Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

...

These are two of the reasons (besides the ILE saying the next day that she finally told them what they already knew to be true) I believe her statement was coerced, but it's still a lie, unless Amanda honestly believed she could very well vaguely remember it happened at all, but I think she was just trying to get out of that room. By then, it had finally dawned on her that she wasn't there to help the police find her friend's murderer, but that they thought she had something to do with the murder.

But, that's all just my opinion,

d

-

There is no evidence that Amanda wanted to get out of that room. Everything we know about Amanda says that she wants to help the police find Meredith's murderer. Almost immediately after the 1:45 session she is in Mignini's lap still trying to help. That session ended at 05:45 and she doesn't run and hide. She asks for a pencil and paper and continues to help. She asks them in this writting to talk to her if there is still anything they are unsure of. All she asks in return is that they don't yell at her because that doesn't help.

The police however don't want help. All they are interested in is getting a confession that they can take to court and get a conviction. The police knew what they were planing that night. When they are seeking information they are sure to record everything so they can go back over it and not miss anything. But this night they know parts are best not remembered. The interpreter isn't scheduled to come in when they know they will be calling amanda after working over Raffaele, She isn't called when Amanda shows up earlier than expected, she isn't even called when they start interrogating Amanda. The Interrogator is only called to come in after they have had time to soften Amanda up. Like they didn't want a recording, they didn't want outside witnesses except for the final act. It would look mighty suspiscious to turn on a recorder in the final moments to catch a confession after missing hours of warmup. But to have an outsider show up and witness everything as though it was unplanned that the witness would arrive late they might get away with.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

There is no evidence that Amanda wanted to get out of that room. Everything we know about Amanda says that she wants to help the police find Meredith's murderer. Almost immediately after the 1:45 session she is in Mignini's lap still trying to help. That session ended at 05:45 and she doesn't run and hide. She asks for a pencil and paper and continues to help. She asks them in this writting to talk to her if there is still anything they are unsure of. All she asks in return is that they don't yell at her because that doesn't help.

The police however don't want help. All they are interested in is getting a confession that they can take to court and get a conviction. The police knew what they were planing that night. When they are seeking information they are sure to record everything so they can go back over it and not miss anything. But this night they know parts are best not remembered. The interpreter isn't scheduled to come in when they know they will be calling amanda after working over Raffaele, She isn't called when Amanda shows up earlier than expected, she isn't even called when they start interrogating Amanda. The Interrogator is only called to come in after they have had time to soften Amanda up. Like they didn't want a recording, they didn't want outside witnesses except for the final act. It would look mighty suspiscious to turn on a recorder in the final moments to catch a confession after missing hours of warmup. But to have an outsider show up and witness everything as though it was unplanned that the witness would arrive late they might get away with.

-

So you must believe that Amanda did not scream that night. And you must also believed she really did think she remembered seeing PL murder Meredith, albeit vaguely. Or, that she was not hit. I would certainly not want to stay in a room where someone was hitting me, but that's me,

d

-

 

[Samson]

-


-

So you must believe that Amanda did not scream that night. And you must also believed she really did think she remembered seeing PL murder Meredith, albeit vaguely. Or, that she was not hit. I would certainly not want to stay in a room where someone was hitting me, but that's me,

d

-

How about this?

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.[5

 

[Bill Williams]

There is no evidence that Amanda wanted to get out of that room. Everything we know about Amanda says that she wants to help the police find Meredith's murderer. Almost immediately after the 1:45 session she is in Mignini's lap still trying to help. That session ended at 05:45 and she doesn't run and hide. She asks for a pencil and paper and continues to help. She asks them in this writting to talk to her if there is still anything they are unsure of. All she asks in return is that they don't yell at her because that doesn't help.

The police however don't want help. All they are interested in is getting a confession that they can take to court and get a conviction. The police knew what they were planing that night. When they are seeking information they are sure to record everything so they can go back over it and not miss anything. But this night they know parts are best not remembered. The interpreter isn't scheduled to come in when they know they will be calling amanda after working over Raffaele, She isn't called when Amanda shows up earlier than expected, she isn't even called when they start interrogating Amanda. The Interrogator is only called to come in after they have had time to soften Amanda up. Like they didn't want a recording, they didn't want outside witnesses except for the final act. It would look mighty suspiscious to turn on a recorder in the final moments to catch a confession after missing hours of warmup. But to have an outsider show up and witness everything as though it was unplanned that the witness would arrive late they might get away with.

-


-

So you must believe that Amanda did not scream that night. And you must also believed she really did think she remembered seeing PL murder Meredith, albeit vaguely. Or, that she was not hit. I would certainly not want to stay in a room where someone was hitting me, but that's me,

d

-

In Knox's book, she says that she thinks she's helping; my view she is just a combination of young/stressed/exhausted/naive to know. She says she thinks that Mignini is the mayor, or something; really has no awareness of what's at stake.

Even her third memoriale, the gift, is an attempt to help. It's not intended as a retraction - although it is that. It's meant as clarifying.

Knox had already been chastised during the week by the cops, who themselves whined-a-tad that they, too, were being stressed out by this. All that did was make the young/naive/stressed-Knox all the more eager to show she could help.

 

[Numbers]

Far be it for me to try to explain what tsig meant by this, but I suspect that (s)he may have meant that by accusing Lumumba, Knox clearly said something which was not true. Therefore - by tsig's assessment - she "did lie".

But of course this comes back to the definition of a lie. Simply put, saying something that's not true is not always defined as a "lie". The normally-accepted societal definition of "lie" (not to mention the standard under which Knox was found guilty of criminal slander) is that the person stating the falsehood did so deliberately, knowingly and of his/her own free will.

I would argue that these criteria do not apply to the way Knox ended up making that confused "accusation" against Lumumba on the night of 5th/6th November 2007. We will, of course, see in due course whether the ECHR agrees with my definition or with tsig's........

Does there need to be intent to deceive in this legal definition? Because if one does not know the actual truth, can there be such intent? Especially when the utterance is actually the repetition or agreement to some statement issued by authorities - that is, the police team of interrogators - who are threatening the subject.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

How about this?

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.[5

-

I believe there is some truth to that hypothesis, but then I begin to wonder why would she scream, if she was hypothetically getting tied up emotionally with her interrogators? If she was emotionally getting tied up with anyone, it was the translator.

I'm not really a big fan of Freudian thought, but it does have some validity (especially his hypothesis about the Id, Ego, and Superego). My problem is mostly with his idea that sex is always the reason behind everything everyone does (and thinks). That's too much of an absolute for me, but hey I could be wrong.

I'm more of believer in cognitive psychology, although Jung did have some interesting ideas about synchronicity,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

In Knox's book, she says that she thinks she's helping; my view she is just a combination of young/stressed/exhausted/naive to know. She says she thinks that Mignini is the mayor, or something; really has no awareness of what's at stake.

Even her third memoriale, the gift, is an attempt to help. It's not intended as a retraction - although it is that. It's meant as clarifying.

Knox had already been chastised during the week by the cops, who themselves whined-a-tad that they, too, were being stressed out by this. All that did was make the young/naive/stressed-Knox all the more eager to show she could help.

_

I do believe that was her original intent, but by the end of that last session where they got that statement, I don't believe she still believed she was innocent and was beginning realize that maybe she was in a bit of trouble here, but that's my opinion.

As far as going to Mignini's office, that is a classic, bad cop, good cop scenario, which is also my opinion,

d

-
ETA: Amanda did say (paraphrasing) that she didn't hate Mignini, that she believed he was only doing his job, or something to that affect.

-

 

[Samson]

-


-

I believe there is some truth to that hypothesis, but then I begin to wonder why would she scream, if she was hypothetically getting tied up emotionally with her interrogators? If she was emotionally getting tied up with anyone, it was the translator.

I'm not really a big fan of Freudian thought, but it does have some validity (especially his hypothesis about the Id, Ego, and Superego). My problem is mostly with his idea that sex is always the reason behind everything everyone does (and thinks). That's too much of an absolute for me, but hey I could be wrong.

I'm more of believer in cognitive psychology, although Jung did have some interesting ideas about synchronicity,

d

-

That was quickly copied from wiki, and I would have left Freud out. I am curious now whether Amanda had any inkling she was a suspect when they said stop lying or you won't see your family for 30 years (that is from memory and maybe not accurate).

 

[anglolawyer]

Don't forget the duvet covering the body, something only a Muslim female roommate would do?

In the guilter lexicon this is known as "all the other evidence". Personally I think the lamp is their best bet. No one has even shown why the lamp is anything other than incriminating.

<ducking, running.>

They also counted the shoe rings again and found they match after all. In accordance with Italian law though, the shoes and photographs unfortunately turned out to have been accidentally stored in an incinerator by Nobel prize winning, professor of forensic science, Patrizia Stephony.

 

[Numbers]

"ETA: The number of pending applications from 2013 is provided in Table 2, Applications allocated to a judicial formation, at the following site:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/St...s_2013_ENG.pdf

For Italy, the number of pending 2013 applications is: 3184.

ETA2: Amanda Knox's application relating to her calunnia conviction is among those 3184."

To go into further detail, consult Table 3, The Court’s total caseload by stage of proceedings and judicial formation, in the ECHR - Analysis of Statistics 2013, published Jan., 2014, at:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2013_ENG.pdf

The total backlog for Italy = 14,379 applications.
Only Russian has a larger backlog = 16,813 applications.
The grand total backlog, for all 47 states of the CoE = 99,891 applications.

For Italy, the number of cases awaiting FIRST examination by a chamber (panel of 7 judges) or committee (panel of 3 judges) = 12,101 applications.

Amanda's application, which entered the ECHR system in 2013, is thus among these 12,101 applications, which include applications from 2013 and prior years, since it has not been declared inadmissible (AFAIK, since there has been no public statement) and has not been communicated to Italy (AFAIK, based on HUDOC public information).

Looking at the country profile for Italy (see

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Italy_ENG.pdf ),

there is another part of the backlog. This backlog is composed of applications received but not yet having been categorized into the queue for any judicial formation or for immediate decision as inadmissible.

For Italy, on July 4, 2014, this appears to be:

23347 - 15497 = about 7900 applications

Total pending applications - applications pending before a judicial formation = backlog of applications not yet categorized

Assuming that Amanda's application is considered complex enough to be judged by a Chamber rather than a Committee (these take only the most straight-forward cases), her case is within a queue of: 10610 cases
--- as of July 4, 2014.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Does there need to be intent to deceive in this legal definition? Because if one does not know the actual truth, can there be such intent? Especially when the utterance is actually the repetition or agreement to some statement issued by authorities - that is, the police team of interrogators - who are threatening the subject.

-

If she really believes she remembers this happening, then no it is not a lie, but if she just says what they want to hear, then yes it is a lie.

In my opinion,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

-


-

If she really believes she remembers this happening, then no it is not a lie, but if she just says what they want to hear, then yes it is a lie.

In my opinion,

d

-

I really dislike getting into these philosophical BS sessions, like is "Rudy" the same as "Rudi" and "Can a guilty person be 'framed'".

But from what you are saying, it seems as if under pressure she repeats, for the sake of not being hit or threatened or otherwise mistreated, what she is told, with no intent to deceive (because she has no real certainty of what they are seeking but is complying with their force) she is indeed stating a "lie".

I suggest that persons under coercion do not lie, but state falsehoods to protect themselves in the short-term. There is a difference if you consider intent and moral responsibility. Amanda's situation is not a unique one. There are many cases of false statements and false confessions elicited under coercion and, of course, torture. The case law of the ECHR is full of such cases, and they are common in the US. Look at the National Registry of Exonerations for the numbers (https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx).

In my opinion, such statements are not lies, but falsehoods or false statements. And there is a difference that reduces the philosophical clutter. It's like distinguishing "frame" and "official misconduct".

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

ETA: A false statement is untrue; but it may not be stated to deceive. It may be the result of error or as an attempt to satirize or to entertain or to prevent the infliction of pain.

 

[Desert Fox]

-
If she really believes she remembers this happening, then no it is not a lie, but if she just says what they want to hear, then yes it is a lie.

Lie or not, she was in extremely troubled waters where things get murky. . . Why I am not suer the lie vs not lie is a useful discussion.

 

[AmyStrange]

Rules to lying?

-

Does there need to be intent to deceive in this legal definition? Because if one does not know the actual truth, can there be such intent? Especially when the utterance is actually the repetition or agreement to some statement issued by authorities - that is, the police team of interrogators - who are threatening the subject.

-


It's an interesting question that if she is just saying it to make the interrogation stop, or is coerced into saying it, or just because they ask her too, is it still a lie? Are there rules to lying that make them not a lies? What about little white lies? The problem here is that what she said, ended up accusing someone of murder.

Patrick's life was ruined by that one act.

She shouldn't have done it, but I can understand (or at least think I can) why she did it. My next question is always how I would react under similar circumstances, and I really don't know, and I've been interrogated by LE before.

But does that make her a murderer? Lying is something criminals do, but that statement is so devoid of details, it makes me wonder if she was even there during the murder.

In my opinion,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I really dislike getting into these philosophical BS sessions, like is "Rudy" the same as "Rudi" and "Can a guilty person be 'framed'".

But from what you are saying, it seems as if under pressure she repeats, for the sake of not being hit or threatened or otherwise mistreated, what she is told, with no intent to deceive (because she has no real certainty of what they are seeking but is complying with their force) she is indeed stating a "lie".

I suggest that persons under coercion do not lie, but state falsehoods to protect themselves in the short-term. There is a difference if you consider intent and moral responsibility. Amanda's situation is not a unique one. There are many cases of false statements and false confessions elicited under coercion and, of course, torture. The case law of the ECHR is full of such cases, and they are common in the US. Look at the National Registry of Exonerations for the numbers (https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx).

In my opinion, such statements are not lies, but falsehoods or false statements. And there is a difference that reduces the philosophical clutter. It's like distinguishing "frame" and "official misconduct".

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

ETA: A false statement is untrue; but it may not be stated to deceive. It may be the result of error or as an attempt to satirize or to entertain or to prevent the infliction of pain.

-

Yeah, I can understand that you think it's a BS session, because I'm really just thinking out loud, so to speak, and I didn't think the Rudy vs Rudi thing was productive either, but it was interesting, to me anyway.

Were you here during the big discussion about cellphone tower pings? Oh my GAWD was that boring, but I still learned a lot from that discussion.

I'll stop now.

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

That was quickly copied from wiki, and I would have left Freud out. I am curious now whether Amanda had any inkling she was a suspect when they said stop lying or you won't see your family for 30 years (that is from memory and maybe not accurate).

-

I think I remember hearing that from somewhere also,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

They also counted the shoe rings again and found they match after all. In accordance with Italian law though, the shoes and photographs unfortunately turned out to have been accidentally stored in an incinerator by Nobel prize winning, professor of forensic science, Patrizia Stephony.

Maybe they should retest the Meredith DNA on the knife blade, as well as the DNA on the bra-clasp, one Y-haplotype of which belongs to a group of men from which Raffaele cannot be excluded.

Oh wait - Stefanoni destroyed the bra-clasp through improper storage. But the Meredith DNA (found by Stefanoni in a groove on the blade which no one else could see, and which Stefanoni told the Massei court could not be photographed) is not Stefanoni's fault. The alleged sample was so small, only one destructive test could be done on it.

(All this is taken from the Nobel Citation in awarding Stefanoni her prize.)

 

[Kauffer]

-


-


It's an interesting question that if she is just saying it to make the interrogation stop, or is coerced into saying it, or just because they ask her too, is it still a lie? Are there rules to lying that make them not a lies? What about little white lies? The problem here is that what she said, ended up accusing someone of murder.

Patrick's life was ruined by that one act.

She shouldn't have done it, but I can understand (or at least think I can) why she did it. My next question is always how I would react under similar circumstances, and I really don't know, and I've been interrogated by LE before.

But does that make her a murderer? Lying is something criminals do, but that statement is so devoid of details, it makes me wonder if she was even there during the murder.

In my opinion,

d

-

I don't think it's relevant to say "she shouldn't have done it". This compromise idea of the Hellmann court that she was cajoled by the police and gave them Lumumba to get out of her bind but she knew or alternatively should have known that he was innocent, just doesn't wash, let alone Nencini's nonsense.

As Dan wrote earlier, we know the police were all over the idea of Lumumba being the protagonist they later discovered was, in fact, Guede, before Ms Knox's interrogation. This fact gives the absolute lie to the contention that it was Ms Knox who brought Lumunba's name to the police's attention. No! It was the police who brought him up and wanted Ms Knox to confirm what they "already knew to be true". The rest of it is all about the internalization and adoption of the police's "truth" by Ms Knox - a phenomenon that pervades the academic literature and the cases of the wrongfully convicted.

 

[Numbers]

-


-


It's an interesting question that if she is just saying it to make the interrogation stop, or is coerced into saying it, or just because they ask her too, is it still a lie? Are there rules to lying that make them not a lies? What about little white lies? The problem here is that what she said, ended up accusing someone of murder.

Patrick's life was ruined by that one act.

She shouldn't have done it, but I can understand (or at least think I can) why she did it. My next question is always how I would react under similar circumstances, and I really don't know, and I've been interrogated by LE before.

But does that make her a murderer? Lying is something criminals do, but that statement is so devoid of details, it makes me wonder if she was even there during the murder.

In my opinion,

d

-

If Amanda had walked into the police station of her own free will, and, without having been "questioned" - coercively interrogated - by police, named Patrick Lumumba as the person who had murdered and raped Meredith, then indeed Amanda would be morally culpable.

But that is NOT what happened. Do you know how many times Amanda was threatened or slapped before she agreed to the POLICE STATEMENT that Lumumba was the murderer, or that she had met Lumumba the night of the murder? Have you investigated the literature on the effects of coercive interrogation on sleep-deprived persons? People subjected to coercion or torture are not morally responsible for the false (or true) statements they make, IMO.

The police, of course, say that they and Amanda had a little chat while they fed her tea and cookies. You may believe that if you wish.

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Desert Fox]

If Amanda had walked into the police station of her own free will, and, without having been "questioned" - coercively interrogated - by police, named Patrick Lumumba as the person who had murdered and raped Meredith, then indeed Amanda would be morally culpable.

But that is NOT what happened. Do you know how many times Amanda was threatened or slapped before she agreed to the POLICE STATEMENT that Lumumba was the murderer, or that she had met Lumumba the night of the murder? Have you investigated the literature on the effects of coercive interrogation on sleep-deprived persons? People subjected to coercion or torture are not morally responsible for the false (or true) statements they make, IMO.

The police, of course, say that they and Amanda had a little chat while they fed her tea and cookies. You may believe that if you wish.

You are entitled to your opinion.

We have police officers who admit that often interrogations get extremely forceful. I don't think that there is any reason to assume that Amanda's was any different in that respect.

Interestingly, I have read that Peter Reilly asked the officer who got him to confess if he might live at his home. The police will pretend to bond with you as well.