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

[Machiavelli]

The police recorded Michele Misseri during his interrogation. They recorded his confession about killing his niece Sara Scazzi. The police do record these things.

Ignorance speaking out of the heart. Michele Misseri had a dozen interrogations with the Carabinieri which were not recorded. The questioning that was recorded was at the presence of the prosecutor.

 

[Bill Williams]

When I stop laughing, I'd like to ask you to remind all of us just how many of Knox's and Sollecito's phone calls were wiretapped before they were even interrogated on the 5th/6th November. (I'll give you a hint: your answer will involve something in the magnitude of 10 raised to the fourth power......).

Cost is a decisive factor for the praxis of recording summary informations, wether you like it or not. Any attempt to portray this as something suspicious will crash into the fact that this praxis is just the truth. Italians don't care about what your mind decides to believe, they already know about the truth of their context.

Wiretappings and police informants transcripts: two different things. Entirely diferent magnitudes. Different authorities deciding on them (wiretappings are ordered by investigation judges) and diferent budgets (two different ministries are paying for them).

I'm not sure you can hear the sound of laughing, Machiavelli. The worst case scenario would be if you actually believed what you've just typed.

Are you ever going to get around to admitting that not even Mignini agrees with you that Knox wanted to release a statement? The CNN interview with Mignini in 2010 has Mignini admitting that he initiated the idea that she could keep speaking, and he would act as if only a notary.

Who is lying, Machiavelli? You or Mignini? I will keep repeating this until you answer.

 

[Samson]

Do you have a link to the appearance or a report of it?

These are the discussions between Paul Callan and Steve Moore Platonov is referring to

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/vide...fjq4FA&usg=AFQjCNEXIPeUk0yXd05Z9nXhX9_XQLCAqw

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2...erin-panel-italy-amanda-knox-retrial.cnn.html

 

[acbytesla]

Ignorance speaking out of the heart. Michele Misseri had a dozen interrogations with the Carabinieri which were not recorded. The questioning that was recorded was at the presence of the prosecutor.

MORONS

 

[acbytesla]

What's so infuriating about Machiavelli et al giving these pathetic excuses for not recording the interrogations of their murder suspects is just how unbelievably moronic for them not to in this day and age.

The cost excuse may actually be real. Stay with me for a moment as I explain why this might be true. (although not really in this case) They are afraid to be sued. Civil suits can really cut into the budget so to avoid those costly damage awards, they prevent them by making things foggy and "he said/she said". You're not going to win a suit against being hit on the back of the head if you can't prove it.

You see, it eliminates accountability. My friend, who is with the Seattle Police Department has told me that there was and is great resistance for to installing Dashcams in the Police cars for this very reason. Most of the actual police officers didn't want them and their reasons were very murky and actually poor.

If you're use to being able to coerce statements out of suspects, recording them puts a damper on that exercise. And that of course is the last thing the police in Perugia or anywhere really wants.

Cameras actually promote and improve the quality of police work. It makes people accountable and provides great teaching examples. And it instills faith in the institution. (well not at first) At first, society becomes annoyed at what they see, but then the police modify their practices.

 

[Strozzi]

. . . Incidentally, regarding the taping here's Massei on some of what was recorded:

What was the final total on how many things they taped? I read an estimate of 30k messages, as I recall it's in the defense close for the Massei trial. Recently I saw someone say it was 39k messages they taped.

But they say they didn't tape anything at the Questura (Police Headquarters in Perugia) from 10:15 PM on November 5th to 5:45 AM November 6th, in that modern facility which should have integrated taping capability, especially considering their obsession with recording everything.

What, did they turn it off that night?

Giobbi stated that he was in the Questura's control room observing Amanda's body language when she was interrogated, so we know the video equipment was "on". That suggests to me that it was in record mode, for who would sit there without it being on while trying to catch the nuance in body language and wanting to be sure, given the language barrier, not to miss or misunderstand anythng important the American might say in her languge.

Giobbi, himself, would not have pressed erase as he was not from that police office. He was a visitor, sent from Rome to help. A local senior official on the case would have had to make the decision to erase it, and the only reason to make the decision to delete it is because the recording is so compromising with the shouts and hits of the police and the screams of the suspect that you cannot let the Italian people or American people ever see or hear it. Before you destroy it, you must be sure you do not need it, and that cannot be determined quickly. You cannot make the decision to destroy the recording until you know for sure that you will not need it. I belive the recording survived that night.

Then the question is was it destroyed later, or does somebody have it? And who would be the one who might need it for the prosecution? I'll answer that - a prosecutor. And lo and behold - guess who was in the Questura control room for the latter part of the interrogation with Giobi? Prosecutor Mignini, that's who!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

pipe up

How could Mignini and Giobbi listen to the interrogations in the control room, unless they were being electronically piped in? If they were, it is realistic to believe that they could not have been recorded at the same time?
EDT
I see that Strozzi made the same point a moment ago.

 

[Grinder]

Giobbi stated that he was in the Questura's control room observing Amanda's body language when she was interrogated, so we know the video equipment was "on". That suggests to me that it was in record mode, for who would sit there without it being on while trying to catch the nuance in body language and wanting to be sure, given the language barrier, not to miss or misunderstand anythng important the American might say in her languge.

When police would watch a interrogation through a one way window they weren't recording and yet still did it. I see no reason to speculate that record had to be on because they were watching but it clearly tells us they could have recorded it.

Giobbi, himself, would not have pressed erase as he was not from that police office. He was a visitor, sent from Rome to help. A local senior official on the case would have had to make the decision to erase it, and the only reason to make the decision to delete it is because the recording is so compromising with the shouts and hits of the police and the screams of the suspect that you cannot let the Italian people or American people ever see or hear it. Before you destroy it, you must be sure you do not need it, and that cannot be determined quickly. You cannot make the decision to destroy the recording until you know for sure that you will not need it. I belive the recording survived that night.

I doubt any recording was made because by now someone inside would have sold the story. If there was a copy kept for any reason, the keeper would have been very tempted to make a copy. Imagine what that tape would fetch on the open market. If they did what many here including myself believe, the recording would be worth in the six figure if not more.

Then the question is was it destroyed later, or does somebody have it? And who would be the one who might need it for the prosecution? I'll answer that - a prosecutor. And lo and behold - guess who was in the Questura control room for the latter part of the interrogation with Giobi? Prosecutor Mignini, that's who!

Many people would know that the recording existed and I doubt very much that no one would have told the story my now.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Call Northside 777 redux

Some time ago I mentioned this film with respect to alibis and memory. The film is a considerably fictionalized version of a true story from 1930s to 1940s Chicago. A reporter checks in the story of a convicted cop killer and gradually comes to believe his is innocent. One of the secondary reasons that "Frank Wiecek" was convicted was because he and his wife gave inconsistent accounts of what they did on the day of the shooting. A second is that he and his alleged accomplice "Tomek Zaleska" gave differing reasons as to why Zaleska slept at Wiecek's home. plot spoiler:

the movie makes it abundantly clear that Wiecek is innocent.

One movie buff reacted with incredulity:
Quote
"I didn't give any reason"
"He was having trouble with his old man"

It's not that he doesn't remember. It's that he seems to completely fabricate things that he claims happened. How do you confuse someone NOT saying anything with "I'm having trouble with my father"? Perhaps he is confusing separate occasions. But boy is it fishy.

"I remember because I was helping her shell walnuts"
"I remember this because he was helping me pick dates"

While both activities were related to making a cake, how on earth can you confuse the two activities? Now the radar is fully blown that he is a flagrant liar and it looks like either he or his wife blew their cover story.

I'd still like to know, after it's all said and done and he is pardoned, how is all the lying explained? His faulty memory just doesn't add up. Endquote
highlighting mine

This film buff did get something wrong. Wiecek probably said that he was helping his wife pit dates. When this fact was pointed out to the writer of the passage above, it seemed to make a difference to him or her. But my questions are more general. Are some people hard-wired to assume that inconsistencies are equivalent to lies, or is it learned? Has anyone ever tried to connect (via a study) the misinterpretation of innocent inconsistencies with our known inability to tell who is telling the truth and who is lying?
ETA
Some background on the actual case is here. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[RandyN]

Thanks for pointing out the Andrea Vogt article.

She seems to agree with Machiavelli on the waiver issue, since Machiavelli has never raised it and Vogt says that waiver is impossible. I guess ol' Maundy is out in the cold on that one.

So, now we are left with Machiavelli claiming that the right to counsel never attached, but he's outvoted by Maundy and Vogt, who seem to agree that it did.

So, all that poor Machiavelli has left is his exigency argument: they couldn't get her a lawyer in the 7 days after the murder because there was a murder and it was an emergency!

There's also the argument that if Knox could talk to her lawyer, while all of the murder suspects were locked in jail, that this might prejudice the case, which BTW was already "chiuso," or maybe Knox might smuggle out some instruction to have the judge whacked. I don't really understand that one, and Mignini never bothered to write down his reasoning.

The claim is that Mignini did write it down. Its just that no one can seem to lay hands on this special rarely used official order. It is lost! I bet its in that garage where the missing control data sheets are....no wait they were not there. The dog ate it....yea...that's the ticket.

See Mary I read your stuff. ;-)

But I think the point was that in the signed declarations.... no statement of wavier or written notification of it was noted. Not forgetting that it was also in the Italian language and Knox or even any Italian without a legal background would have no way to know if a lawyer was required to be provided or if she or anyone could waive that right...which we know thanks to you that NO you cant waive that right. Too bad you weren't there that night to advise Knox...

Still Yummi/Maundy (a new team?) in their best Daniel Webster costumes are saying no matter...a lawyer was assigned...its just that she was forbidden from seeing him or her for a few measly days. Same goes for RS....IIRC his lawyer was trying to pound down the prison door ...yelling kicking and screaming for his right to speak with his client...but the prison refused citing the order of Mignini. It is this order we now wish to see. (hint...we don't think Mignini actually filed for an official order...he just winged it sort of...like they do you know)

How many human rights violations does the European Court Of Human Rights need to return a case to Italy? I think they already fine Italy for every case brought before it for failing to provide a speedy trial...and a huge number of violations for failing to provide a fair trial. Italy has the most violations or 2nd most last time I checked. 10 times worse than Russia....something like that. The ECOHR web site is not as user friendly as it once was. Whats up with that?

If you cant waive the right to an attorney but you can make spontaneous statements that will be used against you... does the tree make a sound when it falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it? This seems to be the foundation of Italian legal principle. See what I did there? There are no Italian legal principles unless they directly contradict themselves...then sure fine.

What do we have osmotically from Yummi/Maundy? Anything?

 

[RandyN]

Keep right on knocking yourselves out over this, but interrogations in the questura are not taped. Even if phone conversations and prison conversations are.

Furthermore, in 2007, (just so you all know) only a handful of US jurisdictions required taped interrogations

But hey : please continue...

46 post count student and he has interrogation at the Questura down pat.

They record in the Questura waiting room and in at least one conference room plus someone...was it Mignini or the guy from Rome who testified to monitoring the interrogation from some control room? Two cans and a waxed string perhaps?

Video capture is cheap simple and certainly utilized everywhere. I even have one for my car that records everything in front and behind, plus voice, plus GPS location plus some sort if g meter for an accident or whatever? 59 bucks out the door. Every police station in the world has this stuff and they use it. They have lots of two way mirrors too. Had em back in 2007 as well.

But hey...please continue.

 

[acbytesla]

When police would watch a interrogation through a one way window they weren't recording and yet still did it. I see no reason to speculate that record had to be on because they were watching but it clearly tells us they could have recorded it.

I doubt any recording was made because by now someone inside would have sold the story. If there was a copy kept for any reason, the keeper would have been very tempted to make a copy. Imagine what that tape would fetch on the open market. If they did what many here including myself believe, the recording would be worth in the six figure if not more.


Many people would know that the recording existed and I doubt very much that no one would have told the story my now.

I understand your argument Grinder and while I'm not sure there isn't a recording today. In fact, I seriously doubt there is one today. I mean keeping the tapes went out of style with Richard Nixon. But I'm not sure I believe that there wasn't one. I doubt the interrogation room was with the one way glass. Cameras have been so cheap that there are very few of those left and the Questura seems like a very modern although non-descript building.

I'd bet my winnings on the Super Bowl that they were watching on "video" in the control room. This of course does NOT mean they were recording it. And I don't think more than one or two people actually would have to know if they were actually recording the interrogation.

But we'll never know. Go Hawks and I'm so looking forward to the parade. I'm taking my nephews. They are skipping school and their Uncle Tesla and them are going to have so much fun.

 

[Grinder]

I understand your argument Grinder and while I'm not sure there isn't a recording today. In fact, I seriously doubt there is one today. I mean keeping the tapes went out of style with Richard Nixon. But I'm not sure I believe that there wasn't one. I doubt the interrogation room was with the one way glass. Cameras have been so cheap that there are very few of those left and the Questura seems like a very modern although non-descript building.

The one-way glass was to refute the idea that people would only watch an interview/interrogation if they were recording it. Watching without recording certainly isn't something that wasn't done often historically. The assertion that they wouldn't watch if they weren't recording doesn't stand up.

I'd bet my winnings on the Super Bowl that they were watching on "video" in the control room. This of course does NOT mean they were recording it. And I don't think more than one or two people actually would have to know if they were actually recording the interrogation.

But we'll never know. Go Hawks and I'm so looking forward to the parade. I'm taking my nephews. They are skipping school and their Uncle Tesla and them are going to have so much fun.

They were watching on CCTV (that's closed circuit television), which doesn't need to have a recording function but I'd bet it does.

At the time of the interrogation they were not fabricating a case (Anglo not withstanding ) and the idea that the recording would be kept secret makes no sense. If they had a recording it is almost certain that the people transcribing the statement would look and listen to the recording.

The idea that they were conspiring to frame Amanda on the 5th is absurd. They thought she was involved and they were excited that they had closed the case. The station would be abuzz with the breaking developments. Even if people weren't told specifically about the interrogation recordings, they would know that it was standard procedure to make recordings and we have a story like the one from the prison guard about Amanda. There is too much money on the table for silence.

 

[acbytesla]

The one-way glass was to refute the idea that people would only watch an interview/interrogation if they were recording it. Watching without recording certainly isn't something that wasn't done often historically. The assertion that they wouldn't watch if they weren't recording doesn't stand up.



They were watching on CCTV (that's closed circuit television), which doesn't need to have a recording function but I'd bet it does.

At the time of the interrogation they were not fabricating a case (Anglo not withstanding ) and the idea that the recording would be kept secret makes no sense. If they had a recording it is almost certain that the people transcribing the statement would look and listen to the recording.

The idea that they were conspiring to frame Amanda on the 5th is absurd. They thought she was involved and they were excited that they had closed the case. The station would be abuzz with the breaking developments. Even if people weren't told specifically about the interrogation recordings, they would know that it was standard procedure to make recordings and we have a story like the one from the prison guard about Amanda. There is too much money on the table for silence.

I agree that they weren't conspiring to "frame Amanda on the 5th", but they were trying to "break her". I'm thoroughly convinced that they thought she and Raffaele were guilty going into those interrogations. Remember Giobbi statement that they "buckled and told them what they already knew".

They wanted a confession. They wanted to "solve the case" and they were determined to do it that night. Is that framing? You say potato.......

 

[lamasheen]

Raffaele Sollecito will appear TONIGHT, Monday Feb. 3rd on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. 8-9pm ET/5-6pm PT. Please share.

Raff just keeps saying, "he is innocent". Of course he is innocent. Does he not understand that he is just a pawn? The Italians are going to put him in jail for sure because they will have a much harder time getting Amanda extradited. They will keep him in jail as long as possible with the hopes that Amanda finally breaks with guilt and provides the information they want or just use him as some kind of leverage. I am not saying she is guilty or has any information to provide but the Italians clearly think she does and I think they will have no qualms about putting Raff in jail. Pretty sure this is their intention. I have no doubts they will do everything in their power to extradite Amanda too. Amanda should feel frightened, these guys are not messing around for the final round. Have to hand it to Raff, he seems very calm in this interview considering the situation he is in.

 

[Strozzi]

. . . I doubt any recording was made because by now someone inside would have sold the story. If there was a copy kept for any reason, the keeper would have been very tempted to make a copy. Imagine what that tape would fetch on the open market. If they did what many here including myself believe, the recording would be worth in the six figure if not more.

Many people would know that the recording existed and I doubt very much that no one would have told the story my now.

Mignini and Commodi are the ones who would have logically needed it - it would have been useful to them in preparing the case against Knox. If one of them had it, and nobody else had a copy then they control its fate.

I agree it has great $$$ value if it still exists but, if Mignini or Commodi had the recording, neither of them could have referred to it, sold it, or take the chance of others getting control of it once they said Knox's interrogaton was not recorded. Tt lost its presecution value except as background information once the prosecutors stated that no recording existed, which ironically is the moment its $$$ value would have soared.

 

[Machiavelli]

Giobbi stated that he was in the Questura's control room observing Amanda's body language when she was interrogated, so we know the video equipment was "on". That suggests to me that it was in record mode, for who would sit there without it being on while trying to catch the nuance in body language and wanting to be sure, given the language barrier, not to miss or misunderstand anythng important the American might say in her languge.

Giobbi, himself, would not have pressed erase as he was not from that police office. He was a visitor, sent from Rome to help. A local senior official on the case would have had to make the decision to erase it, and the only reason to make the decision to delete it is because the recording is so compromising with the shouts and hits of the police and the screams of the suspect that you cannot let the Italian people or American people ever see or hear it. Before you destroy it, you must be sure you do not need it, and that cannot be determined quickly. You cannot make the decision to destroy the recording until you know for sure that you will not need it. I belive the recording survived that night.

Then the question is was it destroyed later, or does somebody have it? And who would be the one who might need it for the prosecution? I'll answer that - a prosecutor. And lo and behold - guess who was in the Questura control room ....

Strozzi, you need to understand Italian collowquialism. Cabina di regia does not mean 'control room', it means director room or staff room or simply directorate or coordination activity.
Moreover, Giobbi states clearly that he did not witness Knox's 'confession', and that he was in the corridoor outside the door.

 

[Diocletus]

I think this is the one you were referring to anglo...

Thanks, Rose.

It's very interesting to compare this Italian law against the ECHR rules on deprivation of counsel.

The Italian law basically provides that if you interview a suspect without counsel present, then the ensuing statements can't be used against the person in prosecuting the crime.

The ECtHR says that if you violate someone's right to counsel, you can't use the statements to prejudice the person.

Notice that the Italian law applies without exception to questioning when counsel isn't present: it appears to be absolute. In contrast, the ECtHR rule only applies when the right to counsel is violated, which isn't necessarily eery situation where counsel isn't present (e.g., there could be waiver or exigency).

On the other hand, the exclusionary force of the ECtHR rule is way broader. If there is a violation of the right to counsel, that violation cannot be used to prejudice the defendant in any way. Under the Italian law, the statement taken in the absence of counsel can be used to establish a charge other than what the suspect was suspected for--that's how they used it to prove callunnia.

What all of this means is that even though the prosecution was able to use the Knox statements to charge callunnia, if they violated her right to counsel (they did), the entire callunia conviction and murder conviction are going to have to be abandoned, because the callunnia conviction is by definition a prejudice to Knox, and that conviction underlies the murder conviction, too.

Not looking good for Italy.

 

[acbytesla]

Raff just keeps saying, "he is innocent". Of course he is innocent. Does he not understand that he is just a pawn? The Italians are going to put him in jail for sure because they will have a much harder time getting Amanda extradited. They will keep him in jail as long as possible with the hopes that Amanda finally breaks with guilt and provides the information they want or just use him as some kind of leverage. I am not saying she is guilty or has any information to provide but the Italians clearly think she does and I think they will have no qualms about putting Raff in jail. Pretty sure this is their intention. I have no doubts they will do everything in their power to extradite Amanda too. Amanda should feel frightened, these guys are not messing around for the final round. Have to hand it to Raff, he seems very calm in this interview considering the situation he is in.

They are way beyond that lamasheen. Neither one is going to change their story now....well maybe Raffaele might because he's in their reach and he's the one that they can pressure. I can see them putting Raffaele in jail.

He actually impresses the hell out of me. Talk about grace and courage under fire. But he's had years of practice. I'm sure you get very philosophical after a while. You simply have no choice or you go crazy. You have to remember that you're not in prison at the moment. So make the best of it.

Actually both of them impress me. Raffaele, more so. I think Amanda is closer to having a psychological break down. If they survive this emotionally and psychologically, they will be very strong people down the road....well I think so.

 

[RandyN]

Ignorance speaking out of the heart. Michele Misseri had a dozen interrogations with the Carabinieri which were not recorded. The questioning that was recorded was at the presence of the prosecutor.

Exactly...so was Knox recorded when Mignini the prosecutor was there, if not at 1:45 then at 5:45. But I think Knox was constantly recorded.

Mignini would be the one to erase illegal action of the interrogators...or more likely he would keep the recording in his special file for use against potential enemies if necessary. Hasn't he already been caught doing that? Files or lists???