Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Gee, we covered this yesterday. The cops hitting you is not a lawful interrogation and she made this claim on several occasions.

Not in the spontaneous statement.
By unlawfull interrogation here I mean an interrogation of a formal suspect made by the police, that is falsely named sponteneous statement. Such think was never claimed.
It was never claimed that the spontaneous statement was in fact an interrogation. Even less than during that she was hit.

 

[Kaosium]

The Tarantini-Lavitola case. In mid September, the Procura of Naples was investigating over a criminal connection involving political corruption and prostitutes. Prosecutors in Bari had arrested an entrepreneur called Tarantino and his wife, and investigating also a journalist called Lavitola, currently in Bulgaria. They Procura of Naples is also on a track leading to the same people. Among the witnesses they wanted to hear there was Silvio Berlusconi. The body of evidence consists mainly in wiretappings and mney transfers; they found Berlusconi paid Tarantini, formally Tarantini blackmailed Berlusconi to extort him money in exchange of his silence in a prostitute-corruption affair. The investigators suspect that Berlusconi has bought the silence both of Tarantini and Lavitola. However, they did not declare him a formal suspect. Therfore they demanded him to come to be introgated without any right to remain silent nor to lie, nor with any right to be assisted by an attorney.

'Welcome to my parlor' said the spider to the fly! So in other words they want to do openly what they did to Amanda in the Questura. Pretend he is a witness and not a suspect so they can really interrogate him.

The prime minister attempted to refuse, and gave them a written testimony. They responded by sayin it was not sufficient, and offered him a choice among 4 different dates for the interrogation, and an ultimatum, after which they would bring him to testify by force by the Carabinieri.

Unbelievable. You wonder why I think your judiciary needs an attitude adjustment? They want to put the screws to a 70 year-old man who just so happens to be the Prime Minister, and they think they can do it by force? The Carabinieri is just military police, right? Do they have tanks? Who would want to precipitate a conflict with the guy who orders around the guys with the big guns? What the hell does the EU think of this?

Things went on for about a week, but the preliminary investigation judge suspended the conflict as they decided that it was the procura of Bari who should go on with the investigation. This is a temporary ceasefire. It is undecided which Procura is entitled to go on. But meanwhile, the preliminary judge also expressed his opinion that - based on the evidence collected by Bari - Berlusconi is a criminal and should be considered a suspect since there is evidence against him.

Whether someone is a "suspect" or a "person informed about facts" is a big topic of discussion in Italy, which goes on wor weaks and is not easy to solve.

Isn't prostitution legal in Italy? If that is so, what's the big deal? (legally)

Personally I think your judiciary is writing checks with its mouth that its ass can't cash. Whatever you may think of SB, and I understand there's many reasons not to like him, this harassment of the Prime Minister and the richest man in Italy over crap like this may yet be its undoing in the long run.

 

[Fine]

Not in the spontaneous statement.
By unlawfull interrogation here I mean an interrogation of a formal suspect made by the police, that is falsely named sponteneous statement. Such think was never claimed.
It was never claimed that the spontaneous statement was in fact an interrogation. Even less than during that she was hit.

____________________

Machiavelli,

Amanda said in her testimony, during her first murder trial, that she was interrogated by Mignini. Therefore she claimed she was interrogated as a suspect, without an attorney. Which, if true, would make the interrogation illegal.

///

 

[RoseMontague]

Not in the spontaneous statement.
By unlawfull interrogation here I mean an interrogation of a formal suspect made by the police, that is falsely named sponteneous statement. Such think was never claimed.
It was never claimed that the spontaneous statement was in fact an interrogation. Even less than during that she was hit.

You misunderstand both me and Amanda, apparently. She said she was hit during the interrogation. Her hand written note was deemed by the SC to be useful both against her and others (that would include her accusation against the cops). She is not unsure at all of the accusation about the cops hitting her, it is nothing like the dream of not knowing but she was with Raffaele regarding Patrick.

 

[RoseMontague]

It's another very compliccate story. Three of the four trials had expired due to excessive lenght of the proceeding, or because of lack of proof. My position in one of them was anyway that of a witness, not a victim. One trial however - the most important one - went to the end and reached a conclusion.
Unfortunately, for some of the highest officers there was a problem of lack of evidence. There was a systematic problem also in recognizing who did what, due to the impossibility to identify covered up police officers.
But it is a very long story, won't be good to summarize it in few lines.

Yes some of the stories that came out on this were quite ridiculous and I have seen cost estimates exceeding 10 million euro's. My understanding is that most of the cops that beat up, assaulted, shot, and tortured many innocent, helpless people got away with it completely and some of them are still cops.

 

[RoseMontague]

____________________

Machiavelli,

Amanda said in her testimony, during her first murder trial, that she was interrogated by Mignini. Therefore she claimed she was interrogated as a suspect, without an attorney. Which, if true, would make the interrogation illegal.

///

One wonders why Mignini didn't file a calumnia charge over this one.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Just a side note.

Browsing the Amanda's testimony translation I encountered this quote, that Mignini reads from a second memorandum of November the 7th ( that Amanda wrote in jail and that is not publicly available AFAIK):

"I didn't lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick. But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home."

Is this a complete retraction of any accusations or what?

 

[Fine]

One wonders why Mignini didn't file a calumnia charge over this one.

____________

And why the heck didn't Rita arrest him when he was caught in the criminal act?

///

 

[RoseMontague]

Just a side note.

Browsing the Amanda's testimony translation I encountered this quote, that Mignini reads from a second memorandum of November the 7th ( that Amanda wrote in jail and that is not publicly available AFAIK):

"I didn't lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick. But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home."

Is this a complete retraction of any accusations or what?

Interesting, a complete retraction on 7 November 2007.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

The police can question people about a crime freely. When they are not suspects, you refer to them as witnesses. A witness is obligated to talk to the police and tell them the truth fully. The witness has no right to have a lawyer or anyone else present. A witness can have his phone calls intercepted by the ILE (without a warrant?), be followed, live conversations recorded and more. Can their homes and cars entered without a warrant?

No. In order to do a phone wiretapping there must be an order by the magistrate or by the preliminary investigation judge (which is anyway secret). These orders are very frequent in Italy. Homes and cars can be entered at the same conditions if the police have an investigation order by the judiciary. If the person becomes a suspect, the prosecution has the right to delay the release of this information to the suspect for six month, up to a year or longer. So the prosecution may "keep secret" to someone the fact that they have colelcted evidence against him, at least for a period of time. However, the person must be told he is a suspect if he is interrogated and there is already evidence collected against him.

The witness can be a suspect during this period but they are not an official suspect until the police decide to call them that or if they admit to involvement in the crime.

It is not that the police decide; it is that there must be some evidence collected on them by the prosecution.

After they are declared a suspect they are entitled to a lawyer if they demand one and all interrogations must be recorded.

A person is always "entitled to a lawyer" in a certain sense, but not entitled to having a lawyer assisting him during an interrogation and intervening. And anyway, not a defence lawyer appointed by the state.
If one becomes a formal suspect then is entitled to all these things.
The risk that someone is questioned as a witness for "longer" while instead there was already some evidence against him, is a risk in a degree intrinsic to the system. This risk is also provided as a possibility in the procedure code.

However, the police can deny access to an attorney or anyone else for 48 hours when the suspect makes an appearance before a judge (Gip, Gup?)

No, the police can do this only in case they don't find a magistrate in a shorter time. The magistrate can do this for another 48 hours, waiting for the hearing before the preliminary judge.

and without the benefit of talking with an adviser has an opportunity to rehabilitate their statements made while a witness that made them a suspect.

By not rehabilitating her statements at this point she was in fact guilty of calunnia, right?

The calunnia is committed in the first moment as she gives a false witness report; then the crime is repeated as she releases further statements against Lumumba. These statements cannot be rehabilitated; they could only be justified or retracted, justified by ascribing them to coercion or retractd by admitting to having lied out of fear and explaining what was the truth.
But the crime of calunnia, while committed in these statements, is defined as crime and proven to be a crime by her later conduct, her failure to retract, clarify and explain the statements that she had released. Essentially her keeping that position during a time when she had possibility to clarify ( and also had legal assistence).

 

[Machiavelli]

One wonders why Mignini didn't file a calumnia charge over this one.

She did not say she was interrogated by Mignini. Not even in her latest court testimony.

 

[Kaosium]

Just a side note.

Browsing the Amanda's testimony translation I encountered this quote, that Mignini reads from a second memorandum of November the 7th ( that Amanda wrote in jail and that is not publicly available AFAIK):

"I didn't lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick. But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home."

This is the one that (part of) reads like a fairy tale with the pictures at the bottom? I went looking for this today at Michael's and found that I was no longer 'authorized' to view it.

Is this a complete retraction of any accusations or what?

It also will require me to revert back to the assumption when she signed the statements she was so messed up she actually believed it for a while. Perhaps then the note serves as her trying to work it all out as it starts to fade.

 

[Machiavelli]

You misunderstand both me and Amanda, apparently. She said she was hit during the interrogation. Her hand written note was deemed by the SC to be useful both against her and others (that would include her accusation against the cops). She is not unsure at all of the accusation about the cops hitting her, it is nothing like the dream of not knowing but she was with Raffaele regarding Patrick.

Ok, but this does not make her spontaneous statement go away, nor the calunnia in her interrogation go away, neither her false statements in the hand written note.
She could use the statement against the cops. Sure she could, within 90 days after the beating. To press charges for beating there must be a formal complaint by the victim.
I don't know if this would qualify as beating, it is probably something less, but I assume it was something illegal.

 

[Kaosium]

The calunnia is committed in the first moment as she gives a false witness report; then the crime is repeated as she releases further statements against Lumumba. These statements cannot be rehabilitated; they could only be justified or retracted, justified by ascribing them to coercion or retractd by admitting to having lied out of fear and explaining what was the truth.
But the crime of calunnia, while committed in these statements, is defined as crime and proven to be a crime by her later conduct, her failure to retract, clarify and explain the statements that she had released. Essentially her keeping that position during a time when she had possibility to clarify ( and also had legal assistence).

What precisely was required to retract that statement? What is your theory as to why her lawyers didn't do it?

 

[Machiavelli]

Complaining of duress is a retraction. Saying "I made those statements under duress" is disowning the statements. That's besides the fact the statements themselves repeatedly disown their content.

She did do those things.

But you may not "disown" a statement, you can only make a statement and logically you can only make statement which defines your position. Had she written: what I said in this statement B is false, while instead what I had declared in the statment A is true, this would define her position as position "A".
Well, she also should give a credible (consistent) explanation for why she gave the false "B" statement, otherwise I may think she changed her story in order to mislead the investigation on the murder as it appears logical.

Anyway if she defined her position again as "A", then she would have back the version "A". But as she says she "doubts" of position B, this means she also disowns the position A. If she does not provide a position and she is just too doubtful about one, this destroys all of her defensive position, including the previous one.
If you say you don't know what the truth is, your version is not credible, not even the previous one and not even the following ones.

 

[Katody Matrass]

She did not say she was interrogated by Mignini. Not even in her latest court testimony.

Yes she did say it. He interrogated her, suggested answers and "put pressure".

AK: The declarations were taken against my will. And so, everything that I said, was said in confusion and under pressure, and, because they were suggested by the public minister.

Clear as a day.

 

[Machiavelli]

What precisely was required to retract that statement? What is your theory as to why her lawyers didn't do it?

Depends whether she was implicated or not in the murder. Any credible statement would have worked which explained:
1) her whereabouts that night, exactly what she did and where she was, in terms of certaiity and with unambiguous details
2) the reason why she told a false statement (the true one)


My educated guess is her lawyers remained silent for some days because of her hand written memorandums and ongoing written declarations: they simply didn't know what she was about to declare. It is not that simple to deal with an ambiguous declaration like the hand written note, not immediately obvious for a lawyer to decide how to handle it. And because Amanda didn't tell her lawyers "I was forced to make this declaration" or "I lied out of fear": if she said that clearly to her lawyers, they would have set a strategy from that position. But they did not produce this position themselves. They opted for a strategy of dismissal of the first statement and downplaying the written memorandum, and they bet on a questioning by the magistrate that took place on Dec 18.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Interesting, a complete retraction on 7 November 2007.

One more thing,

either by 7 November she was already an expert on false memory syndrome and coerced false confessions, or this is a clear sign of internalisation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli also thinks the cops did a fine job, and that Amanda is a compulsive liar who was involved in the murder of Meredith. From that standpoint I can understand how he puts together a portrait of a scheming murderess in that note. I just don't get the scheming non-murderess theory, as that doesn't seem to have any support at all.

At any rate it looks like I forgot to provide the link to the Ost et al paper.

To be precise: I never thought Amanda Knox is a compulsive liar. I think is a common liar who lies for necessity and convenience.
I also think she is an actress, a person who has an attitude to falsehood, but not a compulsive liar.

 

[davefoc]

I'm back from a short vacation and I've been reading through this thread.

I thought Bolint and Machiavelli's posts have been on topic, consistently within the rules and interesting. It takes some courage and mental fortitude to share one's views in a forum where one's views are not popular and I think they should be congratulated for that and for staying calm in the face of some very thoughtful and well researched critiques of their views.

One question, I had for Machiavelli and Bolint was whether they would vote to convict RS/AK now. It is one thing to steadfastly support a view that they were guilty and it is quite different to take a concrete step like voting to convict somebody of a crime.

At this point the credibility of almost all the evidence that was used against RS/AK has been significantly compromised by expert testimony and/or new information so that it seems like the affirmative case against them is significantly weaker than when Machiavelli and Bolint formed their initial views that RS/AK were guilty.

In addition the case that their alibi was correct has strengthened and significantly from my point of view, nothing has surfaced in four years about RS/AK that would suggest they were the kind of people that would have committed this kind of crime. No lovers with stories of violence or unusual sex practices and no associations with any significant criminal activity or anything like this have been made public. Maybe most significantly not even a hint of a connection with Guede for RS or AK has surfaced in that four years except for the obviously self serving and discredited Guede letter.

Putting all this together would Machiavelli or Bolint still vote to convict based on a beyond a reasonable doubt criteria? Perhaps Machiavelli and Bolint don't believe the evidence has been compromised to the degree that I do. I wonder if there is any of the evidence that they believed to be probative at one point that they now believe has been discredited to the point that it no longer constitutes valid evidence against RS/AK and what that evidence is.