My understanding is that the police suggested it was Lumumbia in the first place, and continued to push this idea on her throughout the interrogation, and told her she may simply have pushed the memories out of her mind and that they could “help” her recover those memories. She finally started saying things like “Lumumbia is bad, he’s bad!” and at this point they gave her the thing to sign and she did.
While it’s not true of the U.S. and apparently Italy, in some jurisdictions, lying is covered, specifically because you don’t have the right to remain silent.
The thing I have a problem with is not the lying, but the blaming someone else. Lie all you want about what you were doing. It will probably hurt your case, but it doesn’t really hurt anyone else.
I do get implicating someone else if you honestly thought you saw them. It’s really easy to get mixed up. It’s also really easy for an investigation to create false memories, if conducted in a certain way. So my opinion on the actual situation being discussed is nowhere near fixed.
After getting so upset about Casey Anthony, I decided not to get invested in a high profile case again until the verdict was in. For all I know, they have actual evidence that she did intend to frame someone because she didn’t like them.
EDIT: Frylock’s post is exactly the type of thing that would create false memories.
Their reaction to the verdict:
“While we accept the decision that was handed down yesterday and respect the court and the Italian justice system, we do find that we are now left obviously looking at this again and thinking how a decision that was so certain two years ago has been so emphatically over turned now.”
“We said all along we don’t want the wrong people put way for a crime they didn’t commit.”
“It’s still difficult. We still have no answers.”
“For us it feels like we are back to square one”
“That’s the biggest disappointment, not knowing still.”
I really do look forward to Bo giving a bit more detail about their joining the human race.
That’s rubbish and logical bollocks.
You can’t just handwave away anything just because you “haven’t been in that situation”. There’s tonnes off stuff I can judge people on even though I haven’t been in that situation.
Frankly it sounds like you’ve been so affected by the “poor darling Knox” US media that you are incapable of accepting she may have done anything wrong.
(For the record: I’m not sure if she killed her. I have just been fascinated by the case due to the polarised way the media in the US and UK have covered it. Neither media has come out smelling of roses if you ask me.)
I didn’t say you can’t judge any situation you haven’t been in. That would be stupid. I said this (referring to her implicating an innocent person while under duress) isn’t a situation I can’t judge because I have no comparable experience. I don’t think you do either, so you’re welcome to your opinion but I think that opinion is worthless.
If you say so.
Hey so I haven’t really been following the case, but of what details I gather, there’s a guy already in jail who confessed to the crime? I’m sure Kercher’s parents have been asked about him and why they had believed Knox was responsible for so long. Did they think she ALSO participated in the crime, was the leader of the crime, or that the other guy’s innocent and Knox did it?
I haven’t read the Supreme Court opinion, so I can’t do much more than hazard a guess, based on what you’ve written. I’m not sure where the Supreme Court got involved, but I’d guess that it was during the arrest phase. At that stage of the game, though, anything the Supreme Court says will have only have bearing with regard to keeping the accused in jail. They would not, could not, speak to what evidence might or might not be admissible before the trial judge. It is obvious under Italian law, the very ABC of criminal defense, that a statement made when the accused was denied his/her lawyer cannot be used in court.
However, if that self - same statement is, in itself, another criminal violation, then this kind of evidentiary preclusion won’t apply.
Anyway, if you can come up with a link to the decision in its entirety, I’ll read it and be better able to comment.
It’s not that great a problem here. That’s not to say that it never happens, but it’s certainly not frequent. Personally, I’ve never encountered it. The Italian authorities just don’t have that much leverage over people: it’s uncommon to jail people before trial, save for the most serious crimes. And, in any case, a confession given without a lawyer present is likely to be totallyl worthless in a trial.
Is Knox’s interrogation a complete abberation then? (And did she have a lawyer present?)
Capitaine Zombie seems to believe that it was all routine and unremarkable and a basic underpinning of the justice system in every civilized country.
I didn’t follow the case at all and so don’t really know what went on during Amanda Knox’s interrogation.
I don’t mean to suggest that the police never, ever interrogate someone without the benefit of counsel. It can happen, but it’s a total cluster - fuck from an investigative point of view when it does. The statement is worthless as evidence.
Basic underpinning, no. But looking at the parochialism in the comments of the Knox case (not necessarily here), the “but it doesnt work like that in the States” mentality applied to the case doesnt sound like the smartest way to look at it (or at any case, for that matter).
And counsel in the first hours of interrogation isnt necessarily a feature present in all judicial systems. Even in First world nations.
Indeed.
The prosecutor, IMO, should be sacked. Watching Anderson Cooper last night, they talked about an interview with the prosecutor who, when he arrived on the crime scene and saw Amanda & boyfriend, concluded though a “gut” feeling that they were involved in the murder. That struck me as foolish on the prosecutors part.
In the state where I live police interrogations are required to be videotaped in order to prevent exactly the kind of seen here with the confession under duress. It is commonplace for people to confess to crimes they did not commit. The West Memphis 3? Confession. The Guildford 4? They all confessed. The Birmingham 6? You got it. Like the Perugia case, all the defendants claimed they confessed under duress.
Yet in this case, the confession is the entire case. There is no motive, the prosecutor’s version of events is absurd, nothing puts Knox or Sollecito at the crime. It’s all down to the confession. There is no mystery here. They have the guy who obviously did it (and gave him a sentence nine years lighter than Knox.) There is no reason to believe the other two defendants had anything at all to do with this unless you are willing to put your faith in the retracted confession.
Maybe that’s a big clue as to why one shouldn’t get mixed up with a gang that has a geographic/numeric nickname…
The thing is-she didn’t confess. ASAIK she has always said she was innocent.
The two things that really, really had me scratching my head were:
(a) how is the prosecutor who pushed this still allowed to be out of jail, let alone still holding a public office, after the equally ridiculous “Monster of Florence” idiocy he staged? and
(b) assuming the answer to (a) is that Italians as a race are just really, really, really different [licensed morons], how does this middle class English family, who you’d think would not be subject to the hotblooded Latin hysterical idiocy, firmly believe that the nonsensical prosecution theory is not just plausible but clearly so true as to support their semi-vendetta against Knox?
I supported Knox in the first instance because of the involvement of the prosecutor Mignini, who was an absolute delusional CT idiot in Douglas Preston’s book on his other big case:
When I heard the details of the similarly tortured prosecution theory for Knox, it strengthened my conviction that the prosecution was an abortion of justice.
I never thought she was that pretty or likable – she came across (albeit with details leaked by the prosecution) as a kind of annoying skanky privileged study-abroad college party girl of a type I was all too familiar with in school. Probably a crap annoying roommate to Kercher, which might be one thought for why the family has a negative impression of her. None of that makes her a really plausible murder suspect.
Good point.
What I keep wondering is what happens to Sollecito. Knox gets to go home to Seattle where she will be embraced, but he will be in Italy where he is known as the perverted murderer who fell under the spell of the American whore. I don’t see how he can continue to live there.
What makes you think that the Italian public necessarily buys the prosecutor’s story, especially after being cleared?