Ostrich: The point about the recordings is that the lack of them is used by Knox supporters to imply something malign about the police. This is based on an overestimation of how much is recorded in America -- people tend to assume everything is and it's really not. "In 2003, Illinois became the first state to require by law that all police interrogations of suspects in homicide cases must be recorded." (link)

Where it is required, most limit it to assault, rape, and homicide suspects or custodial interrogations -- recording of witness interviews is even less common. Amanda, as a witness or a suspect, probably would not have been recorded in the state of Washington. So the first premise of the "argument"-- why don't they do what we do?!-- is no good.

The only relevant question is whether recording is required in Italy, in Umbria, or in Perugia by law or by precinct policy. It seems that it is not, regardless of the arguments in favour or against it.

Which leaves the implication of not recording Amanda's interrogation a bit empty. I agree it's regrettable that they did not record it. But I would first confirm a rule was in place before saying they broke one.

You were supposed to link the quote, fool. What did you think I wanted a source for?

http://amada-knox-data.wikispaces.co...-CNN-interview

Thanks for the indignation anyway, though.

PR,

Thanks for the explanation. I find it surprising that such a rule wasn't in place by 2007, and it's especially unfortunate that the police in this case didn't take the extra precaution of recording everything as they were dealing with people who didn't speak Italian as a first language. Of course, the absence of recordings would go from unfortunate to sinister if a protocol had been specifically ignored. It's still a point that benefits the defense more than the prosecution though, imo at least.

It has been sourced in this topic earlier. Here is a quote from a WSJ story discussing the test project of NYPD introducing recording of interrogations in five precincts in 2012.

.*

The first state to require recording was Illinois in 2003. Beyond that I was able to find this on wiki

*

As such it seems clear that if that of the only six states recorded interrogations between 2003-2006 and now we are at eighteen which means that twelve states passed legislation recently.

It isn't illegal in Italy either.

In both the United States and Italy the fruit of the interrogation will be inadmissible.


The goal is to find the truth so we are not bound by these things. We recently had some individuals arrested with automatic weapons and a mountain of drugs. The search was tossed because the judge felt that the officer did not have probable cause to search. So you are saying that if we were discussing that case you would also exclude what was found in the car?

Yeah it was really surprising how recently its taken hold in the States. I tend to think in this case both sides benefited in the absence of recordings but they do pay a price. Amanda would have proof of the beating and perhaps escaped the slander charge + conviction, or the police would have proof that she slandered them. Then again according to Galati Amanda told her mother it was just her, one officer, and her interpreter at the time of the Patrick accusation.

(Naturally their conversation was bugged.)

I knew I covered this earlier but no one wanted to talk about it.

So I assume by this you mean that the United States is not part of the civilized world?

There were no irregularities. The original confession was tossed because of a very simple right to council issue. It would be the equivalent having an interrogation thrown out for Miranda rights in the States and nothing more.

They're like locusts. They're moving from planet to planet... their whole civilization. After they've consumed every natural resource they move on... and we're next ... Nuke 'em. Let's nuke the bastards.

239: what do you say about this?

No one denies that it is more common now but even now only 18 states and the district of Washington record so is it your position that the remaining 32 states are not part of the civilized world?

We are not even close to 50% now and at the time of the murder only six states recorded interrogations so why criticize another country for having the exact same policy that the States has?

You could argue that and you'd be wrong. Amanda was at the police station by her own volition -- no one asked her to come. Having come to the police station uninvited she agreed to be questioned. She never asked for a lawyer. This is a Miranda issue and nothing more.

Another call went out twelve hours ago (Oh god, seventeen this month alone and almost every day in December. Weirdos.)

Edit, nutballs, management: Don't know about the others but if this keeps happening I'd just as soon see the thread closed than have it overrun by crazies who don't think the entire rest of the internet is quite enough room to contain their bull****. We don't intrude on your areas; kindly stop intruding here.

+1 to this. I am open to being convinced. I would seek a narrative that explains the totality of the evidence and understands the issues. For example, arguing planting or contamination for the DNA evidence (no "LCN is unreliable" red herring, or that contamination is common to explain the bra - it isn't), arguing that Rudy staged the breakin because he was let in and killed her over something, and wanted to make it look like someone she didn't know, etc. Or arguing that Raf is innocent but a pathological liar and that Amanda is just a flighty confused nutcase to explain their behavior. No pro Knox people seem willing to damn their characters as required for them to be innocent, which is curious and shows a lack of impartiality.

Basically I want a narrative that is consistent with all the evidence in a way that Amanda and Raf didn't do it. No one has come close. The lack of intelligence, openness, logic and sourcing among the anti Knox camp compared to the pro Knox camp is the main reason I find their side compelling. This is your chance 239. Both Oski and myself and probably others would be swayed by a convincing intelligent argument.

that facebook page is bizarre.

apologies for my occasional enquiries about seemingly basic stuff, but is this correct?

No. They ruled Amanda's confession inadmissible because she was treated as a witness rather than a suspect. Her status should have been changed and she should have been informed of her right to an attorney. There is no requirement that a lawyer be present only that the suspect be offered one. That is by definition a Miranda issue if this had happened in the United States.

The original confession was not allowed at trial because the police should have treated Amanda as a suspect. She should have been offered a lawyer.

I agree that the police acted inappropriately in this respect. Once Raffaele has told the police that he lied to them at Amanda's request and stopped supporting Amanda's alibi she should rightfully have been considered a suspect.

The police choose to behave as if she was still a witness because they believed at that time that Amanda's role was minor. If they treated her as a suspect lawyers would possibly get involved and the police would not get the information they needed. The police knew that there was a very decent chance the confession would not be admissible but they figured it didn't matter.

Amanda's status was changed after the initial confession and questioning stopped but then Amanda choose to make a voluntary statement that repeated much of what her original confession contained. Since this was a voluntary statement it was admissible.

OK thanks Henry, I guess that explains why I had it in my head that the original statement was an important part of the prosecution case.

Harsh dude.

It's an invitation to prove me wrong. There is a lot of weird stuff surrounding this case and I'm pretty sure I could put together a reasonable argument for their innocence. Not going to do 239's work for him though.

No, sorry, it was a joke. Anti-Knox and pro-Knox are (I hope) swapped in the post.

katody,

Given that Hellmann threw out absolutely everything, leaving nothing of 20+ pieces of evidence that indicate guilt, how credible do you find him?

Katody,

Please list a few specific investigative errors or inappropriate actions (with citations!) and explain what these errors brought to bear on the case.

What, specifically, do you mean by "shaky" and "doubtful" as a result of these errors? By your reasoning, in the absence of these errors it would seem the case would have been stronger, not weaker.

Not at all. The problem is that you are ignoring the possibility that they intentionally did not tape it because they knew what they were producing wasn't legal.

As far as the rest of your post, I'm not sure you're really proving your point which was not that interrogations being recorded was required by law, but that it was rare they were recorded, period. That's what you originally said and repeated and why people were scratching their heads.

You really have no basis for saying that. It's possible they recorded sometimes and others didn't. It's clear Mignini recorded the girls statements and he was present that night for at least part of it.

I understand what he's talking about. It seems clear to me he's trying to bolster his claim but there would be no reason to if that was the hard and fast rule.

I honestly don't know what their policy was and neither do you.

She wasn't a suspect when it started is debatable especially considering they investigators clearly said they suspected them right away. She wasn't necessarily going to be arrested that night but it's clear they turned the screws on her before she incriminated herself and she should have had a lawyer for that. That's why the statements were thrown out.

It might have been a gray area in their minds and that would have been even more reason not to record it.

Exactly the reason they probably didn't record it as if she's a suspect she has to have a lawyer.

It's directly relevant to the issue of taping. They both explained how the statements were produced so it's clear to me how to interpret those.

No. There is no point discussing anything with you because you are simply too dumb to understand.

There is nothing illegal about what the police did. They treated Amanda as a witness when no reasonable person would. That has nothing to do with recording the interrogation.

The police knew that there was a good chance that anything incriminating Knox said would not be allowed against her but they didn't care. They were working under the assumption that Knox played a minor role and if she walked it didn't matter. What they cared about was getting information.

There is no law requiring recording and it is not the policy of the Perugia police to record interviews.

I don't know how much simpler you need this explained.