Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Sorry, but I cannot follow you there. I follow you as far as the could have been recorded and probably even the should have.
I am getting quite tired of repeating it but again: Would recording that interview been the usual modus operandi in the police station? How big is the chance that Mignini assumed it would be recorded while the police assumed they wouldn't need to? Not sure what it says about me but I am quite used to miscommunication or a lack of communication about the stupidest things.
Is there actually anything he could have said in that case that you would not interprete in the way you currently do?

Hopefully you have read my post that followed yours. Videotaping a suspect in custody is required.

There is virtually zero chance the interrogation was not recorded. The Perugian Questura is modern enough to have all procedures automated.

Mignini might look somewhat less suspicious had he not decided to sue Amanda for a charge against which she cannot defend herself, because the interrogation tape is missing.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree. Recording in an interrogation room probably begins automatically when people enter and the door closes.

Well, not in the UK at least. There are tape recorders permanently placed in all the interview rooms in all but the smallest, most remote police stations*. But they need to be manually started and stopped by the officers conducting the interviews. Incidentally, the tape recorders are specifically designed for police interviews: they record to two cassette tapes simultaneously. This is so that once the tape recording finishes, the officer removes both tapes, keeps one for transcription, and seals and signs the other one and hands it to the interviewee (or his/her lawyer) in case there is any subsequent argument about either mis-transcription or any other allegations about what was said or not said.

* And most main police stations also have at least one interview room with video recording facilities.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, not in the UK at least. There are tape recorders permanently placed in all the interview rooms in all but the smallest, most remote police stations*. But they need to be manually started and stopped by the officers conducting the interviews. Incidentally, the tape recorders are specifically designed for police interviews: they record to two cassette tapes simultaneously. This is so that once the tape recording finishes, the officer removes both tapes, keeps one for transcription, and seals and signs the other one and hands it to the interviewee (or his/her lawyer) in case there is any subsequent argument about either mis-transcription or any other allegations about what was said or not said.

* And most main police stations also have at least one interview room with video recording facilities.

Security is so important in police stations, I would be surprised if there are very many that don't have closed circuit TV cameras running non-stop. Cops don't go into interrogations without precautions -- what if the suspect becomes violent?

I have worked on many research studies that involved videotaping subjects. It is routine to leave the camera on all the time because the possibility of forgetting to turn it on for each session is so great. In general, investigators hate losing data. Think how important it must have been to Perugian LE to have that interrogation to savor for posterity.

 

[LondonJohn]

Happy New Year stilicho. I am wondering what you make of Stefanoni's claims prior to July 2009 regarding the DNA tested on the knife blade. This is a quote from Amanda's appeal, page 54:

Yes, Happy New Year to you from me too, stilicho!

Would you care to expand on these words that you wrote elsewhere yesterday? I'm sure that many people here would like to know that you hold them in such high regard:

Source: http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&p=72999

First, for those concerned that LooneyJohn and Dr Library Card are socks, there's almost no possibility that's true. We appear to know the backgrounds of each of them from their presence elsewhere on the internet. LooneyJohn is the more dishonest, pretending he's from a whole different country as well as initiating the discussion through subterfuge ('firm guilter'). He's more of a copy-and-paste Rose M.

On the contrary, Dr Library Card has been on the JREF since before I joined and is a garden variety anti-authoritarian who glommed onto this advocacy position because it raises his profile. He truly thinks he's discovered key elements of the case overlooked by investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and paid experts. There's a greater chance that he is deluded about his 'research'; he actually does his own work and draws his own conclusions. LooneyJohn has tried to mimic KL's 'success'--if you call approval from other non-experts on an internet forum 'success'--by Googling up his own 'truly tiny' examples. The latest is his discovery that red blood cells are invisible to the naked eye.

Edited by Locknar: 

<snip> Edited, breach of rule 4.

The groupies should be careful about their propaganda against Filomena. To those unfamiliar with the case, the comparison between her and Knox illustrates vividly why one was not charged and is not serving a 26 year prison sentence and the other may be in prison until her natural parents are both retired, her sister and half-sisters are married and have grown children, and all her groupies have long since forgotten about her or passed away from old age.

By the way, if you bothered to read my post about Filomena in context, you'd see that it was a sarcastic/satirical take on the way that Knox's movements and actions are "interpreted" by some as signs of her guilt. I guess that went over your (and Michael's) head though...

PS: Where do you think I'm from (and/or where I live), and why? And why is it even important?

 

[Moss]

I have read it Mary, I'm just not entirely sure what exactly

If a suspect's freedom of movement is hindered, the interrogation must be videotaped.

means.
Because one possible way to read it is that if a suspect is physically restrained it needs to be videotaped.

The IT guy in me suspects that automated recording is not necessarily a good idea. Seems like a waste of recording media and the room may be also used for interviews that may not warrant a recording.

 

[RoseMontague]

Sorry, but I cannot follow you there. I follow you as far as the could have been recorded and probably even the should have.
I am getting quite tired of repeating it but again: Would recording that interview been the usual modus operandi in the police station? How big is the chance that Mignini assumed it would be recorded while the police assumed they wouldn't need to? Not sure what it says about me but I am quite used to miscommunication or a lack of communication about the stupidest things.
Is there actually anything he could have said in that case that you would not interprete in the way you currently do?

The other flat-mates and witnesses were recorded and none of them were considered suspects. Not only was Amanda's not recorded when she was not a suspect (leading to the 1:45AM statement) but it was not recorded after she became a suspect (the 5:45AM statement). This is of course if you buy in to the police claim that she was not a suspect leading up to the 1:45AM statement. Information has come out subsequently showing that the police already intended to arrest her before this 1:45AM statement, stating that they intended to to that before her mother arrived on the 6th. At the point of this interrogation I find the argument that she was not a suspect to be pure silliness.

 

[Mary_H]

I have read it Mary, I'm just not entirely sure what exactly...means.
Because one possible way to read it is that if a suspect is physically restrained it needs to be videotaped.

Maybe someone who is more familiar with Italian law can provide a citation for us.

The IT guy in me suspects that automated recording is not necessarily a good idea. Seems like a waste of recording media and the room may be also used for interviews that may not warrant a recording.

You could be right. To my way of thinking, however, there is no chance Amanda's interrogations did not warrant recording in the minds of Perugian LE. It would have been a great thing for them to have, had they been able to restrain themselves from abusing her.

 

[LondonJohn]

Security is so important in police stations, I would be surprised if there are very many that don't have closed circuit TV cameras running non-stop. Cops don't go into interrogations without precautions -- what if the suspect becomes violent?

I have worked on many research studies that involved videotaping subjects. It is routine to leave the camera on all the time because the possibility of forgetting to turn it on for each session is so great. In general, investigators hate losing data. Think how important it must have been to Perugian LE to have that interrogation to savor for posterity.

I agree. It's totally inconceivable that the Perugia police HQ would not have had advanced audio and video recording facilities directly at hand. Of course, those-who-believe-Knox-and-Sollecito-were-correctly-and-safely-convicted would override all of this by saying "Ah yes, but she was not a suspect at this point, and there's no legal requirement to record witness statements". To which I would say:

1) You don't tap the phones or bug the private conversation of "witnesses";

2) Perugia police chief De Felice admitted in his triumphalist press conference the following morning that when Knox "buckled" and gave her confession/accusation, "she...made an admission of facts we knew were correct". This, by definition, means that the police "knew" Knox was involved in the murder before she even entered the interview room on the night of the 5th/6th. Well, either that, or the Perugia police chief is lying....

But yeah, she was only a "witness". Yeah, right.

 

[Moss]

Were the flatmates and witnesses recorded at the police station? The Mignini quote led me to believe otherwise, so maybe I went off in an entirely wrong direction.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is only true if you taken it as a given that in her handwritten note she is being honest and straightforward about how she actually feels. Again, you are all but including her being innocent within your reasoning. If she doesn't trust authority then she may well not say so in a note that she gives to that very authority that she does not trust and currently has her in it's power. Similarly, if she was involved in the murder she may be trying to give the impression of being a doe-eyed trusting innocent.

The community-who-blah-blah-blah-you-know-the-drill have argued from day one that Amanda's internalised false statement is evidence of her guilt.

The JREF rationalist community, who I think were mostly well aware of the phenomenon of false confessions already because of their familiarity with other, similar cases before this one came up, have been pointing out since we got on to the case that Amanda fits to a reasonable extent the profile of a person who might make an internalised false statement, her actual statement fits the profile of an internalised false statement to a T, the police tactics used (telling her she had repressed memories and encouraging her to fantasise) seem highly likely to bring about such a result, and that hence Amanda's statement is evidence of police incompetence rather than evidence of Amanda's involvement in the murder.

As I have said before either Amanda was the victim of an internalised false statement, or she knew exactly what characteristics an internalised false statement should have and faked them perfectly, which seems highly unlikely.

It looks like you are trying out a new talking point along the lines of "Yeah she looked like she had the characteristics of a person vulnerable to making internalised false statements, but what if she was faking that too?". I don't think this hypothesis makes much sense. If it's a coincidence it's a heck of a coincidence, and if you are going to argue it was deliberate then we're well into crazy conspiracy theory territory where Foxy Knoxy is both hypercompetent and idiotic in the best traditions of the New World Order and Illuminati.

The hypothesis that her statement was a perfectly normal member of the set of internalised false confessions, a well-documented psychological phenomenon, explains all the facts just fine. I can't see why a rational thinker would favour other hypotheses at this time.

 

[Mary_H]

I agree. It's totally inconceivable that the Perugia police HQ would not have had advanced audio and video recording facilities directly at hand. Of course, those-who-believe-Knox-and-Sollecito-were-correctly-and-safely-convicted would override all of this by saying "Ah yes, but she was not a suspect at this point, and there's no legal requirement to record witness statements". To which I would say:

1) You don't tap the phones or bug the private conversation of "witnesses";

2) Perugia police chief De Felice admitted in his triumphalist press conference the following morning that when Knox "buckled" and gave her confession/accusation, "she...made an admission of facts we knew were correct". This, by definition, means that the police "knew" Knox was involved in the murder before she even entered the interview room on the night of the 5th/6th. Well, either that, or the Perugia police chief is lying....

But yeah, she was only a "witness". Yeah, right.

And as Rose pointed out, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not recording everything that happened after 1:45. Except that that was when Mignini himself was illegally interrogating Amanda without a lawyer.

 

[RoseMontague]

By the way, if you bothered to read my post about Filomena in context, you'd see that it was a sarcastic/satirical take on the way that Knox's movements and actions are "interpreted" by some as signs of her guilt. I guess that went over your (and Michael's) head though...

There are many statements Filomena has made that are used against Amanda in Massei's report. I have spent quite a bit of time going through these statements and have found that criticism of Filomena in this regard is most likely unfair. For the most part, it is Massei's cherry picking of her statements and false interpretation of her statements that should be criticized.

The main ones are:

1. The statement that glass was on top of the clothes.
Filomena in previous testimony had indicated that glass was not only on top of the clothes but in the middle and underneath the clothes. Massei neglects to mention this part.

2. The shutters were closed to the point that the wood rubbed against them.
I have documented the 4 different versions of Filomena's statements on the shutters. Open, closed, part open, and can't remember. Again Massei presents only one version and ignores the rest.

3. The call from Amanda to Filomena that Massei implies that Filomena asked Amanda if she had called Meredith and this was denied.
I have documented at length that this implication on the part of Massei is disingenuous. The only question referred to in the report that Filomena states she asked was where was Meredith and she states Amanda said she did not know.

4. The always closed door versus the never closed door.
In my opinion neither version is correct. People always lock their doors on occasion and leave their doors unlocked on occasion. Some of the confusion can be chalked up to the obvious difficulties Amanda and Filomena had with communication as I documented in that intercepted phone call between the two of them.

5. The Italian girls did more than their fair share of the cleaning.
I don't give this one a lot of emphasis as it also includes Meredith as not pulling her weight in this area and I don't believe this was a major problem between the flat-mates.

 

[LondonJohn]

And as Rose pointed out, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not recording everything that happened after 1:45. Except that that was when Mignini himself was illegally interrogating Amanda without a lawyer.

I know I've posted this link before, but it bears repeating in the context of the current discussion. This is what the European Criminal Bar Association (who, I'd imagine, know what they're talking about) think about how Italian police/prosecutors often deliberately "mis-classify" suspects as witnesses, for obvious reasons:

http://www.ecba-eaw.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=981&Itemid=31

The suspect has a right to immediate legal assistance. If the police, however, do not want the suspect to be assisted, they simply do not allow him to call his lawyer or they question him as a witness, since witnesses do not have the right to have legal assistance during questioning.

They also give an interesting example of such a tactic in action. Ring any bells?

An example of questioning the suspect as a witness can be found in the following murder case.

The suspect entered the police station as a witness at 15:00h. He got out at 7:00h the following day charged as a suspect and arrested and brought to jail. According to the written record of the interrogation he made a confession at about 5:00h after having been visited by a doctor and having been given two psychotropic drugs (Didergot and Aurorix). The lawyer was only called so that he could be given the written record of the interrogation. The written record, however, turned out to be fundamentally different from what was actually said and recorded on tape. The suspect never actually said that he had killed the victim and simply but incoherently answered in a confused way the questions of the public prosecutor. Notwithstanding the fact that the suspect at trial withdrew his confession, he was sentenced to 21 years mainly on the ground of the confession.

 

[LondonJohn]

There are many statements Filomena has made that are used against Amanda in Massei's report. I have spent quite a bit of time going through these statements and have found that criticism of Filomena in this regard is most likely unfair. For the most part, it is Massei's cherry picking of her statements and false interpretation of her statements that should be criticized.

The main ones are:

1. The statement that glass was on top of the clothes.
Filomena in previous testimony had indicated that glass was not only on top of the clothes but in the middle and underneath the clothes. Massei neglects to mention this part.

2. The shutters were closed to the point that the wood rubbed against them.
I have documented the 4 different versions of Filomena's statements on the shutters. Open, closed, part open, and can't remember. Again Massei presents only one version and ignores the rest.

3. The call from Amanda to Filomena that Massei implies that Filomena asked Amanda if she had called Meredith and this was denied.
I have documented at length that this implication on the part of Massei is disingenuous. The only question referred to in the report that Filomena states she asked was where was Meredith and she states Meredith said she did not know.

4. The always closed door versus the never closed door.
In my opinion neither version is correct. People always lock their doors on occasion and leave their doors unlocked on occasion. Some of the confusion can be chalked up to the obvious difficulties Amanda and Filomena had with communication as I documented in that intercepted phone call between the two of them.

5. The Italian girls did more than their fair share of the cleaning.
I don't give this one a lot of emphasis as it also includes Meredith as not pulling her weight in this area and I don't believe this was a major problem between the flat-mates.

In your point 4, are you referring to Knox allegedly saying that Meredith always locked her door? Because if that is what you're referring to, I don't think that even Filomena heard Knox say this. IIRC correctly, the only person who heard Knox say these words (or, more accurately, thought that he heard Knox say these words) was Luca - the friend of Filomena's boyfriend. And also IIRC, Luca's English was even worse than Filomena's. I don't believe that either of the Postal Police officers heard Knox either. I believe that it was Luca who subsequently informed the police that he'd heard Knox say these words. In my view, therefore, it's entirely possible that he mis-heard or misunderstood what Knox had actually said.

 

[RoseMontague]

Were the flatmates and witnesses recorded at the police station? The Mignini quote led me to believe otherwise, so maybe I went off in an entirely wrong direction.

I believe that Mignini is being misleading with that one, but it is just my opinion. I am not sure if cites are available for this but will look when I get a chance.

 

[RoseMontague]

In your point 4, are you referring to Knox allegedly saying that Meredith always locked her door? Because if that is what you're referring to, I don't think that even Filomena heard Knox say this. IIRC correctly, the only person who heard Knox say these words (or, more accurately, thought that he heard Knox say these words) was Luca - the friend of Filomena's boyfriend. And also IIRC, Luca's English was even worse than Filomena's. I don't believe that either of the Postal Police officers heard Knox either. I believe that it was Luca who subsequently informed the police that he'd heard Knox say these words. In my view, therefore, it's entirely possible that he mis-heard or misunderstood what Knox had actually said.

Yes, I agree with you LJ and remind me to copy and paste that when I get a chance.

However, Frank does tell the story that AK and RS met with Filomena and Laura and this deal with the door was the main focus of the discussion. After Amanda explains at great length on this Sollecito translates and says that she (Amanda) was confused. So I am not real sure that even Raffaele understands Amanda completely on this.

 

[capealadin]

There wasn't an interpreter present throughout. IIRC, Anna Donnino testified that she was telephoned at just after midnight on the 6th November, and asked to come to the police HQ. She arrived at around 12.30. And it appears that Knox's interrogation started at some time between 10.30 and 11.30 - implying that there was between one and two hours of interrogation during which time no interpreter was present.

That's just reminded me of the "barely time to set out the chairs" nonsense that used to be part of the refrain from many of those-who-believe-Knox-and-Sollecito-were-correctly-and-safely-convicted, when they were trying to claim that there was simply no time or opportunity for the police to apply any psychological pressure to Knox before she "broke" and "blurted out" her confession/accusation. But we don't here much of the "barely time to set out the chairs" mantra these days, do we? I wonder why?

As there has been some need from you to correct people's spellings or typo, in your last sentence, HERE should surely be HEAR?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You don't actually believe the computer usage from 9pm to 6am do you? I mean neither Knox nor Sollecito every claimed they used the computer between those times and there's no internet activity, no applications being used, no grand novel being written for 9 hours. What the hell is he supposed to do during those 9 hours? And how exactly was Raffaele doing that when he was washing bloody fish, looking at leaky pipes, eating dinner with Amanda in a different room, cleaning up, having sex with Amanda and then falling asleep with Amanda? Amanda herself completely undermines this "theory" lock stock and barrel in her testimony.

You have quoted a snippet of testimony that doesn't explicitly refer to movies or music, and presented it as proof that no music or movies were viewed.

What's your alternative hypothesis? Gremlins put those ones and zeroes on the platter of Raffaele's laptop's hard drive?

You don't have an alternative hypothesis. You've just got some indigestible facts you cannot bring yourself to believe.

It's worth pointing out that Amanda stated that "I lay down on his bed, and he went to the desk, and while he was there he rolled the joint, and then we smoked it together." I'm not sure what going to the desk entails but it doesn't seem to clearly rule out Raffaele setting up a playlist at the desk, or watching a movie at the desk, or otherwise interacting with a computer at the desk.

It also doesn't rule out Amanda just plain getting it wrong. Human memory is highly fallible compared to ones and zeros on a hard drive. If Amanda thinks she didn't listen to music that night and the hard drive says she did, I'm going to favour the hypothesis that the hard drive remembers it right and Amanda remembers it wrong.

I know the defence have a massive problem to attend to with the computer records but I really have to say i consider this attempt at showing continuous computer activity, never mentioned by the defendants and directly, flatly contradicted by one in multiple instances to be both barrels to the feet. Unless they are considering reverting to throwing Amanda under the bus (again). But I can't see that really happening.

It really is mind-boggling. Desperation stakes imho.

I think there's some projection going on here. The hard evidence in the form of ones and zeroes shows that the prosecution theory that Amanda and Raffaele were murdering Meredith together than night can't possibly be right.

When rational people discover new facts, they revise their beliefs to fit the new facts.

You are instead searching around for some talking point to use to ridicule the new facts, in the hope that by doing so you can avoid revising your beliefs. That is not rational behaviour.

 

[LondonJohn]

You have quoted a snippet of testimony that doesn't explicitly refer to movies or music, and presented it as proof that no music or movies were viewed.

What's your alternative hypothesis? Gremlins put those ones and zeroes on the platter of Raffaele's laptop's hard drive?

You don't have an alternative hypothesis. You've just got some indigestible facts you cannot bring yourself to believe.

It's worth pointing out that Amanda stated that "I lay down on his bed, and he went to the desk, and while he was there he rolled the joint, and then we smoked it together." I'm not sure what going to the desk entails but it doesn't seem to clearly rule out Raffaele setting up a playlist at the desk, or watching a movie at the desk, or otherwise interacting with a computer at the desk.

It also doesn't rule out Amanda just plain getting it wrong. Human memory is highly fallible compared to ones and zeros on a hard drive. If Amanda thinks she didn't listen to music that night and the hard drive says she did, I'm going to favour the hypothesis that the hard drive remembers it right and Amanda remembers it wrong.



I think there's some projection going on here. The hard evidence in the form of ones and zeroes shows that the prosecution theory that Amanda and Raffaele were murdering Meredith together than night can't possibly be right.

When rational people discover new facts, they revise their beliefs to fit the new facts.

You are instead searching around for some talking point to use to ridicule the new facts, in the hope that by doing so you can avoid revising your beliefs. That is not rational behaviour.

I agree. SA used to place huge weight on the computer evidence showing the creation of the audio playlist at around 5.30am, But now when it appears that there might be computer evidence showing activity throughout the night up to and including this 5.30am interaction, a spot of ex-post rationalisation is suddenly in order........

By the way, Happy New Year! Best wishes from sunny Texas (oooooops, I mean drizzly London )

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the 1:45 statement

The 1:45 statement (which amanda had of her own volition written out) marked the end of her interrogation as a witness, not a suspect.
After she offered the police her confession of 1:45, she became a suspect resuslting in the 5:45 statement whcih is legally admissible in court.

Mignini was home in bed at the time of the 1:45 statement.

It is that simple and clear.

loverofzion,

Amanda did not write it out. She spoke in English, but Rita Ficarra wrote the 1:45 AM statement in Italian. It contains several inaccuracies, not the least of which is it misunderstands the text Amanda sent to Patrick. The final sentence is "I remember confusedly that he killed her."