't yet been arrested?

Withnail1969 said:
If no recording is made available by police the interrogation is invalid and must be thrown out.
Click to expand...
In the general scheme of things the interrogation would never have been admissable in Italy anyway, recorded or not, no?

Withnail1969 said:
If the suspect was not actually arrested at night then questions would definitely be raised in court as to why they were being questioned at 4 am, for example.
Click to expand...
But if they were, then it would probably be OK?
 
Kestrel said:
Chief investigator Giobbi claimed the ability to detect guilt from observing minor quirks in the suspects behavior. It's about as scientific as dragging out the ouija board and contacting the deceased for information.
Click to expand...
The police get suspicious of some people, and then suspect them. I don't see how to avoid this without having some kind of Chinese Wall in the investigation where the police are carefully protected from getting any kind of an impression of the potential suspects.

Kestrel said:
When you already have decided who's guilty, you can simply focus your efforts on extracting a confession.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that that is what he is saying.

Kestrel said:
It's easier that walking the neighborhood looking for witnesses, or collecting video evidence that might contribute to your understanding of the crime. All you need to do is to screw up the lives of a couple of young people. Keep them up to all hours of the night every night to wear them down.
Click to expand...
This didn't happen.

Kestrel said:
Lie to them, threaten them, keep them off balance and away from legal advice. Crank up the intensity and eventually one of them will crack.
Click to expand...
Or get injected false memories. All the stuff that may have been objectionable and had an impact on the confession happened over a couple of hours. You make it sound like the KGB 60 hour interrogation.

Kestrel said:
The basic process of solving a crime in Perugia hasn't changed much since the days when they were prosecuting witches.
Click to expand...
Again, this is overly emotive. It isn't like the burning of witches, it isn't like the D-Day landings and it isn't like the KGB in the 1950's in anything but the most sweepingly melodramatic terms. If we're comparing this to witches, why not to the martyrdom of Christ?
 
shuttlt said:
Actually Withnail,

At the risk of asking a question I don't know the answer to...can we elaborate on what would have happened in the UK.

Amanda comes in to St Mary Mead police station as a witness at around 10pm and begins being questioned some while later. Is a lawyer present? After a couple of hours she says she witnessed the murder. Does the interview/interrogation then stop and she is arrested, or does the interview/interrogation continue?
Click to expand...

If someone is a witness then the police would take a statement from them. This would normally be done at the person's home. If they are asking you to come in to the station then tbh in this country you know you're already in trouble.

If Amanda were to confess to something in the course of questioning she would need to be arrested and informed of her rights before the interrogation could continue.
 
Matthew Best said:
Originally Posted by platonov
I agree - but that is quite an understatement, most unusual for this thread.
On this note I see the Cheka (or chekist tactics) are back.
Click to expand...


Now there's some irony! You agree that nothing needs to be added, yet you went ahead and added something anyway.
Click to expand...


More of a final (very large) qualification than an addition - the distinction isn't that subtle, is it ?.

But your 'accusing' me of adding something to the debate, now that might be termed ironic ;)
Actually no, thats not ironic by any definition.
 
Last edited:
Withnail1969 said:
If someone is a witness then the police would take a statement from them. This would normally be done at the person's home. If they are asking you to come in to the station then tbh in this country you know you're already in trouble.

If Amanda were to confess to something in the course of questioning she would need to be arrested and informed of her rights before the interrogation could continue.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, so broadly speaking the same as what happened here (at least with respect to the 1:45am statement), except that the police were unable to proceed even if they wanted to.

As for already being in trouble, presumably Amanda had some indication of this given her statement about being made to feel like a criminal.

By the way, weren't the others Filomena and so on interviewed at the police station, at least some of the time?
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
Fair enough, so broadly speaking the same as what happened here (at least with respect to the 1:45am statement), except that the police were unable to proceed even if they wanted to.

As for already being in trouble, presumably Amanda had some indication of this given her statement about being made to feel like a criminal.
Click to expand...

Not really the same. People have to be informed of their rights in the UK, interrogations have to be recorded, and the police are not allowed to hit you or threaten you. So, not really the same at all, no.
 
shuttlt said:
That is your belief. I think Mary suggested a figure of 17 hours. In any case, the overwhelming bulk of that time wasn't spent with them acting like 1950's communist interrogators. They may have made her feel like a criminal but it's not as if they were shining a light in her face shouting "confess"! Even accepting your 43 hours, that's 43 hours being interrogated, 77 going about her business. Over the same interval, the communists that you are equating wouldn't have allowed her to leave the police station, they would have spent around 93 hours interrogating her (presumably far more harshly than Amanda) and allowed her 26 hours in her cell waking her up whenever she slept for more than a few minutes at a time.


10:30am is the earliest it could possibly be, and I don't see how it could be that early, but let's not argue about it. She had already confessed by 1:45am. Anything after that can't contribute to her confession. The interrogation then stopped and whatever we choose to call the session ending at 5:45am certainly did not begin immediately.


What detective rotation? She "confession" by 1:45am, so it was hardly a grueling interrogation.
Click to expand...

The recording of the 'confession' should have proved what we are talking about. Once again, it is the lack of professionalism a.k.a. ability of the police and prosecutor that is exasperating us all.

There are as many reasons to throw this case out as there are pieces of 'evidence'.
 
Last edited:
TomCH said:
The lie about 'no food or water', for a start.
Click to expand...
It's not a lie. As far as we know she was denied food and water for 2-3 hours at a time, and possibly even between a late dinner, plus anything she may have had in the waiting room, and when the canteen opened at 6am/6:30am.

What it is is highly misleading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom