Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

InjusticeInPerugia; unanimity

Thanks, I appreciate the response. A couple of follow up questions: (1) what does IIP stand for? (2) Do you have a link to the source of the "early on" quote?

JungleJim,

IIP* stands for injusticeinperugia, the site run by Bruce Fisher. I think that Candace Dempsey's book, Murder in Italy, also deals with the issue of Filomena's hiring of a lawyer, but I do not have a copy in front of me.

shuttlt,

I do not think a unanimous vote was needed, although I think that the conviction was.

*depending on context, IIP could also stand for Idaho Innocence Project

 

[Fuji]

Hi Fuji,
I agree with you.
Tell the truth, keep telling the truth, again, and again, and again...

I've never been thru a hardcore police interrogation.
But I too have gone thru a polygraph test, at about age 21. I did so without a lawyer present.
This was in the private sector though, a job I had working at a 7-11 convienence store, of all places, for 6 months as a cashier.
Kept my job, but a few weeks later I bailed on it, for after saving as much as I could, I headed over to continue my dream, surfing the North Shore for a month!
Kinda reminds me of Amanda Knox who worked 3 mediocre jobs to further her own dream, getting to Italy to study...

But that's not my reason for responding to your personal story, which I do thank you for posting.
Below I have a few questions for you, if you have the time over the next few days, what with it being the holidays and everyone's busy(!), please write back...

1) Did you also "visit" the police station during the previous 3 days before your interrogation and polygraph test?
2) Had the police also been yelling at you 2 days before you had your official interrogation and polygraph test?
3) Did you speak the same language as the police?
If not, did you have an unbiased, proficient language mediator,
opps, I mean interpretor present to assist you?
4) When you underwent your police interrogation, did you do so late at night?
5) Were you in a clear, coherant state of mind? or were you stoned?
6) Was your interrogation audio aon/or vdieo recorded?
7) Did you have a lawyer present?

These questions I ask you Fuji, are some of what Amanda Knox went thru.

Hi RWVBWL. Here's my answers to your questions:

1) No, though I had phone contact with the investigators.
2) No, there was no yelling by the police, before, during, or after the interrogation.
3) Yes, we all spoke English.
4) No, it was in the afternoon.
5) No, I'd never do anything as stupid as getting intoxicated before I knew I would have to meet and talk with the police, even if I wasn't going to an interrogation.
6) I have no idea if it was recorded or not.
7) I did not have a lawyer present, though I did speak to my attorney* before deciding to go through with the polygraph. (The polygraph results would have been inadmissible in a court of law; I willingly complied, knowing that I was innocent and wanting to resolve the situation as soon as possible.)

However, unlike Knox, I had a prior criminal history at the time of my interrogation. In fact, at the time, I was on probation for a misdemeanor offense similar in nature to the felony of which I was presently accused. *The only reason I even had "my own" attorney to consult with regarding the polygraph was because of this. As a result of these factors and my own psychological makeup, I was extremely nervous and agitated throughout the ordeal. I rank it as the second worst experience in my life (after watching my father die). Nevertheless, I did not lie.

I am well aware of the fact that my personally having withstood a forceful (though not coercive) interrogation has no bearing on how anyone else might deal with a similar situation. However, it does give me some background from which to assess the likelihood of Knox's confession/accusation being "false". My experiences and my readings of true crime literature inclines me to believe that, in Knox's case, this likelihood is near zero.

 

[Fuji]

I was therefore making the point that the only people who have an interest in this are the US authorities which bestow and monitor charitable status, the actual donors to the IIP, and the central coordinators of the Innocence Project.

And US taxpayers and the law enforcement community.

I then pointed out that they can't fail to be aware of the IIP's involvement, since it hasn't been hidden. (All of this was in the part of my post which you snipped).

How do you know that "they" are aware of the IIP's involvement?

If the US charitable authorities, the donors, or the Innocence Project believe that the IIP has done anything wrong or outside its remit, they will deal with things through the appropriate channels.

They can only do so if they are aware of the situation.

But my point is that everyone who needs to decide whether it's improper or not is almost certainly already apprised of the situation, and that the writing of emails or letters will therefore be of no value ether way.

Again - on what basis do you make this assertion?

 

[Juror]

Dr Hampikian is presently under investigation to determine who is paying for his advocacy position regarding Amanda Knox. His enterprise uses tax-exempt dollars from all Americans to champion the wrongfully convicted, especially those disadvantaged due to ethnicity and income. Since Knox does not fit either of these categories, and the case is still undergoing an automatic appeal process in a foreign country, there are burning questions about Dr Hampikian's misappropriation of taxpayer-funded resources and who paid for his trip to Italy to meet with the sex killer's family.

On 18 JUL 2010, Prof Halkides wrote to me the following challenge:

You are confusing what tax-exempt versus taxpayer funded means.

This reminds me when you were having an issue that the Amanda Knox Defense Fund did not disclose their financial situation when under the Revised Code of Washington they had no such requirement. The AK Defense Fund can choose to disclose or not disclose financial information and people can choose to give or not give to the Defense Fund.

 

[Fuji]

kestrel,

I agree. Although I admire Fuji's steadfastness, not every combination of interrogator and subject will produce this result, IMHO. Fuji's position implies that he or she does not believe that there are false confessions, and that is empirically wrong.

Hi halides1. You may be inferring my position as such, but that was certainly not my intention. I am well aware that false confessions do actually occur, for a variety of reasosns, from time to time. I just don't think that Knox's is one of those.

 

[shuttlt]

True. And perhaps you or another guilter will cause a statement to be made which will inspire a successful defense? Like you say, it works both ways.

Could be. Without getting into a long debate on chaos and the nature of causality, loosely speaking, I doubt that the odds of either of us influencing the outcome are worth worrying about.

 

[Fuji]

Not a strong argument at all, I'm afraid.

To which argument are you referring? Mine or ChrisC's? ChrisC said:

"When you confront people with lies, the only answer to support your lie is more lies. "

I replied by saying:

"No, for decent, honorable people, when you confront them with lies, the only answer is to tell the truth!"

I can clearly see the vapidity of ChrisC's argument, but where is the fault in mine?

Or was there some other argument you were inferring to have been made by myself? The only argument I was making can be distilled down to the quote of mine posted immediately above.

Why do you think that this young man (apparently of normal mental capacity) told the police that he was involved in a murder, when he was in fact subsequently proven to have been on a completely different continent at the time of the killing?

http://www.yourdiscovery.com/video/secrets-of-interrogation-admission-of-guilt/

Strange, isn't it? Very strange indeed. But true.

I have no idea. Perhaps he has something else to conceal. Perhaps he is under the influence of some substance. Perhaps he is an imbecile. Why do you think that he did so? More to the point - how does this establish that Knox gave the Perugian investigation a "false" confession/accusation?

 

[Dan O.]

So, you want a story where one would expect a murder to be committed from the outset based on the facts? Why? You exclude all possible scenarios where the murder is down to bad luck, mistakes, poor decisions, foolishness and misunderstandings.

You really, honestly can't imagine a scenario where Amanda and Raffaele might think that Meredith was over reacting to what ever Rudy may have done? This couldn't happen? Why on Earth not?

I fail to see any scenario where lying on the floor half naked and bleeding to death from multiple stab wounds to the neck could ever be called "over reacting". I honestly fail to see what possible bond could exist that would cause the housemate of the victim and her recent lover to cover for the assailant instead of immediately phoning in the emergency to try and save her life or phoning the police so they can catch and incarcerate the bastard.

What possible plan could they have conceived of to try and cover up what they were doing in the cottage that night would they think was better than any possible truth that had them there and witnessing Rudy rapeing and murdering Meredith?

 

[Fuji]

One person like myself could hang the jury in the states.

Until the next trial. Your strategy would not result in an acquittal for the defendants.

 

[Onofarar]

Ha! - well played sir!

Judge Massei seems to share a bit of a Burgess' flair for writing dystopian science fiction. Although, I think his literary efforts would benefit from giving his protaganists more believable (or any) motivations...

Nice one Diastole - you have a bit of a flair yourself. Merry Christmas.

 

[Onofarar]

Second this. I'll believe it when the prosecution team says "we'll like to thank those from the JREF forum for their invaluable research and advice". There's some serious over estimation of the importance of what's posted here.

I will be very surprised if we see such a quote from the prosecution team but from the defense team .. not surprised at all.

 

[nopoirot]

Yes, indeed, Raf started off by claiming he and Amanda had not parted the evening of the murder, then decided to "come clean" by admitting that she had put him up to this, the truth being that she had told him she was going to Le Chic that night. This blew up in his face. He learned, the hard way, that the truth will not "set you free" when it comes by way of an admission that you have been lying to the authorities in a murder investigation. He then crawfishes off this with his "Gee, I just can't be 100% certain" meme, the modality he is in when he writes the relevant diary entries. The clincher comes in Amanda's trial testimony:

FM: Did you talk with your mother about the declarations that Sollecito made in the Questura?

AK: I remember telling her that I felt bad, I was astonished by these declarations.

FM: Why?

AK: Because I didn't understand why he had to do it.
(PMF, Amanda Knox Trial Testimony, Saturday, June 13, 2009, Transcription of Audioclip 6)

Repeat: You can't rely on secondhand versions of the contents of the diary. There is too much artful selection and damage control going on here.

 

[Dan O.]

I am part of the group trying to maintain the status quo. You, Justinian, Charlie and Halides are part of a group trying to reform the system.

Your "status quo" incarserates, convicts and sometimes executes innocent people. You are standing in the way of reform that is desperately needed.

Is smearing the accused with lies in the press as was done to Amanda and Raffaele part of the status quo that you are protecting? Is destroying and withholding evidence part of your cherished status quo? Are the lab techniques of Ms. Stefanoni that have a high probability of producing false results what you really want used to present evidence in trials? Are breaking seals on evidence and covertly entering the crime scene before the team returns to collect key evidence that was mysteriously left behind in your status quo play book that you want to protect?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Idaho Innocence Project and the lack of discovery

stilicho,

Given that the Idaho Innocence Project is involved, it is even less justifiable that the prosecution did not disclose the relevant forensic files, as Drs. Johnson and Hampikian indicated in their open letter.

 

[Onofarar]

Yes, christianahannah, you are correct. Both Charlie Wilkes and LondonJohn are in error, and I note in passing that neither has corrected themselves.

Why do they need to correct themselves?
Charlie was expressing his opinion about the case - his pessimism about the Italian system of justice leads him to predict the appeal will not overturn the original verdict instead; finally at the Supreme Court level the pair will be freed on a tecnicality. Since this is a prediction of a future event how can he be in error now? You may not agree with his prediction but he is not required to conform to your view of the case.
LondonJohn was clearly correcting what he thought was a misstatement of the case's current status. At the present stage of appeal, the case is in the court referenced by him and it is in effect a trial de novo. His error if any is only in interpreting the statement he responded to. My reading is the same as LJ's the statement about the Court of Cassation was referring to the present not the future.
BTW - if we can have all these little misunderstandings about language and meanings when all are writing in one language imagine the possible opportunities for misunderstandings when conversing in your second language as AK was or the translations errors possible as English is converted to Italian and Italian back to English.

 

[Onofarar]

From here:

"Reasons for Staging

Principally, staging takes place for two reasons--to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family. It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation. This offender does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always has some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught. Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such distinctive behavior.

The second reason for staging, to protect the victim or the victim's family, occurs for the most part in rape-murder crimes or autoerotic fatalities. This type of staging is performed by the family member or person who finds the body. Since perpetrators of such crimes leave their victims in degrading positions, those who find the bodies attempt to restore some dignity to the victim."

Hi Fuji & Merry Christmas.
Thank you for stating the obvious - I think we all (calpevoltisti and innocentisti) have a good grasp of what staging is and why it is done - although it never hurts to establish a basis for agreement.
So agreed that is what staging is.
NOW answer lane99's question - on what evidence do you base your opinion that AK & RS staged anything - either the break-in or the clean-up.

 

[nopoirot]

So now the question becomes why a young hedonist of 23 would have returned home at 9:00 pm on a holiday weekend night, there to roll a joint, dine and fiddle with his computer in solitude. Kate Mansey of the Sunday Mirror wrote two articles about her brief encounter with Raf shortly after the body was discovered. In the one styled "Italy Murder Details Emerge" (dateline 11-4), she has Raf saying, in response to her question about where he had been on the night of the murder, "It was a normal night....Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends" (frequently misquoted as 'went to a friend's party.") This could hardly be a mixup with Holloween night, since Raf and Amanda had gone out separately that evening, meeting up and returning home about 2:00 am. I suspect Mansey may be rather more conversant with Italian than some have supposed, since she managed to follow Raf's end of a cell phone dispute, in Italian, about the wisdom of speaking with journalists. In any event, I see that Amanda, in her trial testimony, says she often depended on Raf to translate Italian to English for her.

 

[katy_did]

_________________________

Okay, Katody, this is an important issue. So let's proceed in baby steps, since you don't accept my interpretation of what Raffaele is saying in his Diary. Here's one of the two passages in which Raffaele relates what Amanda had persuaded, or induced, him to say:

But Fine, this is the problem: you can't just say "persuaded, or induced", as if those two words are exactly interchangeable. Raffaele never once says 'persuade', that I can recall; it's always Amanda 'induced me to say' this. 'Persuade' is the wrong translation, because it adds something to the original that isn't there, that is to say it suggests that Amanda told him verbally to say something he knew was false. Matteini is very careful to use the word 'influence' in her report when she's paraphrasing Raffaele's police statement, which is a much more accurate and neutral word than 'persuade' here.

Here are the same words used by Raffaele in another context:

Amanda: "The police induced me to talk rubbish during the night of the interrogation because they convinced me of their version of the facts (that I left the house on the night of the murder) and I didn't think about the inconsistencies (that I remember spending the night with Raffaele at his flat)".

Raffaele never "says explicitly that Amanda told him to lie", as you claimed, and in fact it's impossible to reconcile that idea with the actual words of his police statement.

 

[LondonJohn]

Dr Hampikian is presently under investigation to determine who is paying for his advocacy position regarding Amanda Knox. His enterprise uses tax-exempt dollars from all Americans to champion the wrongfully convicted, especially those disadvantaged due to ethnicity and income. Since Knox does not fit either of these categories, and the case is still undergoing an automatic appeal process in a foreign country, there are burning questions about Dr Hampikian's misappropriation of taxpayer-funded resources and who paid for his trip to Italy to meet with the sex killer's family.

On 18 JUL 2010, Prof Halkides wrote to me the following challenge:

"Under investigation"? By whom? By the relevant authorities, or by donors to the IIP (the only two groups who have the legitimate credentials to put the IIP "under investgation")? Or by a group of people off the interwebs?

ETA: I see Mary and others had already pointed this out. Must read to end of thread before replying!

 

[moodstream]

Removed, duplicate post