Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[yimyammer]

Hypothetical:

What if Filomena had had a stash of drugs? What if she had been hiding her stash of drugs somewhere in her room? What if, for example, her stash had been perhaps hidden behind or under the clothing in her closet?

Might Filomena therefore have had both the motive and the opportunity to rush into her bedroom, ostensibly to retrieve her laptop, but also to retrieve her stash? Might she therefore have quickly turfed belongings over (perhaps, say, clothes from within the closet) to locate and pocket the stash? Might that not possibly therefore account for at least some of the state of her room by the time it came to be photographed and properly documented later that afternoon?

Of course this is only a hypothetical. But still................

sounds plausible. Is it confirmed that she asked Amanda to lie about whether she (Filomena) smoked or had pot?

 

[Mary_H]

You ignored this question.

And why does Mignini suggest that budget problems prevent taping of police interviews? Why not just tell the interviewer what you just said, that in Italy suspects can be questioned in complete secrecy, and no one can know what happens during those interviews? If that's the case, why pretend that it was simply too expensive?

He was lying. If you're correct, and police NEVER tape interrogations because they couldn't use the transcripts in court anyway, then Mignini is lying when he tries to say they couldn't have afforded to pay for the cost of transcribing. If you're wrong, and police DO tape interrogations, then Mignini is lying when he says that it's "never done."

He's a liar.

Practically every week in Seattle we see some new video from a local jail, where cameras are running 24/7. The whole nation saw George Zimmerman in the GARAGE of the police department when he was taken in for shooting Trayvon Martin. There are cameras everywhere now, wherever people want to install them.

In a country like Italy, where the police and the judiciary are given almost unlimited powers to tap phones and obtain phone records, it is doubtful they are not using all the resources they have to spy on potential criminal suspects and witnesses at all times.

If someone wants to argue that ILE is not technologically state-of-the-art, then they will have to apply that argument to Stefanoni's lab and the forensic investigators, as well.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is your theory. You repeated that many times already.

You are wrong. Any possible claim related to your assessment about Knox's status was rejected by all courts including the Supreme Court, so there is actually nothing to add. Your 'point of law' is literally made up.
Moreover you seem to ignore all implications of it. Saying Knox was to be considered suspect before, it's equivalent to say she should have been arrested before.

I'm not wrong. And to my knowledge the SC has never examined the narrow issue of whether or not Knox should rightly have been considered a suspect. In fact, they limited themselves to ruling that the two statements were inadmissible on the murder charges, so in fact it was unnecessary for them even to consider the "suspect vs witness" issue (since they'd already struck out the evidence obtained as a result).


And yes - d'oh! Of course I'm suggesting that Knox should have been arrested as soon as she walked into the interrogation room! If the police considered her a genuine suspect at that time - as I fully believe they did - then of course they could/should have arrested her. At the very least, she should have been informed that she was being cautioned and interviewed under caution. She would then have been interviewed and released on bail pending further investigation.

That's the way proper police forces run: if they suspect a person of a crime, they arrest that person and interview them under caution. In that way, the person under suspicion is properly informed of his/her rights, protections and obligations under the law, and at the proper time.

That you seem to think I'd be AGAINST the concept of the police arresting and cautioning Knox at 10.45pm on 5th November is hugely indicative to me of your inability to understand this issue properly.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why would you, as an unconnected private citizen, be "looking forward" to the possible closure of an official investigation into a public magistrate? Why would it matter to you, an unconnected private citizen, what Mignini/Giuttari were or were not in judicial limbo over?

And this "long-awaited counter attack"? You're invested in this how, exactly? And who is going to be "attacked"?

And why would it matter to you, an unconnected citizen, about the fate of Knox-Sollecito or about the events of their trial? And why would it matter to you - because it's you who brought up the topic - about Mignini's hearing? Why does it matter to you about the legal course of events related to an ex- police officer and an anti-mafia prosecutor living in another country?

 

[Bill Williams]

Practically every week in Seattle we see some new video from a local jail, where cameras are running 24/7. The whole nation saw George Zimmerman in the GARAGE of the police department when he was taken in for shooting Trayvon Martin. There are cameras everywhere now, wherever people want to install them.

In a country like Italy, where the police and the judiciary are given almost unlimited powers to tap phones and obtain phone records, it is doubtful they are not using all the resources they have to spy on potential criminal suspects and witnesses at all times.

If someone wants to argue that ILE is not technologically state-of-the-art , then they will have to apply that argument to Stefanoni's lab and the forensic investigators, as well.

LOL!

 

[Supernaut]

Then what was the reason the Supreme Court ruled the 1:45 and 5:45 statements inadmissible?

I already answered this question many times.

Then kindly cut & paste it for us.

 

[Mary_H]

I already answered this question many times.

Humor me.

In trade for the number of times I have asked you to list Amanda's lies and you have failed to reply.

 

[acbytesla]

And why would it matter to you, an unconnected citizen, about the fate of Knox-Sollecito or about the events of their trial? And why would it matter to you - because it's you who brought up the topic - about Mignini's hearing? Why does it matter to you about the legal course of events related to an ex- police officer and an anti-mafia prosecutor living in another country?

Allow me to answer that question Machiavelli. Not sure if it would be LJ's answer. But it is mine.
1. It is fun watching someone get hoisted on their own petard. There is a certain joy in seeing people who persecuted others face their own trials and tribulations.

2.It demonstrates that the individuals involved in the this wrongful prosecution are corrupt.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

spontaneous statement?

PM Mignini said in the CNN interview about the so-called spontaneous statement, "She basically repeated what she had told the police and she signed the statement." If that were true, then the two statements would be nearly identical, but the stwo statements don't agree with each other very well.

 

[Mary_H]

delete

 

[LondonJohn]

It is also true that recording is an expensive procedure, because it's followed by transcription which is rather expensive and interrogations are a huge amount of hours of material.

Yeah, I agree. By contrast, it must have been really inexpensive to pay someone to listen to every one of the 30,000+ telephone intercepts that the police carried out on Sollecito/Knox and their friends/family. Not to mention the transcription of a significant proportion of those.

It is also true that in recent times police sometimes did record some activities, not because required ny the investigation, but only as a cautionary measure to defend themselves in case they are accused of misconduct. But this is not something they are required to do.

No comment required really. But do you not suppose that the police conducting what was possibly the highest-profile investigation of their entire careers might have taken every reasonable precaution to "defend themselves". Especially if they were sitting in a state-of-the-art police HQ, interviewing a woman who - even under the most police-friendly definition - was by far the most significant living person in the investigation. When nothing more than a gentle press of "record" and "play" would have been required to protect their position in case they were later accused of misconduct?

Risible.

 

[Poppy1016]

But why don't you try learn a bit about the law, instead of second guessing indirect reports, why a person Y said this about that thing X... I suggest you rather deal with the thing X directly instead.
Mignini was talking about a situation, a reality that has several causes and aspects. I probably wouldn't know what to say in his same situation: because there isn't one single answer. It's a reality. A reality has many aspects, not just one.

It is true that the police are allowed to question witnesses in complete secrecy and are not required to record anything.
It is true that police documents (summary information) must be redacted.
It is true that police normally do not record interrogations of witnesses; it's something very rare. Some times some corps may do that, when they have some peculiar needs.
Actually, even the prosecution is allowed to declare someone a formal suspect and don't let the suspect know this, keeping this secret from the person, for one year or more.

It is also true that recording is an expensive procedure, because it's followed by transcription which is rather expensive and interrogations are a huge amount of hours of material.
It is also true that in recent times police sometimes did record some activities, not because required ny the investigation, but only as a cautionary measure to defend themselves in case they are accused of misconduct. But this is not something they are required to do.



No there is nothing like "always" and "never" in this field. The code is clear: there is no need for me to explain why I am right. The recording of summary informations under *some* conditions is explicitly forbidden; in other conditions there is just an obligation to collect testimony "in a redacted way". In all cases, police interrogations are expected to be not readable in court.
But nowhere you can find an obligation for the police to record witnesses interrogation.

Actually, it should be sufficient to know that police normally do not reord informants interrogations. This information - which yu would be aware of if you were living in Italy - should be enough to deduce that the police behavior and Mignini's justifications were normal.
Often, magistrates and police do not record even suspects interrogations, or do not even declare the status of formal suspect, and the code provedes even for these events.

Yet they recorded Friends statements?

 

[LondonJohn]

And why would it matter to you, an unconnected citizen, about the fate of Knox-Sollecito or about the events of their trial? And why would it matter to you - because it's you who brought up the topic - about Mignini's hearing? Why does it matter to you about the legal course of events related to an ex- police officer and an anti-mafia prosecutor living in another country?

It doesn't matter to me. I am not emotionally invested in the case. I hold an informed opinion on it, and I enjoy debating about the case here. I also think that if any of my arguments are of any value, then all well and good. But that's not why I write commentary on the case.

I am guessing that it DOES matter to family and friends of Knox and Sollecito, as well as those who campaign against perceived miscarriages of justice, who also have a mission to improve judicial systems by highlighting miscarriages.

So instead of answering my questions with another question (which I've answered), I'll ask you again for a proper answer to my original questions please.

Thank you in advance. You can answer my questions on the animation at the same time if you like. Or not if you prefer not to.

 

[Bill Williams]

But Mignini is talking about interrogation of formal suspects.
You are talking about interrogation of police witnesses (informants).

This is two completely different things.
Statements of suspects are usable, they are trial matter; statements of informants are not, they are investigation stuff.

You ignored this question.

And why does Mignini suggest that budget problems prevent taping of police interviews? Why not just tell the interviewer what you just said, that in Italy suspects can be questioned in complete secrecy, and no one can know what happens during those interviews? If that's the case, why pretend that it was simply too expensive?

He was lying. If you're correct, and police NEVER tape interrogations because they couldn't use the transcripts in court anyway, then Mignini is lying when he tries to say they couldn't have afforded to pay for the cost of transcribing. If you're wrong, and police DO tape interrogations, then Mignini is lying when he says that it's "never done."

He's a liar.

For about the 100th time, Mignini himself quoted the applicable law to Drew Griffin in the 2010 CNN interview. Mignini explained that when Knox "named" Lumumba, Mignini shut things down because of these reasons.... (underlining mine for emphasis....)

0’50’’ Mignini: Oh, the police interrogated her. I was told about it. I wanted to explain this. I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: “There are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said before”. So I went down* [Translator’s note: This seems to imply Mignini was not sleeping at home but instead somewhere on a higher floor at the Questura.] and the head of the flying squad told me what had happened. At some point they tell us that Amanda has made this statement.

And thus her interrogation as a person informed of the facts was suspended by the police in compliance with Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure [c.p.p. - Codice di Procedura Penale], because if evidence appears that incriminates the person, the person being questioned as a person informed of the facts can no longer be heard, and we must stop. “Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney [present]”. And thus the police stopped and informed Amanda, who had placed herself on the scene of the crime and who said that she had accompanied Lumumba and let him in and that then Lumumba, in the other room, allegedly committed a sexual act and killed Meredith. This is what she said.

2’11’’ Then I was called, I was informed about this, I went to Amanda who, I remember how she was, what she looked like, I remember her very well, she remained imprinted in my memory, I still remember then two things about Amanda that struck me at the time: first, she looked like she was relieved of a burden and second, she was like, and this is another detail that was impressive, it seemed as if she was terrified of Lumumba.

20’48’’ Then I, as I had in some way to, let’s say… this police interrogation had been suspended. At that point I remember that… they made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”. She then repeated [her story] to the interpreter, who was Mrs. Donnino, I remember there was a police woman officer who wrote the statement down [verbalizzava], I did not ask questions. She basically repeated what she had told the police and she signed the statement. Basically I didn’t ask Amanda questions. Not before, since the police asked them and I was not there, and not after, since she made spontaneous statements. Had I been asking her questions, a defense attorney should have been there. This is the procedure.

Incredibly, though, he continues with the interrogation, past 1:45 am with none of these guarantees intact.

Article 63 guarantees....

When a person who is neither an indagato (suspect) nor an imputato (defendant), interrogated by the police or the prosecutor, reveals pieces of information that might lead to his incrimination, the interrogation must be immediately stopped, the person must be invited to nominate a lawyer and be warned that the information disclosed may render necessary an investigation. These self-incriminating statements are inadmissible in court.

The police or the prosecutor summon the indagato, during the preliminary investigations, and inform him precisely of the actions he is alleged to have committed (not yet technically a charge); they also inform him of the evidence so far gathered against him, if this is not detrimental to the investigations; the indagato is also invited to defend himself, if he so wishes; the police or the prosecutor can also ask him questions, that he may refuse to answer.

The indagato, when interrogated, must be free of all undue influence, both psychological and physical. He must be willing to provide information (animus confitendi). The police or the prosecutor cannot use on the indagato any methods or techniques that may influence his right to self-determination or alter his memory or his capability to evaluate facts. This prohibition applies even if it was the indagato who asked that these methods or techniques were used. Before the interrogation begins, the indagato must be informed that his statements can be used against him in court; that he can choose not to answer the question, but that the investigations will proceed nonetheless; that, if he provides information concerning someone else's criminal responsibility, he will assume, as far as this responsibility is concerned, the office of witness.

If evidence should be gathered in violation of these principles, it would be inadmissible in court.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Do you believe that you're someone who has freed yourself from all such "conditioning", "belief" or "pathological thinking", and that you now perceive nothing but the "unvarnished truth"?

Ah, now you're treading on my inner anxieties. This is what keeps me awake at night. How much of what I think I know is ******** foisted on me by social conditioning? Some of it surely is. But what, exactly? Where are my blind spots? By definition, I can't see them.

They don't include the Amanda Knox case, though. That I've got figured out.

 

[Bill Williams]

Humor me.

In trade for the number of times I have asked you to list Amanda's lies and you have failed to reply.

I have a list of Amanda's lies.... can I post them instead of Machiavelli? It is a very, very short list. Guilters love to talk about them, but rarely try to list them... or claim that the 12:47 call home that Amanda cannot rememeber is a "lie", therefore stretching the daffy-nition a bit.

 

[Poppy1016]

And why would it matter to you, an unconnected citizen, about the fate of Knox-Sollecito or about the events of their trial? And why would it matter to you - because it's you who brought up the topic - about Mignini's hearing? Why does it matter to you about the legal course of events related to an ex- police officer and an anti-mafia prosecutor living in another country?

Good answer . Avoid the question by asking another question.

 

[LondonJohn]

Allow me to answer that question Machiavelli. Not sure if it would be LJ's answer. But it is mine.
1. It is fun watching someone get hoisted on their own petard. There is a certain joy in seeing people who persecuted others face their own trials and tribulations.

2.It demonstrates that the individuals involved in the this wrongful prosecution are corrupt.

On Mignini, I would say that it's crucially important that public officials of this sort are fully held to account (fairly to account, of course). When someone assumes this sort of office, they assume certain responsibilities and obligations that are well above and beyond those required of private citizens.

If people in these sorts of public office are suspected of corruption or other malpractice, in my opinion it's critically important that these suspicions are fully and fairly investigated by a disinterested third party that has the power to impose extreme sanctions if necessary.

If Mignini did commit misconduct in the MoF trial process (and I don't know whether he did or not), then yes, I think he should be held accountable for that and punished severely. Not only would such action punish Mignini and prevent him from further malpractice, it would also clearly act as a deterrent to other public officials from committing malpractice themselves.

If Mignini didn't commit malpractice, then I would expect an investigation to show that. Mignini should have nothing whatsoever to fear from an investigation. He's innocent until proven guilty, remember........

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you believe that you're someone who has freed yourself from all such "conditioning", "belief" or "pathological thinking", and that you now perceive nothing but the "unvarnished truth"?

That's an interesting point to raise, though.

My answer would be that if one is consciously aware of the danger of falling prey to this sort of thinking, one is far less likely to succumb to it.

As an analogy: Someone who is very conscious while driving through a particular area that the speed limit in that area is 30mph (and is similarly conscious of the potential risks of surpassing the limit) is far more likely to drive at or below 30mph than someone who isn't even watching his speedometer.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm not wrong. And to my knowledge the SC has never examined the narrow issue of whether or not Knox should rightly have been considered a suspect. In fact, they limited themselves to ruling that the two statements were inadmissible on the murder charges, so in fact it was unnecessary for them even to consider the "suspect vs witness" issue (since they'd already struck out the evidence obtained as a result).

Some questions and points:
1. Have you read the defensive submission to the Supreme Court? You would need to have the text of it, in order to know what the Supreme Court was actually asked.
2. rather than a question, a point which may know this: the Supreme Court was petitioned by the defence, so the legal assumption is, all what the defence deemed could be risen in Knox's defence, was risen.
If you assume the Supreme Court did not consider any "suspect vs witness" issue seeing it as "unnecessary", you are implying that the defence saw it as as not useful, this assumption itself weakens the credibility of the argument and should lead you to doubt about it.
3. the statements were not ruled "inadmisssible"; this is not correct. Instead they were called "not usable for objections" in the murder case (it's not a ruling but an indication); they were however admitted into the case file.
4. the Supreme Court in eny avent could not look into the issue "suspect vs. witness" status, because this is the merit of a lower court's assessment; it's a matter of fact-fiding - moreover, related to a partial/subkective point of view about an evidenatiary picture - and the SC would not assess it directly.

And yes - d'oh! Of course I'm suggesting that Knox should have been arrested as soon as she walked into the interrogation room! If the police considered her a genuine suspect at that time - as I fully believe they did - then of course they could/should have arrested her. At the very least, she should have been informed that she was being cautioned and interviewed under caution. She would then have been interviewed and released on bail pending further investigation.

She could not be relaesed on bail, this is impossible in Italy.
Police arrest would last 48h at maximum; prosecutor's decree of arrest would last another 48-72h. The investigating judge decree of arrest would last for a year, unless further findings.