Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

There may have been a blood sample for drug testing.

As for the rest, I think the question of cops lying to prisoners isn't one that is going to get much traction in the grand scheme of things. Getting the medical authorities to care about cops lying about HIV test results might be harder than you think. Prison doctors may be in no position to protest. Getting higher authorities involved would require a number of well-documented cases I imagine, and at the moment it's questionable if we even have one.

Rolfe.

Prison doctors very well may be in no position to protest, the reason being that they are working in a police state.

Say that instead of a prison doctor, I'm a prison laundry worker or a prison mail sorter. The cops come in and pour black ink on everybody's laundry, but I'm not allowed to tell the prisoners the cops did it, so the prisoners blame me. Same with the mail -- prisoners know they're supposed to be receiving mail, but they don't, because the cops have confiscated it. Again, it's a secret, so the inmates blame me.

Just as the laundry worker and the mail sorter claim figurative ownership of their work product, so do the doctors at the prison figuratively have ownership of the prisoners' health. So, too, does the WHO figuratively have ownership of the worldwide efforts to prevent the spread of HIV, to counter any interference with those efforts and to ensure their own ethical guidelines are followed.

To allow Capanne prison officials to misrepresent its doctors and to violate international health standards is to cede way too much power to those officials.

 

[Rolfe]

If these things happened, then those affected by it would have to decide how to react.

We don't know how common it is for cops to lie to prisoners about an HIV test. I speculated that it's not uncommon, but that's guesswork. If it was too common, it could be counter-productive - for a start, the inmates would start telling the newbies no to worry, they tell everyone that.

If it's something that happens occasionally, then what percentage of these times does anyone find out about it? I totally agree that it's a highly undesirable and reprehensible situation, but I can easily see doctors who are employed by the prison turning a blind eye. If you're the sort of doctor who doesn't turn a blind eye, you probably don't have that job in the first place.

If this is a relatively isolated incident, then it's going to be up to Knox whether to take it further. If she intends to take action against the Italian authorities then she may include this bit of abuse alongside the sexual harassment allegations. I hope she realises that there was probably no HIV test in the first place, and that's the starting point.

If this is a recurrent problem, nothing is going to happen until evidence that it is a recurrent problem is assembled.

Rolfe.

 

[AmyStrange]

My explanation about the law does not need any demonstration because the law is available to public knowledge. The police is excused simply because there is no matter for accusation, except the "hitting twice" there is no violation of any kind. There is also basically no difference between the police and witnesses' account of facts, and Knox's accout of facts (I am not talking bout the court interrogation, where there are contradictory statements), provided the only difference of the "hitting twice".

The basic limitation on police conduct - by the law - is definied by:
1) respect of inviolable human rights
2) do not delay the communication of evidence to a magistrate
3) do not operate the enforcing of measures without authorization of a magistrate
4) do not take initiatives after a magistrate intervened
5) the main limitation on police activity is not on their activity but is the non-usability in court of statements to the police. In the US "all what you say is usable against you"; in Italy it is not. This is the main protection tool in the Italian system about statements to the police.
However, this statute has a few limitations and exceptions. The main exception is a calunnia case.

The police have a small role and small powers in investigations. The huge investigation powers belong to the Procura, people who are basically judges. However on the other hand the police forces have also fewer limitations in dealing with the common citizen, or better these limitations are independant and not codified in the procedure code; above all their conduct is not considered directly related to the judiciary process.
The Italian systems tends to consider the police almost as militaries, external agencies and offices which are "used" by the Procura, not entirely as trustworth civil institutions. Until 1980 the State Police was still actually a military corp. Subsequently it has developed into paramilitary and then gradually a democratic government institute. The Carabinieri are still a sectarian, elite military branch, formally belonging to the armed forces. There is nothing actually "wrong" in this, but this an asset of a Republic. The same questions could be put about US agencies and corps operating abroad: to which democratic statutes do they abide? You cannot consider them preemptively as non-democratic.

-

Interesting. Thank you Machiavelli.

 

[Antony]

My explanation about the law does not need any demonstration because the law is available to public knowledge. The police is excused simply because there is no matter for accusation, except the "hitting twice" there is no violation of any kind.

I think others here have pointed out a series of violations by police, on the night of 5-6 Nov and the subsequent days. They include:

• denial of the right to a lawyer;
• denial of an impartial translator;
• verbal abuse;
• threats;
• refusal of a toilet break;
• sleep deprivation;

- all of the combined with false claims of evidence against her and "suggestion" of the statement that they wanted her to make.

I tried hard to see where in your post the answers to my questions were, but I'm afraid that most it was waffle, but this bit did draw my attention:

5) the main limitation on police activity is not on their activity but is the non-usability in court of statements to the police. In the US "all what you say is usable against you"; in Italy it is not. This is the main protection tool in the Italian system about statements to the police.

So what you're saying is indeed that police can do whatever they like against anyone who falls into their clutches, and the only sanction against them is that they can't use statements obtained in court?

Yet here, the statements were used and Amanda has ended with a civil suit against her, and a 3-year prison sentence for allegedly making statements that led to someone being falsely imprisoned for 2 weeks. Meanwhile all those who made false accusations against her, leading to spending 4 years in jail, continue to enjoy impunity.

Not only that, but these "non-usable" statements give you an excuse to continue to call her a "convicted liar". This while, in the face of repeated questions by others in this forum, you decline to state what part of Amanda's documented statement constituted any kind of accusation.

 

[AmyStrange]

I think others here have pointed out a series of violations by police, on the night of 5-6 Nov and the subsequent days. They include:

• denial of the right to a lawyer;
• denial of an impartial translator;
• verbal abuse;
• threats;
• refusal of a toilet break;
• sleep deprivation;

- all of the combined with false claims of evidence against her and "suggestion" of the statement that they wanted her to make.

I tried hard to see where in your post the answers to my questions were, but I'm afraid that most it was waffle, but this bit did draw my attention:


So what you're saying is indeed that police can do whatever they like against anyone who falls into their clutches, and the only sanction against them is that they can't use statements obtained in court?

Yet here, the statements were used and Amanda has ended with a civil suit against her, and a 3-year prison sentence for allegedly making statements that led to someone being falsely imprisoned for 2 weeks. Meanwhile all those who made false accusations against her, leading to spending 4 years in jail, continue to enjoy impunity.

Not only that, but these "non-usable" statements give you an excuse to continue to call her a "convicted liar". This while, in the face of repeated questions by others in this forum, you decline to state what part of Amanda's documented statement constituted any kind of accusation.

-

Antony, I can see where you're coming from,

the accusation (of course) is, "Patrick killed Meredith," but the only way you can consider that a real accusation is if you take it totally out of context and ignore everything else except that statement. "Patrick killed Meredith."

When you look at context. That statement makes no sense.

I mean really, she NEVER says she saw Patrick kill Meredith. They went into another room. She doesn't even say whether the room they went into is empty of anyone else. And after covering her ears, that's basicly where the accusation/ confession ends. We don't know what happens next.

As an accusation/ confession, it sucks. And then add on the "spontaneously" and "confusedly" and sounding more like a dream then anything else and after her last statement; LE (Law Enforcement) almost immediately went out and (without any kind of investigation) arrested Patrick.

Not to mention the "case closed" press conference later that day where they said they got after Amanda until she finally told them what they already knew to be true.

You have to ignore all of that and more, before you can begin to believe "Patrick killed Meredith" is based on a spontaneous statement of what Amanda believed (or did not believe) to be fact and revealed with minimal prompting from LE,

Dave

 

[Rolfe]

Just an aside, I never realised this and I'm glad to be better (and more literally) informed.

Burleigh's book is based on a quote from Lord Byron, I don't have it handy at the moment, but he said Italy has the fatal gift of beauty.

ETA: IIRC she used just the first part of this quote, maybe she should have used the rest as well:

Italia! O Italia! thou who hast
The fatal gift of beauty, which became
A funeral dower of present woes and past,
On thy sweet brow is sorrow plough'd by shame,
And annals graved in characters of flame.

Thank you Rose.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

when a confession is not a confession

Antony, I can see where you're coming from,

the accusation (of course) is, "Patrick killed Meredith," but the only way you can consider that a real accusation is if you take it totally out of context and ignore everything else except that statement. "Patrick killed Meredith."

When you look at context. That statement makes no sense.

I mean really, she NEVER says she saw Patrick kill Meredith. They went into another room. She doesn't even say whether the room they went into is empty of anyone else. And after covering her ears, that's basicly where the accusation/ confession ends. We don't know what happens next.

Dave,

One point that may warrant consideration is how frequently false confessions are situations in which the charges are for something different from what was actually confessed. I mentioned the Frank Esposito arson case in New Jersey some time ago. The seventeen year old thought he was confessing to accidentally starting a fire but was charged with arson. I wonder how many other cases are like his.

 

[Grinder]

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.

If the police say they evidence against someone but they don't, is that person still a suspect. IIRC they had tapped their phones and had gathered evidence so shouldn't they have been told they were suspects, even the day before the interrogation? At that point would they be able to have a lawyer? The interrogation would be required to be recorded, no?

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

So if the police haven't told the prosecution they don't have the rights of a suspect?

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.

This is difficult to understand. Are you saying the laws regarding rights are only suggestions?

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.

Isn't there a magistrate on duty or on call at all times?

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).

Once again it sure seems that she retracted and stated she had been coerced. And even without advice from someone as astute as you, she did repeat her earlier and later statement of being at Raf's and stated that her statements about Patrick were vague and she doubted them. She clearly stated that her statements prior to her only self written statement were a result of stress, pressure, hitting and suggestion. It seems she did exactly as you require.

 

[Malkmus]

I think others here have pointed out a series of violations by police, on the night of 5-6 Nov and the subsequent days. They include:

• denial of the right to a lawyer;
• denial of an impartial translator;
• verbal abuse;
• threats;
• refusal of a toilet break;
• sleep deprivation;

- all of the combined with false claims of evidence against her and "suggestion" of the statement that they wanted her to make.

I tried hard to see where in your post the answers to my questions were, but I'm afraid that most it was waffle, but this bit did draw my attention:


So what you're saying is indeed that police can do whatever they like against anyone who falls into their clutches, and the only sanction against them is that they can't use statements obtained in court?

Yet here, the statements were used and Amanda has ended with a civil suit against her, and a 3-year prison sentence for allegedly making statements that led to someone being falsely imprisoned for 2 weeks. Meanwhile all those who made false accusations against her, leading to spending 4 years in jail, continue to enjoy impunity.

Not only that, but these "non-usable" statements give you an excuse to continue to call her a "convicted liar". This while, in the face of repeated questions by others in this forum, you decline to state what part of Amanda's documented statement constituted any kind of accusation.

How about, in addition: "Willful misinterpretation of a witness statement"

While I think some of those may not go very far with some (threats, verbal abuse - as they are quite common the world over) wasn't there also a far greater and obvious issue of police misconduct regarding her arrest? Off memory, I remember Amanda saying that after she gave the statements, LE thanked her and told her she had done the right thing by helping them nab the murderer, all the while skirting the issue that she was actually now a suspect even as she was taken away in handcuffs. Her testimony, IIRC, shows that she was absolutely clueless as to what was going on until she was brought before a judge.

 

[Freddy]

If the police say they evidence against someone but they don't, is that person still a suspect. IIRC they had tapped their phones and had gathered evidence so shouldn't they have been told they were suspects, even the day before the interrogation? At that point would they be able to have a lawyer? The interrogation would be required to be recorded, no?



So if the police haven't told the prosecution they don't have the rights of a suspect?





This is difficult to understand. Are you saying the laws regarding rights are only suggestions?



Isn't there a magistrate on duty or on call at all times?





Once again it sure seems that she retracted and stated she had been coerced. And even without advice from someone as astute as you, she did repeat her earlier and later statement of being at Raf's and stated that her statements about Patrick were vague and she doubted them. She clearly stated that her statements prior to her only self written statement were a result of stress, pressure, hitting and suggestion. It seems she did exactly as you require.

You have a right to a lawyer, but only after the police make sure it won't do you any good.

 

[AmyStrange]

Dave,

One point that may warrant consideration is how frequently false confessions are situations in which the charges are for something different from what was actually confessed. I mentioned the Frank Esposito arson case in New Jersey some time ago. The seventeen year old thought he was confessing to accidentally starting a fire but was charged with arson. I wonder how many other cases are like his.

-

Thank you halides1,

I noticed right off, "failed a polygraph test". How many times have we heard that before. It just gets worse after that,

Dave

 

[Malkmus]

In the Perugia Shock interview of Patrick that I posted just a few pages back, Patrick claims the reason he switched the sim on his phone is because Vodaphone doesn't have coverage of his bar. He says that he keeps the other sim always at the bar. This would be verifiable by simply checking the past phone records for Patrick.

As for stored texts, these can either be stored on the sim or stored in the phone. Some phones don't save outgoing texts by default. They could be deleted automatically after a fixed time or manually deleted. Even if the text was still there, it wouldn't support ILE's theory of the crime so there is no reason for them to have saved it.

Thanks, Dan and Grinder - I was aware of the SIM-switching that LE found suspicious, was more curious if there had ever been any mention of the text from him to Amanda, and Dan, you've stated what is probably the most obvious and actual answer to this. My thing is, if LE were ever actually convinced that the text to Patrick was to set up a meeting I'm sure the first thing they did upon apprehending him was to check the messages on his phone as well. And when they did, they most probably saw his text to her showing he was working that night and did not want her coming in. That pretty much destroys any evidence of them meeting up. Additionally, I've seen it multiple times posted on PMF that they view the deleting of the message from Patrick by Amanda, but the keeping of her text back to him as deliberately being done to set the trap for Patrick before even going into the station. I can't even wrap my brain around the poor logic there.

 

[davefoc]

Machiavelli,
I won't push it further, but I asked a few pages back whether you would vote to convict RS/AK based on the evidence as you perceive it now. I would like to know what your ideas about that are and if you choose to respond I'd appreciate it.

Has any of the information about false confessions and the equivocal nature of what Knox actually said reduced the strength of your view that this is valid evidence against Knox?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,
I won't push it further, but I asked a few pages back whether you would vote to convict RS/AK based on the evidence as you perceive it now. I would like to know what your ideas about that are and if you choose to respond I'd appreciate it.

Has any of the information about false confessions and the equivocal nature of what Knox actually said reduced the strength of your view that this is valid evidence against Knox?

I can write only a quick answer now: yes. Based on the evidence that I can see now, not only I would vote to find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but I also am quite confident - in a purely virtual bet - that, had I been sitting in a court among the lay judges, I think I would have had good chances to succeed in convincing some other or another few judges in the panel. I think that if I were sitting in the panel, the number of "guilty" votes would have likely increased by more than one unit.

 

[RoseMontague]

You are not seriously saying this gives a consistent explanation of things.
This is entirely contradictory ("I did not lie").
It also comes after the statement "the truth is I don't know what is the truth".

So if she did not lie, and if she doesn't know what is the truth, how is it that she knows for certain where she was that night?
And where is the explanation for why she gave two different versions during the previous 24 hours? first version: I remember about Patrick killing Meredith (05:54 statement); second version: I am not sure, I don't know what is the truth. Now whe have a third version more skewed towards one possibility: but where is the explanation for the previous two vrsions? And where is certainity, and what are her grounds for certainity? And what are the details of her acccount?

In her version there is nothing. It's a mystery for me how you can fail to see how inacceptable her position is.

Your position on this has been shown not to be a valid one 6 ways from Sunday. As the result of your discussion with others I am now almost convinced it was a false memory rather than just a way to end the torture from the cops.

Thanks for that and thanks to the many fine posters that made the many logical, common sense, meaningful comments in the last 6 days or so.

 

[Dan O.]

Thanks, Dan and Grinder - I was aware of the SIM-switching that LE found suspicious, was more curious if there had ever been any mention of the text from him to Amanda, and Dan, you've stated what is probably the most obvious and actual answer to this.

I did some further checking and confirmed that Vodafone did offer a plan they called MultiSIM that allowed up to 10 handsets to use the same account and phone number.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your position on this has been shown not to be a valid one 6 days from Sunday. As the result of your discussion with others I am now almost convinced it was a false memory rather than just a way to end the torture from the cops.

Thanks for that and thanks to the many fine posters that made the many logical, common sense, meaningful comments in the last 6 days or so.

btw: shown to be not valid by whom? On what argument?

Now, you made one step. You only need one more step to rule out also the second hypothesys, the "false memory", after that second step you will reach my same conclusion: the logically strongest and most valid explanation is, a rational behaviour of a guilty person.

 

[RoseMontague]

You have a right to a lawyer, but only after the police make sure it won't do you any good.

That's a keeper quote. Nice.

 

[Mary_H]

If these things happened, then those affected by it would have to decide how to react.

We don't know how common it is for cops to lie to prisoners about an HIV test. I speculated that it's not uncommon, but that's guesswork. If it was too common, it could be counter-productive - for a start, the inmates would start telling the newbies no to worry, they tell everyone that.

If it's something that happens occasionally, then what percentage of these times does anyone find out about it? I totally agree that it's a highly undesirable and reprehensible situation, but I can easily see doctors who are employed by the prison turning a blind eye. If you're the sort of doctor who doesn't turn a blind eye, you probably don't have that job in the first place.

If this is a relatively isolated incident, then it's going to be up to Knox whether to take it further. If she intends to take action against the Italian authorities then she may include this bit of abuse alongside the sexual harassment allegations. I hope she realises that there was probably no HIV test in the first place, and that's the starting point.

If this is a recurrent problem, nothing is going to happen until evidence that it is a recurrent problem is assembled.

Rolfe.

I see what you mean, and you make a good point about who is inclined to work in the prison.

 

[RoseMontague]

btw: shown to be not valid by whom? On what argument?

Now, you made one step. You only need one more step to rule out also the second hypothesys, the "false memory", after that second step you will reach my same conclusion: the logically strongest and most valid explanation is, a rational behaviour of a guilty person.

You have actually helped convince me the opposite of your argument. I had been one of the few holdouts here not buying into the false memory thing. The posters here have spoken common sense which rings true to me. Your convoluted leaps of faith and fantasy just didn't cut it.

You can keep trying if you so desire. Personally, I think you started with a spoon, then a shovel, and now have your backhoe deep into a pit you may never get out of. Just my opinion.