Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

In other words, you can't interrogate someone once they're incriminated, but you may interrogate them before they are incriminated. Thus, they are not incriminated before the interrogation, but they are incriminated after the interrogation. The interrogation is the means by which they become incriminated. The interrogation transforms the person from witness to suspect.

That's exactly what we have been saying all along.

The "witness vs suspect" issue in Italian law enforcement procedures is a dreadful piece of legislation/codification that is open to massive manipulation and abuse by police and prosecutors. For example, it's very easy for the police to keep the "witness" status for someone who is clearly a suspect, in order to deny the suspect the right to a lawyer and/or to enable an ongoing interrogation to continue. The European Criminal Bar Association has a lot to say about this:

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.

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


And the ECBA also has interesting observations about the way in which Italian police/prosecutors try to exclude lawyers from interrogations even after a person has been declared a suspect (all suspects have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning):

A lawyer can be present during police interrogations. In practice, however, the police try to prevent the lawyer from being present. For instance, they do not allow the suspect to call his lawyer, or they say they have called a duty solicitor but he has not answered the call, or they suggest that it would be better if the suspect did not contact his lawyer because this would be very expensive. Of course, if the suspect is very determined, he can have legal assistance.

In theory, the lawyer plays an active role if he is present, but it may be that he is prevented from so doing by the police.

http://www.ecba-eaw.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=982&Itemid=31


I hope that public exposition of the way in which Knox and Sollecito were treated might be some sort of catalyst for reform in this area, but somehow I don't hold out much hope that this will happen.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, anyone who thought that I was being overly harsh on a particular female pro-guilt commentator (my view is that she cloaks her underlying vindictiveness and misanthropy behind a thin - but transparent - veil of compassion and humanity) might be interested in reading her latest missive aimed at Amanda Knox:

I hate the way AK in particular is infantalised by so many of those about her. Perhaps that is why she went to such extremes when she finally got shot of the adults. She's not a baby, she's a (very) sexually active WOMAN, who takes drugs, walks out of jobs on a whim, and falsely accused her boss of rape and murder. I cannot imagine why people find her remotely sympathetic, even if they think she's innocent of murder! She was a callous, unfeeling, spoilt brat of a teenage who took pleasure in shocking Meredith's friends with her vicious comments about the death of their friends, just hours before. It's not the only example of her unfeeling and insensitive comments. She's a nasty, spiteful piece of work. She went out of her way to upset others.

"Casa chiuso"........?

 

[Kaosium]

Interestingly, the link is no longer working. Neither is a similar one to an article in the Daily Mail

Some international outlets picked it up and still have articles.

I had the same experience, when I read the link Fine posted it had been taken down. This is so brief I can only guess that they want this to be heard by an English court. Is that the murder case itself, or what would they be taking into court? This doesn't make any sense.

I personally suspect than an objective outside observer who studied both the murder case and the entirety of the actions of the families involved would come to the conclusion that the Kerchers should be required to pay significant damages to both the Knox and Sollecito families.

 

[Diocletus]

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

LOL. What exactly was in that camomoille tea?

"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."

(from the webpage you cited, above)

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I think you are right in all you assert here. Just trying to repost for Injustice in Perugia.

Thank you for that. Steve Moore will tell you that getting fired from Pepperdine was the best thing that ever happened to him and it wans't because of the settlement, it was because it freed up his time to do something much more fulfilling.

 

[Mary_H]

By the way, anyone who thought that I was being overly harsh on a particular female pro-guilt commentator (my view is that she cloaks her underlying vindictiveness and misanthropy behind a thin - but transparent - veil of compassion and humanity) might be interested in reading her latest missive aimed at Amanda Knox:

"Casa chiuso"........?

Well, I know somebody's a nasty, spiteful piece of work.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Thank you for that. Steve Moore will tell you that getting fired from Pepperdine was the best thing that ever happened to him and it wans't because of the settlement, it was because it freed up his time to do something much more fulfilling.

Most welcome. And that is all to the good, then!

 

[Fine]

Meredith Kercher family are set to sue Amanda Knox for £8million.

Interestingly, the link is no longer working. Neither is a similar one to an article in the Daily Mail Some international outlets picked it up and still have articles.

_____________________

Icerat,

Hmmm. It'll be interesting to see what the heck happened to those two news reports. I don't think the story was composed out of thin air.

As a footnote to John's observations (upstream), it appears that this "situation" illustrates how inadvisable it was for Judge Massei to have grafted the criminal process to the the civil process. As a result, both plaintiff's and defendant's rights were compromised. Massei's grafting led to otherwise inadmissible evidence against Amanda being admitted anyhow, and now, it appears, the Kercher family's rights to redress may have been compromised too. From Amanda's perspective.......the Kercher's can't sue. They already did. They won their suit---and were awarded millions in compensation---and that judgment was overturned on appeal.

The "situation" may be further complicated should Hellmann's APPEAL court have decided---as they apparently have--- that Amanda is not only not guilty of killing Meredith, but totally innocent of the murder. In which case, Amanda can argue that the APPEALS court has found in favor of the defendant, Amanda, on the basis of the standard of proof used in a purely civil proceeding. Therefore........Amanda can't be sued again. The matter has been decided.

///

 

[Mary_H]

The "witness vs suspect" issue in Italian law enforcement procedures is a dreadful piece of legislation/codification that is open to massive manipulation and abuse by police and prosecutors. For example, it's very easy for the police to keep the "witness" status for someone who is clearly a suspect, in order to deny the suspect the right to a lawyer and/or to enable an ongoing interrogation to continue. The European Criminal Bar Association has a lot to say about this:

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

And the ECBA also has interesting observations about the way in which Italian police/prosecutors try to exclude lawyers from interrogations even after a person has been declared a suspect (all suspects have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning):

http://www.ecba-eaw.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=982&Itemid=31

I hope that public exposition of the way in which Knox and Sollecito were treated might be some sort of catalyst for reform in this area, but somehow I don't hold out much hope that this will happen.

There seems to be a cultural chasm between our way of thinking and Machiavelli's. He is perfectly okay with a procedure that allows the police to force any "witness" they get their hands on to incriminate himself. Machiavelli then repeatedly claims that the suspect is fully responsible for the results of the interrogation, and apparently the police feel the same way. It's primitive!

There must be some way to analyze this philosophically, right, komponisto? The cops and Machiavelli profess that the cops are not responsible for the "truth" they get out of the witness, while simultaneously holding that there is no truth without the cops.

 

[Mary_H]

I had the same experience, when I read the link Fine posted it had been taken down. This is so brief I can only guess that they want this to be heard by an English court. Is that the murder case itself, or what would they be taking into court? This doesn't make any sense.

I personally suspect than an objective outside observer who studied both the murder case and the entirety of the actions of the families involved would come to the conclusion that the Kerchers should be required to pay significant damages to both the Knox and Sollecito families.

I would say that the nation of Italy should be required to pay significant damages to the Knox and Sollecito families, and to the Kerchers.

 

[Bob001]

... I think that the presence of the two professional judges on the judicial panel is highly likely to render the role of the popular judges to little more than democratic decoration. I strongly suggest that the two professional judges not only lead the deliberations, but that they also dictate the verdict....

This raises a whole different set of questions. Are the judge-jurors also selected at random? From how big a roster? Are they the same judges who also preside over other trials, or is a "judge-juror" a unique role in this system? Are judges elected or appointed? If appointed, by whom, for how long? Have judges typically been prosecutors, or civil attorneys, or corporate attorneys or government bureaucrats (I realize that in a long career someone could hold all of those jobs, but usually there is one emphasis)? Are the two judges required to agree on the verdict, or could they return a "one up, one down" verdict with a majority of lay jurors on one side? If the lay jurors are only there for window dressing, it's worse than just having the judgment reached by the judges alone.

Also, the continuing discussion of witness vs. suspect leaves me confused about my rights. If I visit Italy (not damn likely anytime soon) and the cops want me to come to the police station "voluntarily," am I required to go with them or not? Can they arrest me for not going or not? As a witness, can I call a lawyer or not? Can I refuse to answer questions or not? If they don't like my answers, what can they do about it? Can I make my own recording of the interrogation? Can I walk out when I feel like it? If they arrest me, how long can they hold me without a charge? What level of proof is required to make a charge? When do I see a judge? Etc. The impression I'm getting is that the cops can hold you as a witness on pretty much any grounds until you say something that allows them to make you a suspect, and then they can keep you forever. That can't be right, can it?

 

[Kaosium]

I would say that the nation of Italy should be required to pay significant damages to the Knox and Sollecito families, and to the Kerchers.

Good point, come to think of it, if I understand you correctly. However I would narrow that down a little and absolve the Italian Republic and indict the Italian Judiciary instead. On a more individual level I've been thinking recently it would be nice if Mignini and Maresca could be sued for every last dime they had and the proceeds split between the Knox/Sollecito and Kercher families.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

... the Kerchers should be required to pay significant damages to both the Knox and Sollecito families.

Do the Kerchers have the resources to pay anyone ' significant ' damages ?

 

[komponisto]

An irony-rich comment from "The Machine":

No juror should ever give precedence to gut feelings over hard scientific data in a murder trial.

...when in point of fact this is exactly what the guilter side has been urging upon us from the beginning: their own gut feelings of "I would never behave that way if I were innocent" are supposed to outweigh the complete lack of any reliable scientific evidence of Knox or Sollecito in the murder room (in conjunction with the overwhelming evidence of Guede, an almost total stranger to both of them).

 

[Kaosium]

Also, the continuing discussion of witness vs. suspect leaves me confused about my rights. If I visit Italy (not damn likely anytime soon) and the cops want me to come to the police station "voluntarily," am I required to go with them or not? Can they arrest me for not going or not? As a witness, can I call a lawyer or not? Can I refuse to answer questions or not? If they don't like my answers, what can they do about it? Can I make my own recording of the interrogation? Can I walk out when I feel like it? If they arrest me, how long can they hold me without a charge? What level of proof is required to make a charge? When do I see a judge? Etc. The impression I'm getting is that the cops can hold you as a witness on pretty much any grounds until you say something that allows them to make you a suspect, and then they can keep you forever. That can't be right, can it?

Bob, just insist on a lawyer, that's what you have to do. If you read that EBA link you'll see they'll try to dissuade you, but if you stick to your guns you ought to be alright. They do have stringent laws on the books to try to afford you your rights, the problem is the cops will try to talk you out of it and there's little to no sanction likely if they break them. You can imagine what sorts of abuses that can lead to.

 

[komponisto]

By the way, anyone who thought that I was being overly harsh on a particular female pro-guilt commentator (my view is that she cloaks her underlying vindictiveness and misanthropy behind a thin - but transparent - veil of compassion and humanity) might be interested in reading her latest missive aimed at Amanda Knox:

I hate the way AK in particular is infantalised by so many of those about her. Perhaps that is why she went to such extremes when she finally got shot of the adults. She's not a baby, she's a (very) sexually active WOMAN, who takes drugs, walks out of jobs on a whim, and falsely accused her boss of rape and murder. I cannot imagine why people find her remotely sympathetic, even if they think she's innocent of murder! She was a callous, unfeeling, spoilt brat of a teenage who took pleasure in shocking Meredith's friends with her vicious comments about the death of their friends, just hours before. It's not the only example of her unfeeling and insensitive comments. She's a nasty, spiteful piece of work. She went out of her way to upset others.

"Casa chiuso"........?

You know, in a way, this sort of thing is actually reassuring: it shows that they don't really hate Amanda Knox at all. Because that description has absolutely nothing to do with Amanda Knox. The person that they hate is an invented personage that bears absolutely no relation to the real individual named Amanda Knox who returned to Seattle last week, except for sharing the same name.

They can continue to hate "Amanda Knox" all day, but no one actually acquainted with Amanda Knox runs the slightest risk of confusing the object of their hatred with the oldest daughter of Curt Knox and Edda Mellas.

 

[Kaosium]

Do the Kerchers have the resources to pay anyone ' significant ' damages ?

No, probably not, and I didn't say I wanted that to happen either. What I'm getting at is the Kerchers in the course of this whole debacle have done things that might well be actionable, and if it ever does go to an English court it might be them the judgment is against when all is said and done.

Consider this for a moment: does it make any sense for anyone supportive of Amanda and Raffaele's innocence to be critical of the Kerchers? If that is occurring, is there more than one possibility in your mind as to why that could happen?

 

[charlatan]

...when in point of fact this is exactly what the guilter side has been urging upon us from the beginning: their own gut feelings of "I would never behave that way if I were innocent" are supposed to outweigh the complete lack of any reliable scientific evidence of Knox or Sollecito in the murder room (in conjunction with the overwhelming evidence of Guede, an almost total stranger to both of them).

The 'facts' over there are whatever they need them to be.

Hellmann: The simulation of the crime scene does not exist.
PMF: Pages upon pages of speculation as to how the motivations report is going to account for the simulation of the crime scene.

My mind! It boggles!

 

[Justinian2]

Well, Amanda Knox indeed is a convicted liar. Her conviction is not definitive. But may become definitive if the defence doesn't recurr to Cassazione within 130 days from today. However in Italian we use the normally term "condannato" which means convicted, even for people who are not definitively convicted, and we also use "condannato definitivamente" to indicate that appeals have exhausted. The legal effects of conviction apply when the conviction becomes definitive.

I've been trying to get you to quote Amanda's lies for days.

I will admit that she was confused by all the police lies.
I will admit that when you are innocent and accused of a crime that will put you in jail for the rest of your life, you will feel that you are justified in lying.

Perhaps if you have to lie to counter a lie and thus save your life, you are justified. However, I don't believe that there is any moral justification for the lies of the police, the prosecution, the media, the witnesses, or the forensic technicians.

Since you think she is such a liar, why are you afraid to give me a few quotes?

 

[Diocletus]

Bob, just insist on a lawyer, that's what you have to do. If you read that EBA link you'll see they'll try to dissuade you, but if you stick to your guns you ought to be alright. They do have stringent laws on the books to try to afford you your rights, the problem is the cops will try to talk you out of it and there's little to no sanction likely if they break them. You can imagine what sorts of abuses that can lead to.

Also, you might want to consider feigning gastrointestinal distress. Just tell them you had a bad kabob.