Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[treehorn]

deleted/ addressed to wrong JREF member

 

[nopoirot]

nopoirot,

The Innocence Project wrote, "The electronic recording of interrogations, from the reading of Miranda rights onward, is the single best reform available to stem the tide of false confessions."

Sure, we could even require that all witnesses be questioned only by attorneys appointed by the courts to represent them. The flip side to this approach is that, had Guede been put away earlier, Meredith would probably still be looking on the light.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rita Ficarra

It's a different matter when she gets on more dangerous ground. There is a lengthy segment of testimony on who and how Patrick came to be named. It it were put into the format and font of a typical testimony transcript, it would be 24 pages long.

It begins with her being asked why she had never mentioned Patrick before 1:45 on November 6:

"Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name to me."

It ends with her grudging concession, "No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know
who it is. You were with him, you met him."

SNIP

So, "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." and "No. They didn't say it was him," cannot both be true. Since she volunteered "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." and had admitted that the latter was true only after the persistent, patient questioning by the judge, I think "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." is a lie.

TomM43,

Based on the words, “you were with him, you met him.” I would say that the police had Patrick in mind at this point. These words imply that they knew that Amanda had spoken to Patrick on the afternoon of the 5th. Perhaps Amanda spoke Patrick’s name first, but to call her statement a lie is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Moreover, I am under the impression that Amanda supplied Patrick’s name and address to Rita Ficarra before the interrogation began, so it is not as if the police had no idea who Patrick was.

 

[LondonJohn]

The family of one of the accused (Knox) hired an expensive Seattle PR firm that uses political campaign style "tactics" (their word) to 'muddy the waters' in respect of the inculpatory evidence.

Some questions regarding your allegation:

1) In what sense did the Knox/Mellas family "hire" Gogerty Marriott?

2) What was the nature of any contract that might have been signed between the parties?

3) Is it true that the assistance offered by David Marriott focussed (and continues to focus) on management of media demands, or do you have evidence that Marriott and the Knox/Mellas family jointly agreed that Marriott (and his company) would engage in "political campaign-style tactics" on Knox's behalf?

4) Is this assistance from Marriot being offered on a pro-bono or nominal-fee basis, or do you have evidence of a contract being signed at commercial rates (or even anywhere near commercial rates)?

5) What proportion of David Marriott's professional time (and how many of his firm's billable hours) do you think are being devoted to this "political-style campaign" on behalf of Knox?

6) What "waters" do you think have been "muddied" by any work carried out by David Marriott, or by Gogerty Marriott, on behalf of Knox?

7) Do you think that the Knox/Mellas family approached David Marriott (or Gogerty Marriott), or do you think that he contacted them offering his assistance? The nature of your language ("the family of one of the accused hired an expensive Seattle PR firm") suggests that you believe the former. If so, do you have any evidence to support this claim?

8) Why do you think the Knox/Mellas family would pay large sums of money for a wide-ranging US-based PR campaign, when their money should logically be going into legal expenses supporting Knox's first trial and appeal?

 

[treehorn]

I prefer this statement analysis from expert Steve Moore...

How can anyone reasonably base a 'rational' argument on representations from Steve Moore?

The man's penchant for making (demonstrable) misrepresentations is a disgrace to the agency he claims to have once worked for.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

stolen goods

Sure, we could even require that all witnesses be questioned only by attorneys appointed by the courts to represent them. The flip side to this approach is that, had Guede been put away earlier, Meredith would probably still be looking on the light.

nopoirot,

Why Rudi was a free man as of 1 November 2007 is one of the mysteries of this case. However, I see no reason to bring a discussion of witness or suspect interrogations into a conversation about why he had not been detained. My understanding is that Rudi acknowledged being in possession of stolen goods in Milan (with a nonsensical story of how he came by them), and I think that there might have been enough evidence to arrest him as of that time.

In the U.S. police sometimes delay reading someone his or her Miranda rights until after they have incriminated themselves, according to an acquaintance of mine who is a lawyer. That is why I did not draw a bright line between witnesses and suspects in my previous response.

 

[babycondor]

...

It's a different matter when she gets on more dangerous ground. There is a lengthy segment of testimony on who and how Patrick came to be named. It it were put into the format and font of a typical testimony transcript, it would be 24 pages long.

It begins with her being asked why she had never mentioned Patrick before 1:45 on November 6:

"Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name to me."

It ends with her grudging concession, "No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know
who it is. You were with him, you met him."

They didn't say his name, but after allegedly* browbeating her about it and telling her she was stupid for not remembering, they SUGGESTED IT TO HER by showing her the text message to Patrick (with the innocent "see you later" which they had misconstrued to mean she intended to meet him that night). And then she said his name. Which is exactly what they wanted her to do. Coercion works that way.

* In the absence of a taped interrogation, we have no proof of what actually happened.

 

[LondonJohn]

How can anyone reasonably base a 'rational' argument on representations from Steve Moore?

The man's penchant for making (demonstrable) misrepresentations is a disgrace to the agency he claims to have once worked for.

Do you think Moore is lying about his FBI career?

 

[treehorn]

I have made it clear that I really enjoy Frank's posts and his writing style. Clearly this pessimistic approach with some of the hardcore supporters of innocence seems to be spreading. I don't understand it nor do I agree with it. I know Charlie has given his reasoning on this but I am not convinced.

Frank's latest post which I would characterize as so sad, too bad.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/01/angels-and-demons-around-amanda-knox.html

This post is clearly off topic and aimed at driving traffic to another (fading) pro-Knox website.

 

[Draca]

How can anyone reasonably base a 'rational' argument on representations from Steve Moore?

The man's penchant for making (demonstrable) misrepresentations is a disgrace to the agency he claims to have once worked for.

I have high regard for Steve Moore's professional career and analysis. I find him highly principled and astute. I am aware he has made a few mistakes.

There is a small corner of the world that has convinced themselves that everyone agrees with their take on him.

In fact there are some who are giving him the 'Foxy Knoxy' treatment. They go through clips to find the most unflattering photos of him to make him look bad. Major diffence is they are the not Daily Mail and have little impact on the general public opinon of a fine and honorable professional from the FBI.

How do you feel Mignini, Giobbi and Stefanoni represent their agencies ?

 

[nopoirot]

nopoirot,

Why Rudi was a free man as of 1 November 2007 is one of the mysteries of this case. However, I see no reason to bring a discussion of witness or suspect interrogations into a conversation about why he had not been detained. My understanding is that Rudi acknowledged being in possession of stolen goods in Milan (with a nonsensical story of how he came by them), and I think that there might have been enough evidence to arrest him as of that time.

In the U.S. police sometimes delay reading someone his or her Miranda rights until after they have incriminated themselves, according to an acquaintance of mine who is a lawyer. That is why I did not draw a bright line between witnesses and suspects in my previous response.

Is your lawyer acquaintance of the opinion that the right to a "Miranda Warning" attaches before arrest?

All I'm saying is that there is a trade-off between reducing the number of vicious predators roaming among us and protecting the rights of the wrongfully accused.

 

[treehorn]

Do you think Moore is lying about his FBI career?

I think that he has made many misrepresentations about the nature of his previous work experience.

I know (as do you) that he has made many misrepresentations about this case.

 

[Dan O.]

I formed my opinion after reading about it. How did you form yours? You were at the crime scene? You're a forensic pathologist?

I formed my opinion after studying the available documentation, researching issues I wasn't sufficiently familiar with, formulating plausible scenarios that are consistent with the known evidence, and discussing the case to find more information to refine my opinion.

 

[treehorn]

I have high regard for Steve Moore's professional career and analysis. I find him highly principled and astute. I am aware he has made a few mistakes.

The "mistakes" he's made are neither few in number nor are they of a trivial nature.

How does that equate to "highly principled" and "astute"?

 

[treehorn]

2) What was the nature of any contract that might have been signed between the parties?

Why on earth would you bother to ask this (and the related questions) of anyone not privy to the contract?

 

[Malkmus]

This post is clearly off topic and aimed at driving traffic to another (fading) pro-Knox website.

A member over at PMF also posted the article. Are they also guilty of trying to direct traffic to a pro-Knox website, or could it be that, possibly, your attempt to censor posts linking to Perugia-shock is completely unwarranted?

 

[Poppy1016]

Forgive me but I need a little help here. I am wondering why, if Amanda's so called confession is to be believed, why is Patrick not still in jail? Why on earth would Amanda confess to being there with Patrick, knowing this could easily be disproved?

 

[Malkmus]

Forgive me but I need a little help here. I am wondering why, if Amanda's so called confession is to be believed, why is Patrick not still in jail? Why on earth would Amanda confess to being there with Patrick, knowing this could easily be disproved?

The common pro-guilt response to this question is that she did it, not because she thought that Patrick would actually be able to take responsibility for the crime, but rather, that she did it to "muddy" the investigation. Pretty vague, huh? And still makes no sense when you consider that not fabricating a story about being present during the murder would be the best way to avoid getting yourself in hot water with the police.

this sort of flaw can be a prime indicator of a false confession, evidence that the police, not the suspect, provided the story line.

http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/Loftus_Elizabeth.shtml

 

[Mary_H]

I don't recall ever saying that, or anything like it. A direct answer to the question would be, "Yes." although her answer is an affirmation by inference. Her answer would be a clear and direct answer to two questions, "When did you...? and "How often...?"

I don't think Treehorn was trying to assert that every answer she gave was evasive. The marijuana questions are not particularly dangerous for her; it is not in her interests to deny it, since that would undercut her explanation for her confusion and lapses of memory.

It's a different matter when she gets on more dangerous ground. There is a lengthy segment of testimony on who and how Patrick came to be named. It it were put into the format and font of a typical testimony transcript, it would be 24 pages long.

It begins with her being asked why she had never mentioned Patrick before 1:45 on November 6:

"Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name to me."

It ends with her grudging concession, "No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know
who it is. You were with him, you met him."

Judge Massei would disagree with your assessment that she was "answering clearly, directly, on the topic, and without evasion." Here are some excerpts from points in between the "they suggested Patrick's name to me." and the "No. They didn't say it was him,..." in which the judge tries to get her to answer the question; you don't get judges saying things like this if the witness is providing clear, direct, relevant, non-evasive testimony, and it would not have taken 24 pages worth to get there if she weren't being evasive.

Judge Massei: Excuse me, excuse me, the pubblico ministero wants to hear
precise details about the suggestions about what to say, and also about the
cuffs, who gave them to you.

***
Judge Massei: Excuse me, okay, we understand that there was a continuous
crescendo.

AK: Yes.

Judge Massei: As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the
pubblico ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some
interruptions. If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as
continuously as possible...

AK: Okay, I'm sorry.

Judge Massei: So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who...
these suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me...
***
Judge Massei: All right. You were telling us that the interpreter was telling you about
something that had happened to her. But you need to get back to the questions asked by the
pubblico ministero. This isn't a spontaneous declaration now. This is an examination. That
means the pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and we
still haven't really heard the answer to it.

So, "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." and "No. They didn't say it was him," cannot both be true. Since she volunteered "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." and had admitted that the latter was true only after the persistent, patient questioning by the judge, I think "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." is a lie.

The "who-said-Patrick's-name-first" argument has been in the blogs for a long time. It probably crept into people's minds because they thought Mignini was asking a meaningful question when he asked this:

GM: Yes, yes. I just wanted one concept to be clear: that in the Italian language, "suggerire" means "indicate", someone who "suggests" a name actually says the name and the other person adopts it. That is what "suggerimento" is, and I...so my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick, or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?

Pro-guilt posters have wanted to make it look as if the name "Patrick Lumumba" sprang spontaneously from Amanda's lips, and that he would not have been focused on at all if she hadn't brought him up. That is an argument that cannot be supported.

Please note that a little further on in the testimony, Mignini himself asks Amanda:

GM: Now, what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?

As for 24 pages of testimony, a few thoughts come to mind. First, we have seen several ways in which the Italian legal system differs from the US system. It is possible that lawyers in Italy do not advise their clients to give, short, direct, yes-or-no answers when questioned in court.

Second, who wants less information from a suspect when they could have more? Amanda's accounts are detailed, but they are coherent. Providing information was what she was there for.

Third, yes, the segment we're referring to is long, but it isn't fair to blame Amanda when the transcript in some places looks like this:

AK: Well, the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very
excited about it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from
him --
[Interruptions]
GCM: Please, please!
[Interruptions, multiple voices]
CDV: It's not possible to go on this way! [Mignini yells something at dalla
Vedova]
GCM: Please, please, excuse me, excuse me!
??: I'm going to ask to suspend the audience! I demand a suspension of five
minutes!
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me! Please!
CDV: Viva Dio, Presidente!
GM: Presidente, I'm trying to do a cross-examination, and I must have the
conditions that allow me to do it! The defense keeps interrupting.
??: That's true!
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me, please--
GM: We're asking for a suspension!
GCM: Just a moment, excuse me. I've heard all the demands and suggestions,
now the Court will decide. So.
[Several moments of silence, during which Amanda murmurs in a very tiny
voice: "Scusa."]
GCM: I want to point out that the accused offers answers to every question.
She could always refuse to respond. She is answering, and that doesn't mean
she has to be asked about the same circumstances again and again. She is
not a witness. The accused goes under different rules. We have to accept
the answers--
?? But--
GCM: Please, please! We have to accept the answers given by the accused.
She can stop answering at any time. At some point we simply have to move
on to different questions. One circumstance is being asked again, the
accused answered. The regularly, the tranquillity, the rituality of the
court, of the process, has to be respected. The pubblico ministero was asking
about suggestions. [To Amanda] If you want a suspension we can do it right
away.
AK: No, I'm fine.

And that is not even the longest exchange like that.

 

[Malkmus]

The "who-said-Patrick's-name-first" argument has been in the blogs for a long time. It probably crept into people's minds because they thought Mignini was asking a meaningful question when he asked this:

...

It's obvious from the testimony that Mignini was trying to catch Amanda in a "gotcha". What he was going for was to get Amanda to say that she said the name first so he could say "Aha! You brought up Patrick, so therefore you planned to make him look guilty from the start!" When in reality, as we all know, Patrick never would have been mentioned had the police not asked her who the text was to, and subsequently misunderstood the meaning of it.