Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

And shocked you should be. Experienced interrogators will tell you that they get their best results when the subject is kept relaxed and happy. Of course, you won't see such techniques on tv because it doesn't make for good drama.

You're exactly right. It's now very well established that not only does a respectful (and even friendly) treatment of an interrogation subject lead to the most reliable results, but that this approach actually leads to far more (true) confessions than an aggressive approach.

In the bad old days, police knew that the "nice cop, nasty cop" routine could mess with a suspect's mind and lead to a higher possibility of cooperation with the "nice" cop. But research now shows that even this method of interrogation is flawed, and can easily result in improperly coerced outcomes. The proven best way to get the most out of a suspect is to be kind but firm, to state that your job as the interrogating officer is to help the suspect by finding out the truth, and by telling the suspect that if (s)he is forthcoming and cooperative, it will help the investigation and may have beneficial ramifications further down the line. If a suspect seems unwilling to cooperate, by far the best way to deal with it is to appear saddened and disappointed by the lack of cooperation, rather than angry or confrontational.

What the "crack" flying squad appear to have done in that interrogation room in Perugia on 5th/6th November 2007 is almost a case study in how not to conduct a suspect interrogation. It also suggests that their interrogators were about 30 years behind the curve in their training and knowledge of effective interrogations.

 

[Kestrel]

And shocked you should be. Experienced interrogators will tell you that they get their best results when the subject is kept relaxed and happy. Of course, you won't see such techniques on tv because it doesn't make for good drama.

Good point.

We also need to remember that scriptwriters create shows for the public. When there is a conflict between common belief and scientific truth, they tend to go with common belief. The result is that TV crime dramas help perpetuate a lot of misperceptions.

 

[davefoc]

...

ETA:

Apparently Hellmann cut the speculation definitely:

Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice​

So it's clear that the acquittal was not merely for reasonable doubt.

I am confused a bit. I don't speak Italian but the Google translator gives this as a translation:

In our case we have called the second paragraph of Article 530 of the Code

Doesn't this mean that the decision was based on 530.2? Is the Google translation wrong or misleading? Perhaps my memory is wrong. I thought 530.1 was acquittal by no evidence of guilt and 530.2 was acquittal by insufficient evidence of guilt.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

four possibilities

Yes. And that would be one possibilty more than most of the guys here have in mind.

I can think of four:
1. Amanda Knox is not sane.
2. Amanda Knox told lies under no pressure.
3. Amanda Knox told lies under duress.
4. Amanda Knox was confused because she was under duress.

We are agreed that 1 is not true. You seem to have conceded that there was some pressure, so 2 looks to be out of the picture. So why do you reject 4? If you accept that the answer is 3, then I infer that there is acceptable vs. unacceptable levels of duress in your estimation. Would you clarify which interrogation techniques are acceptable, and which are not? Do you reject the notion of coerced false confessions outright, and if so why?

 

[davefoc]

I fear that this is incredibly - and optimistically - idealistic. These police officers have now had almost four years to meet and communicate freely. I would be utterly astonished if they haven't decided on a very detailed narrative of the events of that night, and if they haven't ensured that every single person on the police side of the case is totally conversant with that narrative.

In my opinion, if this case actually is prosecuted as planned, the only hope for Knox will be if the judge believes that the police have withheld evidence (specifically an audio or video recording of the interview) from the courts. Otherwise I cannot see any path to acquittal for Knox on this charge, in the way that I see a clear path to acquittal on the Lumumba slander charge. But I get the feeling that judges in Italy may decide that it is not in the public interest to try this case anyhow - if that's the case, it will never reach a courtroom again, and would either be struck from the record or held on file.

I think this is exactly right. My guess is that a judge might suspect what went on but will not expend the political capital necessary to investigate. Still, a judge might look at what was probably not a thorough or independent investigation and throw the case out because of unreliable evidence. But judges with that kind of courage probably aren't all that common.

I think at a minimum detailed contemporaneous statements by everybody involved would be critical if one was going to even attempt a truthful reconstruction of what went on.

 

[Machiavelli]

There are several things wrong with this statement. The timeline is wrong. Wasn’t it the police that built the false story. Didn’t Mignini build a lot of false stories. Didn’t the press make a lot of false stories? Also, weren’t all of these false stories repeatedly suggested to Amanda when she was tired, fearful, without lawyer and grief stricken? Every read anything about brainwashing?

Read about all the lies in Knox's account before her false accusation. Everything she says in her e-mail is false: that is a false and fictional story. This can be proven.

The police "built" no false story.

Assuming you mean that Amanda realizes she might be in danger and leave the house thinking about a mop and breakfast.

Amanda realized that an unknown stranger had been in the house (her admission). He also knew that there was blood in the bathroom, that the front door was left open but no one was around, that Meredith didn't answer and her door was closed. She felt a sense of disconfort by her own admissio as she realized these things, she felt this sense of worrying as an urge to leave immediately the house.
If she had been innocent, she would have had anyway all reaons to worry, to consider possibility of danger.
She did not even call Meredith or check if she was there in that moment. Her behaviour would be in any case unacceptable. This failure to give alarm is also a crime. This person is dangerous and deserves no trust.

She didn’t. The police saw a black man’s hair in Meredith’s hand, looked to Amanda’s friends and text messages.

Nonsense. This is false. There was no black man's hair. There was a long blonde straight hair instead. Moreover "black man's" hair do not exist: a hair does not say anything about skin colour. All this makes no difference.

Saw the message that she would see her boss later and [the police] suggested that her boss was the killer.

Sollecito changed entirely his story, withdrew her alibi, and accused her of having asked him to lie.
You are missing the detail.

They might have even suggested to her that they knew it was a black man and offered her help if she identified her boss.

Black man hairs, again. Ludicrous. They "might": are you speculating this on your own? where did she report about this "offer"? There is no claim of this, there is no evidence: this never happened.

The police refuse to believe the truth for weeks is more like it.

Amanda refused to speak before the judge and then decided not to speak for weeks. Sh could have made spontaneous declarations and chose not to make them. She admitted her confession was a false accusation only later, after Guede's arrest.
Amanda didn't say anything but lies.

 

[LondonJohn]

That makes sense based on the reporting we had about the flight. Most of her family sat in coach.

Not that it's terribly important, but I believe that most (if not all) of her small entourage were upgraded en masse, and sat together on the upper deck of the aircraft. BA 747-400s have 20 Club World (business) seats on the upper deck. I believe that the Knox party was about 12-15 strong, and that other business class passengers filled the remaining seats on the upper deck.

I think that BA were entirely justified in doing the upgrades and using the upper deck in this way. It was positive PR for BA, it was an expression of kindness, and most of all it was the best solution for a hassle-free flight - not only for the Knox entourage (there were at least several journalists on the flight who were trying to get access to Knox and the family), but also to all the other passengers on the flight.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm going to be very interested to see how the Motivations turns out on the issue of calunnia. Knox's right to counsel clearly attached (at least) as soon as she made oral statements that the police deemed incriminating. Did they stop and allow her counsel? No. They typed a statement and persuaded her to sign it. Then they interrogated her some more. Then they typed another statement and persuaded her to sign it again. The statements are clearly obtained in violation of her right to counsel.

How is it possible to bring criminal charges (calunnia) against a person on the basis of an illegally-obtained statement. This cannot be possible.

...

It's not possible. In fact there are no illegally-obtained statements. All statements were obtained legally.
But in the innocentisti minds.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I am confused a bit. I don't speak Italian but the Google translator gives this as a translation:



Doesn't this mean that the decision was based on 530.2? Is the Google translation wrong or misleading? Perhaps my memory is wrong. I thought 530.1 was acquittal by no evidence of guilt and 530.2 was acquittal by insufficient evidence of guilt.

I don't know why, but Google seems to have constant problems with negations in Italian.

Try this one microsofttranslator.com.

"Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice"

gives

"In our case we have not invoked the second subparagraph of article 530 of the code"

 

[smkovalinksy]

I'm going to be very interested to see how the Motivations turns out on the issue of calunnia. Knox's right to counsel clearly attached (at least) as soon as she made oral statements that the police deemed incriminating. Did they stop and allow her counsel? No. They typed a statement and persuaded her to sign it. Then they interrogated her some more. Then they typed another statement and persuaded her to sign it again. The statements are clearly obtained in violation of her right to counsel.

How is it possible to bring criminal charges (calunnia) against a person on the basis of an illegally-obtained statement. This cannot be possible.

I think that the calunnia charges therefore will have to be based on the gift note, which I think the Supreme Court has already ruled to be a spontaneous statement. But, it's difficult to see the calunnia in the gift note. Moreover, the gift note is the fruit of an illegal interrogation to the extent it is read to make any allegation against Patrick. Finally, had not Patrick already been arrested by the time she wrote the gift note? If so, it was not the cause of his arrest.

I just think that there are so many defenses to this calunnia charge, and now that everyone is focussed on it, it is going to be very difficult and embarrassing for the Italian Supreme Court to ratify the conduct of the police by affirming the calunnia charge.

I think Hellman deliberately opened the way to appeal on that charge.

 

[Diocletus]

Machiavelli--Since the police violated Knox's right to counsel, how can the illegally-obtained 1:45 and 5:45 statements be used to incriminate her for calunnia? Surely Italy prohibits this.

 

[Dan O.]

Amanda's language skills would be valuable for business or government activities overseas. But until the Italian government has fully exonerated her and her family and prosecuted and removed Mignini and company for bringing such ridiculous charges, Amanda should not step foot in any country that would extradite her back to Italy.

A possible exception would be to travel under the protection of the US consulate with diplomatic immunity.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am confused a bit. I don't speak Italian but the Google translator gives this as a translation:



Doesn't this mean that the decision was based on 530.2? Is the Google translation wrong or misleading? Perhaps my memory is wrong. I thought 530.1 was acquittal by no evidence of guilt and 530.2 was acquittal by insufficient evidence of guilt.

The google translation is wrong: it has a strange propensity to not recognise negatives!

Hellmann in fact stated that "in our case, we did not cite the second paragraph of article 530 of the Code"



ETA: *waves at Machiavelli*

 

[Kaosium]

Yes.

Thank you for the honest answer. That's the problem, there's more possibilities, and in context of the information available both of yours are lower probability.

And that would be one possibilty more than most of the guys here have in mind.

That's probably because most of them went through all the possibilities and determined that the one they have in mind is the highest probability scenario that is supported by evidence. If you actually try to find evidence to support your two contentions you will find a couple newspaper articles years old by psychologists who no doubt now dearly regret attempting to diagnose or analyze someone off of tabloid accounts without ever meeting the subject, and that's about it.

 

[Diocletus]

It's not possible. In fact there are no illegally-obtained statements. All statements were obtained legally.
But in the innocentisti minds.

Machiavelli--Prior to 1:45, Knox made oral statements that the police deemed incriminating. They were so incriminating that the police wrote the statements down on paper. Knox's right to counsel attached at that moment. However, the police did not allow Knox to obtain counsel; instead, they presented their typed statement to Knox and persuaded her to sign it in the absence of counsel. This statement and everything else that went after occurred in violation of Knox's right to counsel. The 1:45 and 5:45 statements were illegally-obtained. No?

When do you think that Knox's right to counsel attached?

 

[Machiavelli]

Um, well, technically the cops wrote down (typed out) the false story. They just "persuaded" Knox to sign it . . . in clear violation of her right to counsel. Then they brought a criminal charge against her based on the illegal interrogation . . . and convicted her and sentenced her to three years in jail to pay for the cops' violation of her rights. LOL. What other country does something like this? If the Supreme Court won't do something about this, I hope she takes it to the European Court of Human Rights so they can set Italy straight. This is third world stuff.

The spontaneous statement was released before a magistrate, not cops. There was also an interpreter. And everything was legal.
The hand written note contains two further false accusations, demonstrates malice and manipulative deception, and even admits to having released the statement herself. Moreover her dec 18. interrogation again admits to having told false accusation herself; she was unable to answer and decided not to speak on the topic.
Knox is a convict for calunnia, for a reason.

 

[Machiavelli]

Personally, I think "no evidence" is a more faithful translation of what he said.

ma non ci sono le prove​

....

Definitely I think not. And look at the headline chosen by Il Corriere "Il giudice di Perugia: «Assolti, ma forse sono colpevoli»".
Also note, he would have done the same things Comodi and Mignini did: «dispiace che abbiano avvertito questa sentenza come una sconfitta. Al loro posto, con gli elementi che avevano, avrei fatto lo stesso».

 

[CDHost]

If in the next appeal which the prosecutor is planning Knox was declared guilty, will that be 'game over' for the fans?

She can't be declared guilty of anything other than the slander charge. Beyond that it goes back to retrial and .... And lots of Americans get convicted of nonsense of Italian courts in absentia. Those are like the mock trials I used to participate in during high school and college, where say we would try Hamlet for murder. Hamlet was indifferent.

 

[Diocletus]

The spontaneous statement was released before a magistrate, not cops. There was also an interpreter. And everything was legal.
The hand written note contains two further false accusations, demonstrates malice and manipulative deception, and even admits to having released the statement herself. Moreover her dec 18. interrogation again admits to having told false accusation herself; she was unable to answer and decided not to speak on the topic.
Knox is a convict for calunnia, for a reason.

Oh, I see. So the 1:45 and 5:45 statements were obtained illegally, thus can't be used against her, and therefore you think that the calunnia conviction must be based on one or more of the following:

1. The spontaneous statement released before a magistrate,

2. The hand written note, or

3. The December 18 interrogation.

I had always thought that the prosecution focused on the 1:45 and 5:45 statements, since those are the ones that "caused" them to arrest Lumumba. I will have to consider these other statements you mention.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The google translation is wrong: it has a strange propensity to not recognise negatives!

Hellmann in fact stated that "in our case, we did not cite the second paragraph of article 530 of the Code"



ETA: *waves at Machiavelli*

Were you right or what?

Seriously, Hellmann, while extending his hand to the prosecution, is very harsh with the judges responsible for the initial verdict.

AK and RS guilt was not supported in any way by the evidence that made it to the court. Massei's verdict was inadequate, illogical.