Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

(..)
Filomena's window and the driveway is way below the street level.
I don't think someone driving on the right side of the road (that's how Italians do), and looking from the actual street level would get a good look there, not to mention illuminate it with headlights. And most of that distance you would see only the large tree, with branches going quite low.[/INDENT]

(...)

Filomena's window is exactly on the visual line of a car driver.
It falls exactly in the scope of a driver.
Moreover, it is under the eyes of any passer by who walks out from the parking store, or anyone who happens to be on the parking lot.
Anyone like the arab-looking guy running on the stairs or the couple walking back from the restaurant, or the family that waited for a tow truck in the area facing the cottage gate.

 

[Dan O.]

I believe what The Machine et al have wanted to argue is that the first statement would have been admissible because Amanda was technically a witness and not a suspect when she signed it.

How can this be possible? I don't believe Amanda type up that statement herself and sign it before the police ever heard what she said? What was all that talk about Amanda breaking down when she was presented with the text message on the cell phone and saying "It's him, it's him. He's bad"?! Isn't that enough to make her a suspect?

How about when the police continued the interrogation to solicit the words that were written in the 1:45 statement. When those words were spoken (assuming they actually were spoken by Amanda), wouldn't that make Amanda a formal suspect? Isn't this where Italian law says the interrogation (or interview as it is being called) must stop immediately so that the witness can be informed that they are now a suspect??

The only way that Amanda could have become a suspect after signing the 1:45 statement is if she had never uttered those words before the statement was signed. I don't believe this is what happened and neither did the Italian supreme court and that is why the statement was ruled inadmissible.

 

[daydreamer]

For sure. It's a dangerous place for foreigners. I always say about Italy, I love the buildings, I love the food, but I can do without the cheating thieving Italians.

Interesting that you should say this. I ran across this item on IPP: 33% of Italian prison inmates are foreigners and 46% of the female inmates are foreigners. Subsequent posts state that this is old data, and that the percentages are even worse now. Some possible explanations:

1) there is an Italian bias against foreigners
2) Italy attracts criminals
3) a statistical fluke

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/amnesty-international-t529.html#p4049

 

[Machiavelli]

How can this be possible? I don't believe Amanda type up that statement herself and sign it before the police ever heard what she said? What was all that talk about Amanda breaking down when she was presented with the text message on the cell phone and saying "It's him, it's him. He's bad"?! Isn't that enough to make her a suspect?

How about when the police continued the interrogation to solicit the words that were written in the 1:45 statement. When those words were spoken (assuming they actually were spoken by Amanda), wouldn't that make Amanda a formal suspect? Isn't this where Italian law says the interrogation (or interview as it is being called) must stop immediately so that the witness can be informed that they are now a suspect??

The only way that Amanda could have become a suspect after signing the 1:45 statement is if she had never uttered those words before the statement was signed. I don't believe this is what happened and neither did the Italian supreme court and that is why the statement was ruled inadmissible.

Absolutely not.
You are making the laws yourself. It seems you are inventing your meaning for the word "suspect".
The law says Amanda would becoma a formal suspect after she stated incriminating words, not before.

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting that you should say this. I ran across this item on IPP: 33% of Italian prison inmates are foreigners and 46% of the female inmates are foreigners. Subsequent posts state that this is old data, and that the percentages are even worse now. Some possible explanations:

1) there is an Italian bias against foreigners
2) Italy attracts criminals
3) a statistical fluke

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/amnesty-international-t529.html#p4049

The answer is #2. Italy attracts criminals. There are opinions of important law professors on this.

 

[Mary_H]

Are you saying that if Amanda had spontaneously confessed, Mignini should have pretended she hadn't because anybody with any sense would keep silent? She didn't have to write the gift either, should he have torn that up?

According to the documentation, Amanda did spontaneously confess.

I think that ethically, Mignini should not only have ignored the confession, but he also should not even have been around when the confession was made. He should not have been interacting directly with Amanda at any point; he should have been interacting with her lawyer.

And yes, ethically, he should have declined the gift memoriale on the basis that Amanda required counsel before submitting anything. However, I would be inclined to call that statement more spontaneous, on the basis that she wasn't being interrogated when she made it. Also, it is not nearly as self-incriminating as the two previous statements. It makes much more sense, too, and is the one statement they should have taken seriously. By that time they had no use for it, though, since they had already accomplished the purpose of arresting Patrick.

 

[Machiavelli]

According to the documentation, Amanda did spontaneously confess.

I think that ethically, Mignini should not only have ignored the confession, but he also should not even have been around when the confession was made. He should not have been interacting directly with Amanda at any point; he should have been interacting with her lawyer.

And yes, ethically, he should have declined the gift memoriale on the basis that Amanda required counsel before submitting anything. However, I would be inclined to call that statement more spontaneous, on the basis that she wasn't being interrogated when she made it. Also, it is not nearly as self-incriminating as the two previous statements. It makes much more sense, too, and is the one statement they should have taken seriously. By that time they had no use for it, though, since they had already accomplished the purpose of arresting Patrick.

Prosecutors to interact with lawyers?
What a ridiculous idea.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by halides1

platonov,

I gave a iink to the FOA to show a portion of the gift statement, one that was larger than the portion I had quoted. You objected, so I provided a link to the whole statement. The way you keep misrepresenting this incident is not helping your credibility.

Personally I think it is to the credit of FOA that this stuff has been released. Similarly it is to the credit of PMF that so many original documents are available and posted.

shuttlt

I have to take issue with your 'implication' here.

You can follow the links from HERE

This 'stuff' wasn't released or posted by FOA as far as I'm aware - if it was halides1 choose not to link to it on that occasion. Indeed later after I had quoted sections from the full doc [that PMF have listed] he then responded using material from PMF and a PMF link. Even the Foakers here us a Daily Telegraph link otherwise IIRC.
He could hardly use his original 'dodgy' FOA link as it doesn't have the full text.

Given that the two statements were handed out by Charlie in May, I clearly chose the wrong moment to jump ship. It always bothered me that everything was so drip, drip, drip and yet clearly some people had access to things. It's not as if the Charlie and others wouldn't be helpful, sometimes surprisingly so but, while I was posting before, the floodgates hadn't opened.

Is it now the position that everything FOA has is out there and available? What about the "everything" Dr Waterbury referred to. Do we have access to that, or not?

Can't argue with what you may be trying to do here, but don't do it at the expense of implying/claiming that I use deliberately partial sources which halides1 then corrected.
I suspect your efforts may be in vain in any case - Partisan, mendacious campaigns are not generally in the business of providing full info - that's not the mission statement.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Rose was the one who calculated the 17-hour figure.

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.

One way to look at the question of torture and coercive interrogations, shuttlt, might be that it's all relative. Yes, maybe it took only three hours to get the false accusation, and another four hours for the false, internalized, more "complete" confession, but maybe that's because the interrogation was the worst thing that had ever happened to Amanda in her life up to that time. Amanda is not a veteran of the armed forces like the Norfolk Four; she is not a survivor of extreme poverty, hunger or of living under a repressive Communist regime; she is not a hardened criminal.

In some of the examples that have been offered of abusive tactics, the suspects probably had absolutely no idea whatsoever of what they were being interrogated about, whereas Amanda did, and her concept of it was that it was about Patrick, not about herself. Those conditions also might help explain why it would take less time to get her to cooperate.

Basically, though, Amanda was just an obedient student with a lot of respect for authority and a willingness to help. We argue that she was under pressure all weekend, but I think if the police had taken her in on November 2nd, they would have been able to get her to "confess" that very day. The only reason it took them as much as seven hours was because what they were trying to get her say wasn't true.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while it may have taken a relatively short amount of time and low levels of emotional and physical abuse to get Little American White Girl to confess, how can we know what might have happened if she had been really stubborn? It is entirely possible the Perugia police would have resorted to more oppressive methods if they felt the situation required it.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip> If we're comparing this to witches, why not to the martyrdom of Christ?

LOL, I was just about to say, "I've used that one," but I see platonov beat me to it.

 

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by shuttlt
True, but it's taken us this long to get copies of the two statements. I'm not holding my breath for Charlie, or any of the others, to release any more documentation relating to her arrest.

Not quite - they were never actually posted (supposed links to FOA perhaps) here, one wonders why ? but were available on PMF since summer IIRC (via FOA)<snip>

As my mother would say, is your arm broken? These statements have been available since Amanda made them and the police generously gave them to the press for publication -- you know, back in the first week of November, 2007, when the case was closed? Whose responsibility do you think it is to provide you with enough information to discuss the case intelligently?

Go to a pro-Amanda website once in awhile, or read Candace Dempsey's book.

 

[Chris C]

Rudy confessed he was downstairs before Meredith arrived home. A confession that places him in the general area of Filomena's window at 8:30pm. Thats 3 hours before Mignini claims Knox and Sollecito arrived at the cottage to kill Meredith
.
What do you think he did while sitting downstairs?
1. Wait 3 hours for Knox and Sollecito to show up, then rape, murder and flee the scene in -60 minutes.
2. Break into the apartment.
3. Was let in by Meredith for some consensual sex

 

[Mary_H]

Prosecutors to interact with lawyers?
What a ridiculous idea.

What is the purpose behind the law ensuring the suspect is represented by legal counsel?

 

[platonov]

As my mother would say, is your arm broken? These statements have been available since Amanda made them and the police generously gave them to the press for publication -- you know, back in the first week of November, 2007, when the case was closed? Whose responsibility do you think it is to provide you with enough information to discuss the case intelligently?

Mary H

I'm biting my tongue ........

You seem to have missed [and snipped] my point, I glanced at them on PMF [just weeks ago - I'm new to this case]
But they they were never posted/quoted here (short as they are) -

Go to a pro-Amanda website once in awhile, or read Candace Dempsey's book.

- even you had to go to PMF for them

I copied both of the statements above from PMF, although PMF says they got them from Friends of Amanda. Keep in mind both statements were originally written in Italian and only signed by Amanda.

<snip>

 

[platonov]

LOL, I was just about to say, "I've used that one," but I see platonov beat me to it.

Yea, its a hard one to forget ; I didnt want to say it last time as I was new 'here' - but the Romans won that one too
[although some blame the jews]

 

[Dan O.]

Indeed.
There was some talk earlier in this thread of a 'long stick' - but this argument was pooh-poohed and hasn't been heard in a while.

You memory of the antics of certain posters is accurate. Now do you also remember the long discussions with photographs from multiple angles of the long stick at the end of the planter in front of the door to the cottage?

 

[platonov]

You memory of the antics of certain posters is accurate. Now do you also remember the long discussions with photographs from multiple angles of the long stick at the end of the planter in front of the door to the cottage?

No, but I may have skipped over it - the 'long stick was enough

How are we doing on the contradictions in AK's OWN testimony - all those cops and interpreters cops are liars anyway.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary H

I'm biting my tongue ........

You seem to have missed [and snipped] my point, I glanced at them on PMF [just weeks ago - I'm new to this case]
But they they were never posted/quoted here (short as they are) -

- even you had to go to PMF for them

Again, you seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief there is someone here who is in charge of this thread and responsible for supplying it with documentation. If you (or whoever it was who brought it up) wanted to discuss these statements, why didn't you (or whoever it was who brought it up) post them?

 

[Mary_H]

Yea, its a hard one to forget ; I didnt want to say it last time as I was new 'here' - but the Romans won that one too
[although some blame the jews]

Believe it or not, there actually are some adults who have participated in this debate who have never reflected on the possibility that not everybody who is in jail is guilty.

 

[platonov]

Believe it or not, there actually are some adults who have participated in this debate who have never reflected on the possibility that not everybody who is in jail is guilty.

I don't believe it - in fact when I joined this debate you acknowledged that this was not the issue.You know I can find the link ?

[In the background a cock crows or mutters about bearing false witness - hard to tell with fowl]