Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

I've been involved in hundreds of similar situations from the civil liability aspect, and I've dealt with every theory of "police misconduct" lawyerly ingenuity can contrive. Unfortunately, no system of law enforcement ever devised is capable of effectively winnowing the Rudy Guedes from among us without the occasional injustice. These attract, as they should, widespread attention. Immersing oneself in the history of these instances can give one a very warped view of things. This is fertile ground for conspiracy theory. It makes one oblivious to the questions a more balanced view would suggest. Here, one of those questions is why would the people and governing body of the City of Perugia, a major tourist destination, tolerate an out of control, rogue police department?

Because Italy is a Police State, not a Democracy. You can elect your politicians in Italy however it appears the Justice system works outside of the Law. Police answer to the prosecuters. The prosecuters rarely answer to anyone and even when they are sanctioned they are still allowed to prosecute people.

The reason the police rushed to arrest Lumumba is staring you right in the face: they believed they had a credible, reliable witness in Amanda, and thought they had "probable cause."

With regard to the issue of "coercion," I've said enough about Amanda. With respect to Sollecito, we have several souces available to us: his diary (please, no more 'cherry-picking'), his courtroom "declarations," his statements to journalists, the testimony of his interviewers, and the record of the attempt of his lawyer to suppress the improvident "declaration" of 11-5. With respect to the last item, Frank Sfarzo was present when she rose in Judge Massei's court to protest that her client had given this "declaration" without benefit of requested legal counsel (Perugjia Shock, First Answer: Jail, 1-16-2009.) Do you really suppose Giulia Bongiorno stands in such fear of Perugia Police Department personnel that she would here drop no hint of "coercion"?

Probably cause? They typed up Knox's statement in Italian and then had her sign it. Mignini realized the mistake and had them redo it in English. Yet, even Mignini had to know the statement couldn't be used against Patrick since Knox had no legal councel and the police wrote the statement. The police wrote it in Italian. Which is one of the reasons it was tossed. So actually the police had no evidence when they arrested Patrick because Mignini had to know that the statements would get tossed by the Supreme Court. Because there would be no other reason for him to get the police to redo the statements and have knox sign them again, unless he knew it couldn't be used.

Actually Knox's lawyer doesn't have to argue Coercion because the Supreme Court ruled they couldn't be used against Knox. Everytime the statements where mentioned in court, Knox's lawyer protested, citing the supreme court ruling and everytime the Judge ignored Knox's lawyers protest.

 

[Mary_H]

I've been involved in hundreds of similar situations from the civil liability aspect, and I've dealt with every theory of "police misconduct" lawyerly ingenuity can contrive. Unfortunately, no system of law enforcement ever devised is capable of effectively winnowing the Rudy Guedes from among us without the occasional injustice. These attract, as they should, widespread attention. Immersing oneself in the history of these instances can give one a very warped view of things. This is fertile ground for conspiracy theory. It makes one oblivious to the questions a more balanced view would suggest. Here, one of those questions is why would the people and governing body of the City of Perugia, a major tourist destination, tolerate an out of control, rogue police department?

I believe it has been established that Italy's prisons contain more non-Italians than Italians. If the community is united by a disdain for immigrants, they would have no objection to the way the police operate, if they all believe it keeps the city safe for tourism and the native inhabitants.

Suing law enforcement agencies has become a large and lucrative industry. Making adequate allocations for tort liability has become a major item in municipal budgets. Great sums are expended on trying to control and reduce tort liability. $500 an hour experts are retained to devise and monitor loss control mechanisms. In the US, a city the size of Perugia can't qualify for liability insurance if it does not have up-to-date, effective controls in place. If it has developed a history of citizen complaints and suits, the costs of insurance protection soars, and heads roll.

The worst of all this is the cost of defending litigation. The statistics I've seen indicate that much more is paid in legal fees and expenses than indemnity. Fees awarded a prevailing plaintiff can be crippling. I'm sure it hasn't escaped your attention that Lumumba has sued for false arrest and imprisonment.

Controls are in place. Lumumba received much less than he would have in the United States for false arrest and detention. Amanda is being taken to court for reporting police misconduct.

One of the primary articles of faith of conspiracy theory in this area is that the accused (and their lawyers), their incentives to be untruthful notwithstanding, are to be believed, and their uniformed tormentors not. This is simply an exercise in self-gratification. One is privy to dark mechanisms, undreamed of by "the masses," which control our destiny.

Have you found any of the innocentisti to be particularly radical, libertarian or non-law-abiding in general? Do you have any reason to believe our opinions about this case are based on our prejudices as opposed to specific facts we have learned?

The reason the police rushed to arrest Lumumba is staring you right in the face: they believed they had a credible, reliable witness in Amanda, and thought they had "probable cause."

That doesn't explain the manner in which he was arrested.

With regard to the issue of "coercion," I've said enough about Amanda. With respect to Sollecito, we have several souces available to us: his diary (please, no more 'cherry-picking'), his courtroom "declarations," his statements to journalists, the testimony of his interviewers, and the record of the attempt of his lawyer to suppress the improvident "declaration" of 11-5. With respect to the last item, Frank Sfarzo was present when she rose in Judge Massei's court to protest that her client had given this "declaration" without benefit of requested legal counsel (Perugjia Shock, First Answer: Jail, 1-16-2009.) Do you really suppose Giulia Bongiorno stands in such fear of Perugia Police Department personnel that she would here drop no hint of "coercion"?

The answer to the question you pose is, again, staring you right in the face.

Giulia Bongiorno plays by the cultural rules, too. Does she want to be sued for calunnia? Does she want to break with tradition and finish a trial in one go as opposed to two or three?

The fact that the prosecutor broke the law when he deprived the defendants of legal counsel, but was not penalized in the least for it, should be enough to alert you to the fact that we are talking about a completely different culture here, where many of the issues you raised in your post do not apply.

 

[Dan O.]

Suing law enforcement agencies has become a large and lucrative industry. Making adequate allocations for tort liability has become a major item in municipal budgets. Great sums are expended on trying to control and reduce tort liability. $500 an hour experts are retained to devise and monitor loss control mechanisms. In the US, a city the size of Perugia can't qualify for liability insurance if it does not have up-to-date, effective controls in place. If it has developed a history of citizen complaints and suits, the costs of insurance protection soars, and heads roll.

Does Italy have such a history of citizens suing municipalities over allegations of police or prosecutorial misconduct? It seems as we have seen in this case that Italian law provides a quite effective insurance policy covering any allegation against the authorities whether factual or not.

 

[Agatha]

Probably cause? They typed up Knox's statement in Italian and then had her sign it. Mignini realized the mistake and had them redo it in English. Yet, even Mignini had to know the statement couldn't be used against Patrick since Knox had no legal councel and the police wrote the statement. The police wrote it in Italian. Which is one of the reasons it was tossed. So actually the police had no evidence when they arrested Patrick because Mignini had to know that the statements would get tossed by the Supreme Court. Because there would be no other reason for him to get the police to redo the statements and have knox sign them again.

What about Knox's handwritten (in English) 5.45 am statement, accusing Patrick? ETA: I am only addressing Chris C's contention that the police had no reason to arrest Lumumba.

 

[Kestrel]

What about Knox's handwritten (in English) 5.45 am statement, accusing Patrick? ETA: I am only addressing Chris C's contention that the police had no reason to arrest Lumumba.

The 5:45 am statement handwritten in Italian by Mignini. Lumumba was arrested around 6 am. Amanda's handwritten letter in English was written late in the morning or early in the afternoon, long after Lumumba had been arrested.

 

[Justinian2]

I see your point, Justinian. However, we don't know for sure if that's what happened in court, do we?.

I have listed the options in the order I think most probable:

1.) Guede broke in.
2.) The break-in was staged by Raffaele and Amanda because they were afraid of being accused of the murder.
3.) Guede staged his own break-in.

The number of pages alloted to each possibility in the Massei report is probably proportional to the emphasis placed on each by the court. If the jury was mainly given the choice of #2 or #3, then the lone wolf argument would be weakened.

komponisto, I just reread the section in Massei about the break-in, and although I need to study it more thoroughly, all I see are the same kind of unsubstantiated arguments from incredulity that Massei uses throughout the whole report. Plus, he engages in some inconsistent reasoning when he points out a number of times that Rudy had shown no interest in Meredith, but then says that Meredith would have been motivated to prevent Rudy from making a move on her. If he hadn't shown any interest in her, why would she be worried about that?

It's notable that the craigslist killer killed the woman that fought back the most.

I still don't see any evidence of Rudy having climbed the wall and gone in through the window, but if he did, that's fine. Given that there is no evidence connecting Amanda and Raffaele to the crime, the details about the broken window are ultimately irrelevant to their case.

Meredith wasn't murdered twice. Therefore if Guede murdered Meredith on his own, Amanda and Raffaele are totally innocent. In order for the prosecution to involve Amanda and Raffaele, they have to concoct a conspiracy theory. The three essential parts 'proving' the conspiracy theory are:

1) A break-in staged by Amanda and Raffaele. (never proved)
2) The use of two knives. (never proved)
3) Sex game motive (never proved)
4) Prior group involvement (never proved)

 

[TomM43]

Maybe your right. Perhaps we are speaking at cross purposes. You must not be saying that Knox intended to deceive the court by giving evasive answers. Yet you say that Knox is not answering directly? I must be missing your point. I apologize.

Could you spell out the point you have been trying to make then in your last several posts?

Are you saying Knox is answering truthfully but her style is ponderous and the attorneys due to a tradition of some sort cannot complete the questioning they intended?

I have to admit it, one of us apparently has wandered off the path.

I think she is trying to accomplish two incompatible things. I do think she is trying to avoid lying, which could be due to a fear of being caught out, or preference for truthfulness, or both. She is also trying to persuade the court, to shift responsibility for the naming of Patrick from herself to the police. She wants the court to believe that the police came up with the name, Patrick, and browbeat her into confirming that Patrick was the one she was going to meet. But she cannot support this with any specific statement by any particular officer(s), so she talks in general terms. Finally, she has to concede that they didn't say his name.

The segment of the questioning I posted illustrates a difference between the legal systems. In this instance, it is the judge who takes over the role of getting the answer to the question. In the US that would not be the case. Her first attempt to avoid the question would be met with "Move to strike the answer as non-responsive." If, after being re-asked, the question is still not answered, the questioner would ask the court to instruct the witness to answer the question. But most judges would not take over the questioning.

Massei is patient and persistent. He knows, and says, that she could stop speaking at any time. This fact alone necessitates a less aggressive interrogation. If she had taken the stand in the US, once she answered the first question, she could not take herself off the stand; she would be there until no one had any further questions.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think she is trying to accomplish two incompatible things. I do think she is trying to avoid lying, which could be due to a fear of being caught out, or preference for truthfulness, or both. She is also trying to persuade the court, to shift responsibility for the naming of Patrick from herself to the police. She wants the court to believe that the police came up with the name, Patrick, and browbeat her into confirming that Patrick was the one she was going to meet. But she cannot support this with any specific statement by any particular officer(s), so she talks in general terms. Finally, she has to concede that they didn't say his name.

The segment of the questioning I posted illustrates a difference between the legal systems. In this instance, it is the judge who takes over the role of getting the answer to the question. In the US that would not be the case. Her first attempt to avoid the question would be met with "Move to strike the answer as non-responsive." If, after being re-asked, the question is still not answered, the questioner would ask the court to instruct the witness to answer the question. But most judges would not take over the questioning.

Massei is patient and persistent. He knows, and says, that she could stop speaking at any time. This fact alone necessitates a less aggressive interrogation. If she had taken the stand in the US, once she answered the first question, she could not take herself off the stand; she would be there until no one had any further questions.

I think she handled this section of her questioning pretty well. She did concede that they did not say Patrick by name but she also made her point that Patrick was still suggested to her by the police by other means. Mignini seems to give up after awhile and his last comment referring to it as a suggestion rather than a question I found to be a bit humorous.

 

[Agatha]

The 5:45 am statement handwritten in Italian by Mignini. Lumumba was arrested around 6 am. Amanda's handwritten letter in English was written late in the morning or early in the afternoon, long after Lumumba had been arrested.

Ah, sorry; it's clear I have the spontaneous statement muddled with the spontaneous testament. My apologies.

 

[babycondor]

...

- the true nature of the wounds and marks found on Knox's body in the autopsy
...

You meant "Kercher's body" of course.

 

[daydreamer]

<snip>
I still don't see any evidence of Rudy having climbed the wall and gone in through the window, but if he did, that's fine. Given that there is no evidence connecting Amanda and Raffaele to the crime, the details about the broken window are ultimately irrelevant to their case.

1) Rudy definitely had the athletic ability to do the climb and entry
2) There are smudges and possibly a missing nail consitant with a "climb"
3) Rudy knew which window was broken before it was released. This was mentioned earlier on this forum.

Considering these items, I think Rudy made the entry through Filomena's window.

BTW, I think the rock was thrown from the parking area retaining wall, which is nearly the same elevation and little over 2 meters from the cottage wall.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Ah, sorry; it's clear I have the spontaneous statement muddled with the spontaneous testament. My apologies.

Even the 5:45 "confession" says "I vaguely remember". In her later handwritten note she retracts any confidence in those vague recollections.

 

[nopoirot]

Do you think this is something the Prosecution could explore, perhaps to have Raffaele Sollecito take the stand in this trial? Their last theory apparently considered that statement irrelevant as they had him out murdering Meredith with Amanda during that time.

Well, obviously, the prosecution has to put Sollecito with Amanda, or its theory of the case becomes even more far-fetched. The last thing in the world it wants to do is encourage the belief that Sollecito stayed home that night. That will not prevent them from arguing that both defendants have changed their stories so often as to be unworthy of belief. It's a credibility issue: "Were they lying then or. . ."

According to Frank Sfarzo, Judge Massei, on the first day of trial, denied the request of Sollecito's lawyer to suppress the "declaration" of 11-5--the one which puts Amanda going to Le Chic alone. In practical terms, I don't see how it could make much difference, given the publicity it received. Sfarzo (who apparently attended the trial) moreover indicates the prosecution was given wide latitude in presenting the police versions of both interrogations, including the electrifying news "Raffaele has dropped Amanda." You can find Sfarzo's accounts of all this on Perugia Shock under the dates 1-16 and 2-27-09.

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

Charlie Wilkes wrote, "John Douglas is not for sale at any price. He does not have a contractual service arrangement with anyone in connection with this case. But he undoubtedly does not want to see two innocent people languish in prison, which is why he supports the West Memphis 3 as well.

The back story is that Douglas communicated a request for information. He made it clear that he would make no promises as to what his opinion would be, and he would not form any opinion until he had studied the evidence carefully."

Yes, halides1 - I saw Charlie's earlier post on Douglas, but his proclamation does not necessarily represent the truth of the matter.

What I was implying was that there is a significantly greater rationale to be suspicious of Douglas's motives in regard to offering public opinion on the Kercher case than that of Van Zandt's. I am not saying that Douglas is being paid for his opinion - only that it is more likely to be the case than it would be for Van Zandt.

 

[Dan O.]

She wants the court to believe that the police came up with the name, Patrick, and browbeat her into confirming that Patrick was the one she was going to meet.

Why do you not believe that it was the police who first brought Patrick into the picture? We know from multiple sources that they were questioning Amanda about the text messages before Patrick was named. We know from the phone records that the tests were from/to Patrick. We know from the 1:45 statement written by the police that they misinterpreted the texts as an arrangement for a meeting.

The evidence that we have does indicate that Amanda was the first person in that interrogation to enunciate the name Patrick Lumumba. The police, prosecution and you are all playing a game to claim this enunciation has some special significance. The only significance it has is that Amanda knew who she was texting that night.

Why did the police fail to produce a recording for that interrogation?

 

[Fuji]

I have argued in the past, and still believe, that if Amanda Knox was deliberately lying and yet somehow accidentally produced a statement that had all the characteristics we would expect to see in an internalised false confession (vagueness, conformity with the police narrative she had been fed, total lack of information which she had not picked up from police, retraction after some time to recover) it was a heck of a coincidence.

Nonsense. The four criteria you enumerated ("vagueness, conformity with the police narrative she had been fed, total lack of information which she had not picked up from police, retraction after some time to recover") are all also qualitites I would expect in a statement from someone desperately lying in a misguided attempt to escape from a police interrogation.

If she was deliberately lying and she deliberately produced a statement that had all the characteristics we would expect to see in an internalised false confession then she's not only far more knowledgeable about how police interrogations can go wrong than the vast majority of the public, but she's also a complete idiot because anyone who knows about the phenomenon of internalised false confessions knows that lots of people have spent a very long time in jail as a result of them.

You are simultaneously attributing mutually contradictory qualities to Knox in attempt to portray the unlikelihood of Knox being a liar. In doing so, you are attempting to create a false dilemma, in which the possibility of her being knowledgeable about some aspects of police interrogation (e.g. "be as vague and noncommittal as possible") while being ignorant of others (e.g. "if you place yourself at the scene of a crime, you can very well become a suspect") is not actually logically precluded.

Giving the police an internalised false confession would not be a smart move.

Compounding the idiocy would be the fact that if Amanda was guilty she would have known that Rudy's poo, DNA and handprint were all over the murder house and that fingering Lumumba would be entirely pointless.

I've never asserted that she was a highly skilled criminal or even that she was particularly intelligent in general, so I have no problem hypothesizing that she made many stupid mistakes during and after the commission of Meredith's murder.

If she deliberately lied then it's either a wildly implausible coincidence that her statement matches the characteristics of an internalised false confession, or a wildly implausible and immediately counterproductive lie that she would have known could only get her into more trouble.

"Wildly implausible"? I do not think so. She could just as well be (in her words) a "stupid liar".

On one hand we have a well-documented psychological phenomenon that fits perfectly with what we know of how Knox was interrogated. On the other hand we have an unclear mishmash of theories none of which individually make any sense. Until that changes, rational people are going to keep favouring the hypothesis that her statement was just an internalised false confession, like those that feature in many other miscarriages of justice.

I find it telling that the priniciple of Occam's Razor is invoked quite frequently by those arguing for Knox's innocence with regards to the alleged motive, the staged break-in, and many other aspects of the crime scene and investigation, and yet it is hastily discarded when not to do so would be inconvenient for their position.

The simplest explanation is NOT that she produced a "true" false confession/accusation, but rather that she is a liar.

 

[Fine]

Love Triangle?

Only Judge Matteini's ruling of 11-9-07 leaves little doubt that Sollecito's changes in testimony were rather more dramatic. According to the judge, he started off by saying that he and Amanda had spent the entire evening together, then recanted this version, saying that she had left to go to Le Chic. I believe this to be consistent with his diary entries and the account of his statement released to the media. Judge Matteini goes on to note that, at the hearing, Sollecito again recanted, and affirmed his first version of the facts, with the qualification that he just wasn't sure of his memory. There is also language in the opinion to the effect that he had claimed that Amanda had persuaded him to say certain things. I relate this to the second version.

There is no real evidence here of coercion. Perhaps Sollecito was telling the truth (and I can think of a very good reason why he might want to do that), or perhaps he was trying to save his own skin. The prosecution certainly isn't going to suggest the former, because that would destroy its theory of the case. The crucial thing is the impact all this has on credibility. You would have to try this case in Kyrgyzstan to find jurors who haven't been exposed to these revelations. In any event, they are set forth in Judge Matteini's opinion (which says, incidentally, that Sollecito's "declarations" may be used against Amanda.) The upshot of all this is that both defendants will be perceived as having changed their tales twice and thrice over, and there goes the "benefit of the doubt" on close questions.
I really can't see the defense even hinting at the "suspicious" failure to record Sollecito's declarations, because that would simply focus more attention on them.

___________________________

nopoirot,

Maybe there's an innocent explanation. As innocent as lust. Amanda was cheating on Raffaele.
According to comments attributed to Patrick, even after starting her affair with Raffaele Amanda was still flirting with guys at Le Chic. ("Throwing herself at boys" I think Patrick phrased it.) So when she left Raffaele the night of November 1st she lied about where she was headed. She told him she was going to Le Chic, typical for a Thursday night, and in doing so she "induced" him to believe that she was going there. Instead, unknown to Raffaele, she went elsewhere to meet another man, and didn't return til after midnight.

Ordinarily, she could have gotten away with her indiscretion. But after it was learned that Meredith was murdered that night she had to account for her activities. She couldn't be saying to the cops that she'd gone to Le Chic, since they could have disproved that alibi. And she certainly didn't want to tell Raffaele that she'd been foolin' around. So she persuaded Raffaele to tell the cops she'd stayed with him. But he knew she hadn't stayed, so it was easy for the cops to catch him in that lie.

So, during Amanda's interrogation, when confronted with Raffaele's claim that she left him that night---now caught between a rock and a hard place--- why didn't she come clean and admit to what she'd been up to? It would have been the end to her affair with Raffaele, I suppose, but I wonder whether the cops were right in thinking she was protecting someone, the other man, who may have been married and have already told Amanda that he would deny any involvement. At that point it may have seemed best to tell the cops what they wanted to hear--- if she herself thought Patrick killed Meredith---so sign the damn papers and return home with Raffaele.

If this is the case then there are two falsehoods Amanda induced Raffaele to tell. That it was to Le Chic she'd gone that night, which was induced on the night of November 1st, and that she'd spent the whole night with Raffaele, probably induced the next day prior to speaking with the cops. Raffaele must have wondered why she'd asked him for an alibi---a false alibi---and maybe she'd confessed to him that she didn't go to work, but didn't want to further discuss the matter. Is it a coincidence that in his Diary he speculates on Amanda's infidelity?

///

 

[katy_did]

Only Judge Matteini's ruling of 11-9-07 leaves little doubt that Sollecito's changes in testimony were rather more dramatic. According to the judge, he started off by saying that he and Amanda had spent the entire evening together, then recanted this version, saying that she had left to go to Le Chic. I believe this to be consistent with his diary entries and the account of his statement released to the media. Judge Matteini goes on to note that, at the hearing, Sollecito again recanted, and affirmed his first version of the facts, with the qualification that he just wasn't sure of his memory. There is also language in the opinion to the effect that he had claimed that Amanda had persuaded him to say certain things. I relate this to the second version.

Well, perhaps we're just quibbling over the word 'dramatic', then. Sollecito's early statements apparently say he and Amanda spent the night at his house, though probably without going into detail (since the police focus would naturally have been on the discovery of Meredith's body the next day, and his memories of that morning); his police statement says again that he spent the night in his flat but that Amanda left, although we have no idea of the context in which he came to say that; and in front of Matteini he said once more that he and Amanda spent the evening together, though on further questioning he admits that he doesn't remember for definite whether she left (and thus acknowledges that she could have).

Therefore his statement is consistent in that he always said he spent the night in the flat, but that he couldn't remember for sure whether Amanda left at some point. Given that he says his memory was hazy anyway, and that no doubt on previous nights she'd left to go to work, that uncertainty and confusion don't seem all that dramatic to me.

There is no real evidence here of coercion. Perhaps Sollecito was telling the truth (and I can think of a very good reason why he might want to do that), or perhaps he was trying to save his own skin. The prosecution certainly isn't going to suggest the former, because that would destroy its theory of the case. The crucial thing is the impact all this has on credibility. You would have to try this case in Kyrgyzstan to find jurors who haven't been exposed to these revelations. In any event, they are set forth in Judge Matteini's opinion (which says, incidentally, that Sollecito's "declarations" may be used against Amanda.) The upshot of all this is that both defendants will be perceived as having changed their tales twice and thrice over, and there goes the "benefit of the doubt" on close questions.

I think that the main significance of Sollecito's statement is that it is supposed to have led to Amanda's, and that it's less important in itself. As I said, I don't think it will have much of an impact because it simply won't be focused on by anyone, neither prosecution nor defence - not unless the prosecution completely change their theory of the crime, anyway.

I really can't see the defense even hinting at the "suspicious" failure to record Sollecito's declarations, because that would simply focus more attention on them.

I wasn't suggesting they would, just that from our point of view the supposed failure of the police to record any of the interrogations should be seen as suspicious, and should reflect on their credibility.

 

[Poppy1016]

As far as AK being coerced, let me add the following: : She buckled and gave us the inforation we already knew.: Dictionary definition of bucle.
: to fasten with a buckle
2: to prepare with vigor
3: to cause to bend, give way, or crumple
intransitive verb
1: to become fastened with a buckle
2: to apply oneself with vigor —usually used with down <buckle down to the job>
3: to bend, heave, warp, or kink usually under the influence of some external agency <wheat buckling in the wind>
4: collapse <the props buckled under the strain>
5: to give way : yield <he buckled under pressure>

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amnesty International versus conspiracy theories

I've been involved in hundreds of similar situations from the civil liability aspect, and I've dealt with every theory of "police misconduct" lawyerly ingenuity can contrive. Unfortunately, no system of law enforcement ever devised is capable of effectively winnowing the Rudy Guedes from among us without the occasional injustice. These attract, as they should, widespread attention. Immersing oneself in the history of these instances can give one a very warped view of things. This is fertile ground for conspiracy theory. It makes one oblivious to the questions a more balanced view would suggest. Here, one of those questions is why would the people and governing body of the City of Perugia, a major tourist destination, tolerate an out of control, rogue police department?

Suing law enforcement agencies has become a large and lucrative industry. Making adequate allocations for tort liability has become a major item in municipal budgets. Great sums are expended on trying to control and reduce tort liability. $500 an hour experts are retained to devise and monitor loss control mechanisms. In the US, a city the size of Perugia can't qualify for liability insurance if it does not have up-to-date, effective controls in place. If it has developed a history of citizen complaints and suits, the costs of insurance protection soars, and heads roll.

The worst of all this is the cost of defending litigation. The statistics I've seen indicate that much more is paid in legal fees and expenses than indemnity. Fees awarded a prevailing plaintiff can be crippling. I'm sure it hasn't escaped your attention that Lumumba has sued for false arrest and imprisonment.

One of the primary articles of faith of conspiracy theory in this area is that the accused (and their lawyers), their incentives to be untruthful notwithstanding, are to be believed, and their uniformed tormentors not. This is simply an exercise in self-gratification. One is privy to dark mechanisms, undreamed of by "the masses," which control our destiny.

The reason the police rushed to arrest Lumumba is staring you right in the face: they believed they had a credible, reliable witness in Amanda, and thought they had "probable cause."

With regard to the issue of "coercion," I've said enough about Amanda. With respect to Sollecito, we have several souces available to us: his diary (please, no more 'cherry-picking'), his courtroom "declarations," his statements to journalists, the testimony of his interviewers, and the record of the attempt of his lawyer to suppress the improvident "declaration" of 11-5. With respect to the last item, Frank Sfarzo was present when she rose in Judge Massei's court to protest that her client had given this "declaration" without benefit of requested legal counsel (Perugjia Shock, First Answer: Jail, 1-16-2009.) Do you really suppose Giulia Bongiorno stands in such fear of Perugia Police Department personnel that she would here drop no hint of "coercion"?

The answer to the question you pose is, again, staring you right in the face.

Nopoirot,

Thank you for a thoughtful reply. I am afraid that I do not agree with much of it, however. I have previously quoted from two Amnesty International reports, which concluded that Italy does not have an effective means of checking allegations of police misconduct. One can also consult the work of the group EveryOne, which seems to be primarily addressing police issues involving the Roma.

Given Amanda’s statements, I can understand bringing Patrick in for questioning or putting him under surveillance, but arresting him before even checking into his alibi still seems like an overreaction to me. I think that Ms. Bongiorno may have wished to avoid Raffaele’s being charged with accusing the police. As to whether lying should reduce credibility, the police lied repeatedly (and not just in the interrogation). Should their credibility not suffer?

I do not think suggesting that alleging police misconduct is (might be?) is a type of conspiracy theory is a fruitful line of analysis. For one thing, your argument to the effect that Perugia would not tolerate an out-of-control police force could be said about many places, yet there is still such a thing as police misconduct, and sometimes it is repeated misconduct. Moreover, there are plenty of reasons to suspect that this is not a Perugia-only problem; a recent Perugia-Shock post can be consulted for an incident in Bologna, for example.