Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kevin_Lowe]

Seriously?

So you acknowledge that AK signed a confession of rape and murder.

I'd say that calling it "a confession of rape and murder" is a bit of a stretch, but I don't think anybody here is unaware of her false statement. We disagree over whether it's an instance of what is called an internalised false statement or not, but not over whether it exists.

Incidentally, telling people that they have repressed memories of something and then getting them to try to "recover" those memories, i.e. make something up, is a discredited interrogation technique because it tends to lead to worthless false statements.

But your objection is that she didn't describe it?

Basically, yes. Her confession/accusation was monumentally vague and made no sense at all in the context of the known timeline. She didn't know what happened during the murder, she didn't know how she got to the murder scene without Raffaele noticing she had been away, she didn't know how she got back to Raffaele's place, and so we end up with this vague, fragmentary piece of nonsense where she remembers nothing except the core of the narrative the police then wanted: that Lumumba did it, somehow.

That's pretty much what I'd expect if the police weren't trying to seek the truth, but just trying every trick in the book to coerce a statement they could use to book Lumumba. I imagine they were counting on finding the evidence to get a conviction later, only it didn't work out that way.

 

[griffinmill]

-


-

It sounds more like an accusation than a confession.

My objection to it being called a confession is that there are no details about how the crime was committed, which is what every confession I have ever read contains. Which is why I think it is a terrible confession.

If you want to call it a confession, fine, but that's your problem, not mine,

d

-

So in other words, you're back to my original point. You acknowledge that AK said Lumumba raped and murdered Kercher, but you believe it was coerced.

 

[griffinmill]

I'd say that calling it "a confession of rape and murder" is a bit of a stretch, but I don't think anybody here is unaware of her false statement. We disagree over whether it's an instance of what is called an internalised false statement or not, but not over whether it exists.

Incidentally, telling people that they have repressed memories of something and then getting them to try to "recover" those memories, i.e. make something up, is a discredited interrogation technique because it tends to lead to worthless false statements.



Basically, yes. Her confession/accusation was monumentally vague and made no sense at all in the context of the known timeline. She didn't know what happened during the murder, she didn't know how she got to the murder scene without Raffaele noticing she had been away, she didn't know how she got back to Raffaele's place, and so we end up with this vague, fragmentary piece of nonsense where she remembers nothing except the core of the narrative the police then wanted: that Lumumba did it, somehow.

That's pretty much what I'd expect if the police weren't trying to seek the truth, but just trying every trick in the book to coerce a statement they could use to book Lumumba. I imagine they were counting on finding the evidence to get a conviction later, only it didn't work out that way.

All the talking points well laid out. The alternative, more likely scenario, is that the police asked her to elaborate, she swore she couldn't remember any more details, and they took her statement.

But admittedly, this is my total speculation countering your total speculation. The difference is my speculation includes an outrageous, offensive lie by AK, whereas your speculation requires a belief in a vast conspiracy by the police.

We'll let the lurkers decide.

 

[RWVBWL]

You acknowledge that AK said Lumumba raped and murdered Kercher, but you believe it was coerced.

Without the audio +/or video recordings Griff,
we are all just, err, speculatin', err, belivin' what the Italian cops want us to believe,
that "Initially the American gave a version of events we knew were not correct."

Does this lack of audio +/or video recording satisfy your quest for further knowledge in this horrible rape and murder case we discuss?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

So in other words, you're back to my original point. You acknowledge that AK said Lumumba raped and murdered Kercher, but you believe it was coerced.

-

Nope, I don't believe AK said PL raped and killed Meredith. She did say she vaguely remembered that he killed her, but not how or when, or any other detail that would make her accusation more convincing to me.

As far as it being coerced, the fact that the next day, they said she finally broke and told them what they already knew to be true, obviously infers that she got the story from them. Was she coerced? I believe it's more probable than not, in my opinion.

To me, it's comparable to Rudy saying (or writing) that Amanda was there also,

d

-

 

[griffinmill]

Without the audio +/or video recordings Griff,
we are all just, err, speculatin', err, belivin' what the Italian cops want us to believe...

Does this lack of audio +/or video recording satisfy your quest for further knowledge in this horrible rape and murder case we discuss?

So the statement AK signed, after 90 minutes, requires audio or video to be believed? I guess you think that. I also guess many others don't.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

All the talking points well laid out. The alternative, more likely scenario, is that the police asked her to elaborate, she swore she couldn't remember any more details, and they took her statement.

But admittedly, this is my total speculation countering your total speculation. The difference is my speculation includes an outrageous, offensive lie by AK, whereas your speculation requires a belief in a vast conspiracy by the police.

We'll let the lurkers decide.

Well, no. I believe that the Innocence Project has found that false confessions are involved in something like 25% of all dud convictions, so it's scarcely a crazy hypothesis that Knox could have been coerced into a false confession. It's a thing that happens relatively often in bad prosecutions.

Further, the kind of dream-like, disconnected quality of Knox's statement is specifically characteristic of an internalised false statement. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, as well as being found in a known duck habitat.

Finally the fact that the police "lost" arguably the most vital single piece of evidence in their case, the recording of the one confession which was the keystone of their entire narrative, has to be seen as highly suspicious. Especially so given the various lame stories Mignini has tried out about why the interview recording got lost ("We couldn't afford a tape, honest!").

However this is sort of a side issue. The fundamental issue is that the computer evidence puts Knox and Sollecito at home, at the time of death inescapably fixed by the autopsy evidence and unimpeachable eyewitness statements. That's what shows they are innocent.

Once you know that they were innocent, the internalised false statement is a gimme.

 

[RWVBWL]

So the statement AK signed, after 90 minutes, requires audio or video to be believed? I guess you think that. I also guess many others don't.

Hey Griff,
Ever been in a foreign prison?

I have,
for skinny dippin' with a buncha hot chicks after a night of hard drinkin' down in Rosarita, Baja California.

The local hotel owner doesn't really like you jumpin', butt naked, continuously off their divin' boards + into their pool late at night as hot, cute horny chicks that you'd been dancing' all night with encourage you on, hahahaa...

I could not understand what the **** the local Spanish speakin' cops were sayin' when they then questioned, arrested and imprisoned me, still dripping wet in my surfer board shorts that I quickly grabbed and put on.

Glad I wasn't charged with rape and murder!!!

Would you have believed anything that I had signed that night?

Sure Cop-er,
I'll sign on the dotted line, + my friend will pay the fine,
get me outta here so I can go home. Please.
Thank you.
Adios...


I do not believe
what the Italian cops wrote out in their little interrogation report.

UNLESS I hear an audio of this.

For:
"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew were not correct."

 

[AmyStrange]

-

So the statement AK signed, after 90 minutes, requires audio or video to be believed? I guess you think that. I also guess many others don't.

-

Well it would prove whether she was coerced or not, otherwise all we have to go on is that the next day they said she finally broke and told them what they already knew to be true,

d

-

 

[griffinmill]

Well, no. I believe that the Innocence Project has found that false confessions are involved in something like 25% of all dud convictions, so it's scarcely a crazy hypothesis that Knox could have been coerced into a false confession. It's a thing that happens relatively often in bad prosecutions.

Further, the kind of dream-like, disconnected quality of Knox's statement is specifically characteristic of an internalised false statement. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, as well as being found in a known duck habitat.

Finally the fact that the police "lost" arguably the most vital single piece of evidence in their case, the recording of the one confession which was the keystone of their entire narrative, has to be seen as highly suspicious. Especially so given the various lame stories Mignini has tried out about why the interview recording got lost ("We couldn't afford a tape, honest!").

However this is sort of a side issue. The fundamental issue is that the computer evidence puts Knox and Sollecito at home, at the time of death inescapably fixed by the autopsy evidence and unimpeachable eyewitness statements. That's what shows they are innocent.

Once you know that they were innocent, the internalised false statement is a gimme.

Love the attempt to move the goalposts. The original post was about AK's false confession or murder and rape which I appreciate you have acknowleged, albeit with explanations.

The rest of your post regurgitates the FOA fact sheet. I didn't bring up the computer evidence, or the autopsy, so why would you if you didn't want to distract from AK's very damning admissions to the police?

 

[RWVBWL]

Griff,
A foreign male, a man with a wife and child,
a man who runs a business is soooo completly different
from a foreign male who is un-employed and doesn't even have a girlfriend.

How can Perugian law enforcement substitute 1 foreign black guy for the other,
and keep the same story straight?

Those white kids,
err the pot, err, the coke, err, the LSD, err, the crystal meth, err, the Jack Daniels,
made me do it, I just had to rape that hot English chick???
And they murdered her as I climaxed.
Right.
Pfffft.
RW

 

[griffinmill]

-


-

Nope, I don't believe AK said PL raped and killed Meredith. She did say she vaguely remembered that he killed her, but not how or when, or any other detail that would make her accusation more convincing to me.

As far as it being coerced, the fact that the next day, they said she finally broke and told them what they already knew to be true, obviously infers that she got the story from them. Was she coerced? I believe it's more probable than not, in my opinion.

To me, it's comparable to Rudy saying (or writing) that Amanda was there also,

d

-

Unbeievable, but good luck in life.

 

[Kaosium]

All the talking points well laid out. The alternative, more likely scenario, is that the police asked her to elaborate, she swore she couldn't remember any more details, and they took her statement.

But admittedly, this is my total speculation countering your total speculation. The difference is my speculation includes an outrageous, offensive lie by AK, whereas your speculation requires a belief in a vast conspiracy by the police.

We'll let the lurkers decide.

It's easy to determine who was the impetus of that untrue statement when you take into account the fact the same day Amanda Knox wrote them saying she didn't think any of it happened, she couldn't be used as testimony and they needed to look for the real murder(er). It was the police in Perugia who arrested Patrick, interrogated him, refused to believe any of the witnesses who came forward to alibi him, then told the press Amanda had 'buckled and admitted to the facts they knew to be correct' and refused to release Patrick for two weeks after Amanda had told them again and again (notes of 7th and 8th) that it hadn't happened.

 

[griffinmill]

It's easy to determine who was the impetus of that untrue statement when you take into account the fact the same day Amanda Knox wrote them saying she didn't think any of it happened, she couldn't be used as testimony and they needed to look for the real murder(er). It was the police in Perugia who arrested Patrick, interrogated him, refused to believe any of the witnesses who came forward to alibi him, then told the press Amanda had 'buckled and admitted to the facts they knew to be correct' and refused to release Patrick for two weeks after Amanda had told them again and again (notes of 7th and 8th) that it hadn't happened.

Yet Amanda never told the police the truth that Lumumba wasn't invlved at any time. I know, she was confused and pressured, villified and scapegoated. But during her victimhood, she never once told the truth about Lumumba. I guess she remained confused until well after he was released.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Love the attempt to move the goalposts. The original post was about AK's false confession or murder and rape which I appreciate you have acknowleged, albeit with explanations.

The rest of your post regurgitates the FOA fact sheet. I didn't bring up the computer evidence, or the autopsy, so why would you if you didn't want to distract from AK's very damning admissions to the police?

-

I never read the FOA fact sheet. Do you know where I can go to read it?

I did my own research and originally thought her and Raffaele were guilty, but after critically analyzing all the evidence, I believe they are probably not guilty, but I'm still willing to be convinced otherwise. I wish you'd quit playing these goalpost games and convince me I'm wrong.

One way would be to join me, and a few others here, and help convince the authorities in Italy to open the knife (by someone other than Steffy, someone we can both agree is impartial) and if there's enough of Meredith's blood and DNA under the handle (with the whole procedure video taped, and all the documentation relating to same, open to public viewing), then I'll change my mind.

How about you? Are you willing to change your mind also and what would do it for you?

Otherwise, everything you write is just confirmation bias in action,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Unbeievable, but good luck in life.

-

Why is it unbelievable? Because you say so? Good luck in life also,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Yet Amanda never told the police the truth that Lumumba wasn't invlved at any time. I know, she was confused and pressured, villified and scapegoated. But during her victimhood, she never once told the truth about Lumumba. I guess she remained confused until well after he was released.

-

How did she know PL didn't kill Meredith?

d

-

 

[Kaosium]

Yet Amanda never told the police the truth that Lumumba wasn't invlved at any time. I know, she was confused and pressured, villified and scapegoated. But during her victimhood, she never once told the truth about Lumumba. I guess she remained confused until well after he was released.

That's just more indication that Amanda wasn't there and the police were the impetus behind 'the facts they knew to be correct.' Amanda couldn't know whether Patrick was involved, just that what they coerced her to sign by gaslighting her hadn't actually happened. That the police kept him locked up for two weeks afterward despite the number and quality of witnesses that came forth to alibi him is even more evidence they were the ones behind the arrest of Patrick.

 

[anglolawyer]

As for the spontaneous declarations of Raffaele and Amanda (and others in other cases); what weight are they usually given in a trial? Any? Can a defendent give as many as they want or should they be cautious in what they respond to?

It used to be possible for a defendant to make a statement from the dock in an English trial. The weight attached to such a statement was not high, just because the defendant could not be cross examined on it. The right was abolished here many years ago.

 

[RWVBWL]

Yet Amanda never told the police the truth that Lumumba wasn't invlved at any time. I know, she was confused and pressured, villified and scapegoated. But during her victimhood, she never once told the truth about Lumumba. I guess she remained confused until well after he was released.

Yep,
it's pretty hard to tell them black guys apart.

I mean 1 writes your paycheck, err, (or maybe pays ya under the table)
and the cops think that he is involved in your housemates murder,
because, as Police Chief Arturo De Felice stated:
"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew were not correct."

So Amanda told them what they already knew:
It was PL who raped+ murdered and left the seminal fluid on the pillow case underneath Miss Kercher's naked genitalia....


Right. Griff, Right.

And the other black guy, Poor Rudy?
Well sorry cops, I just don't want to turn on him,
he's my bro, I like him, I even let him go 1st!
Pfffft...


It's my opinion only,
but I feel that you Pro-Guiltards need to get outta the house more, the real world don't work like this.
And this Poor Venice Beach Boy, me, RW, well I'm gonna rant for a moment,
I hang out in upper class Malibu, a lot. I am very aware of class differences, hahaha....

Raffaele,
a guy from a much higher class of society,
(a dude who wears scarfs, for cryin' out loud,
+ there ain't even any snow on the ground!)
is gonna hang out with a low life like Guede-o and let him rape Meredith,
whom he, Raff, had cooked lunch for before and shared wine with while out on the town in a nice restaurant?
Just 2 weeks before he is to graduate from years of college???

Ok,
sure.

And then Raff,
the nerd that he was,
is willin' to take, what was it, weeks+weeks of solitary confinement,
and then risk, and recieve 24 years of imprisonment while defending his non-participation in Miss Kercher's horrible murder AND yet never turn on the un-employed, black man, a guy without a girlfriend, who mighta left those probable seminal fluid stains that Doctor Patrizia Stefanoni is telling her assistant Alessa to test?
Right...

PFFFT.
RW