Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Yes. And I would like to see the case where someone is under the magnifying glass as accused in a murder case - and importantly in retrospect analysis - and they don't commit some "error" in behavior that would be interpreted as "suspicious". Whatever that means.

It seems to me that this discussion re suspicious behavior has such a low threshold as to be near meaningless. Framed this way you have to agree that they committed suspisious behaviors. Of something! Aren't we all suspicious?

This captures precisely what I failed to say adequately. Thank you.

 

[Antony]

In Giobbi's testimony, the important behaviors of Amanda and Raffaele that he stated raised his suspicions included:

1. He perceived that Amanda wiggled her hips and said "voila" while she raised her arms after she had put on her protective booties before entering the downstairs flat.

2. Raffaele at one point (on Nov. 2, 3, or 4) showed up at the police station apparently to pick up Amanda to take her home (if I understand the Google translation properly). He was perceived by Giobbi (or officers relaying information to Giobbi) as showing "attitude" of some kind.

ETA: In my opinion, the "suspicious behaviors" are issues of cultural difference, an intolerance for the relative difference in maturity levels of middle-aged police and college-age students, or simply a smoke-screen to cover-up the identification of "convenient suspects". Giobbi in fact places great emphasis in the beginning of his testimony on the identification of those close to Meredith who had "weak" (easily defeated) alibis. I suggest this observation of easily defeated alibis in those who were "at hand" for the police was the overwhelming "suspicious behavior". By "at hand" I mean physically available to the police - not requiring a search for an unknown supsected person based on fingerprints, DNA, or other forensic evidence. Such "at hand" persons are "convenient suspects" if their alibis can be readily, if not honestly, defeated - for example, by arresting a sole alibi witness as a co-conspirator. That was the case here.

IOW, "solving" the crime the easy way. That is the police approach that is behind numerous wrongful prosecutions.

I didn't start following this case until after the Massei convictions, but this was my overwhelming impression right from the beginning.

 

[MichaelB]

Here's the latest from Fred Davies

The Brutal Killing of Meredith Kercher: A Search For The Truth – Part 26*

http://www.criminallawandjustice.co...lling-Meredith-Kercher-Search-Truth-–-Part-26

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with Rule 4 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[MichaelB]

I have this guys email address if anyone wants to write to him and set him straight. He's wrong about just about everything!

 

[Antony]

I have this guys email address if anyone wants to write to him and set him straight. He's wrong about just about everything!

Maybe Amanda or Raff's lawyers should write to him and set him straight.

 

[Vixen]

I tend to agree. A feature of our confirmation bias mechanism is that we interpret minor details as supporting our conclusions.

Police are suspicious, it is what they are trained to be. M16 the police intelligence arm in the UK relies on suspicions being reported.

I have often wondered whether the postal police really did turn up "quite by chance".

 

[Numbers]

I'll repeat the opinion that I've given before on this matter:

I believe it's highly possible that the police (in conjunction with the PM) wanted the following choreography to take place on the night of 5th/6th November. First off, I believe the police/PM thought they "knew" by this point (i.e. the evening of the 5th) that Knox was directly involved in the murder in some way, and that Sollecito was at the very least covering for her by lying to police about Knox having been in his apartment all evening/night. So they wanted to bring Sollecito in first, alone. They would then work on Sollecito until he dropped his protection of Knox, admitted to the police that he had been lying to protect her, and told the police what they "already knew to be correct" - that Knox had left his apartment that night.

Once they'd broken Sollecito in this way, the police would obviously have just cause to arrest Knox. I believe the plan was to send the primed arrest squad out to get Knox, with maximum fanfare and probably a tip-off to the media. The police would have been surveilling Knox, so they'd know where to go to get her. They knew they'd get lots of kudos for the drama of the arrest. Once they'd got Knox in, they'd confront her with Sollecito's abandonment of her, and get her in turn to "buckle" and tell them "what they already knew to be correct".

But Knox thwarted their choreography by coming to the police HQ with Sollecito. I think that the police anger/frustration was everything to do with the sentiment of "Not yet! We don't want her here yet! We want to be able to go out into town and get her with maximum fanfare and publicity".

And I think that this explanation fits well with the verious statements made by police, which on the face of it might have seemed contradictory. I think Giobbi was correct in saying that Knox was definitely going to be brought into the police HQ that night. What he omits to say, however, is that the plan was to bring Knox in only after Sollecito had been "broken".

This scenario makes sense. Giobbi is a top police officer and his statements and testimony must be considered carefully. This is not to say that they are necessarily truthful (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth), but they have meaning in context.

For example, when in the context of his court testimony, when Giobbi explains that the blood found on the light switch in the downstairs flat was due to the ear-injured cat jumping (an explanation which he may have gotten from Stefanoni), that has meaning for what Giobbi wants the Court and the public to believe. Of course, it sounds absurd to anyone who has had a cat for a pet, or knows something of cat behavior. But it is important to the police and the prosecution NOT to investigate, or admit there should be an investigation, of the blood in the downstairs flat. So don't concern yourself about it, Court and public. That is Giobbi's message.

 

[carbonjam72]

This scenario makes sense. Giobbi is a top police officer and his statements and testimony must be considered carefully. This is not to say that they are necessarily truthful (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth), but they have meaning in context.

For example, when in the context of his court testimony, when Giobbi explains that the blood found on the light switch in the downstairs flat was due to the ear-injured cat jumping (an explanation which he may have gotten from Stefanoni), that has meaning for what Giobbi wants the Court and the public to believe. Of course, it sounds absurd to anyone who has had a cat for a pet, or knows something of cat behavior. But it is important to the police and the prosecution NOT to investigate, or admit there should be an investigation, of the blood in the downstairs flat. So don't concern yourself about it, Court and public. That is Giobbi's message.

Raf breaking and saying he didn't know if Amanda stayed in that night, or even saying she went out, would that provide a basis to arrest Amanda, or simply bring her in for more questioning?

I can see the tag team set-up for questioning, since they planned to get to amanda before her mother arrived. I can't see the 'sirens blasting' scenario, based only on Raf's cracking (unless it included a, "yes, she came home a bloody mess and I confusedly remember helping her wash her bloody clothes).

I thought it was only amanda's breaking and naming Patrick as the murderer, and placing herself at the crime scene that made the arrests possible, and even then, there was reportedly debate as to whether to arrest them at that point (according to follain)?

 

[Bill Williams]

Raf breaking and saying he didn't know if Amanda stayed in that night, or even saying she went out, would that provide a basis to arrest Amanda, or simply bring her in for more questioning?

I can see the tag team set-up for questioning, since they planned to get to amanda before her mother arrived. I can't see the 'sirens blasting' scenario, based only on Raf's cracking (unless it included a, "yes, she came home a bloody mess and I confusedly remember helping her wash her bloody clothes).

I thought it was only amanda's breaking and naming Patrick as the murderer, and placing herself at the crime scene that made the arrests possible, and even then, there was reportedly debate as to whether to arrest them at that point (according to follain)?

Add to this that Mignini said two things about Amanda. One, she was a liar an an actress. Two, we had to arrest Lumumba because Amanda accused him.

The only way that can make sense is if their ultimate goal of the all-nighter was to find a pretext to arrest Lumumba. Like falling dominoes they had to get Raffaele to give them something, anything to turn the screws on Amanda. That "something" was the way the police put it to Amanda: Raffaele was pulling his alibi for her.

Was this anything near what was actually going on in Raffaele's room?

 

[acbytesla]

Police are suspicious, it is what they are trained to be. M16 the police intelligence arm in the UK relies on suspicions being reported.

I have often wondered whether the postal police really did turn up "quite by chance".

Wow, we agree about something. Police are taught to be suspicious of everything and everyone. That's their job. But cops will tell you that their very presence makes some people act unusually. That it can have a spiraling effect. That their scrutiny increases a suspects odd behavior which leads to even more intense scrutiny and so on.

I don't believe the postal police showed up by chance at all. They knew exactly where they were going. They went to return the phones to their rightful owners. They didn't suspect a murder..no one did.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow, we agree about something. Police are taught to be suspicious of everything and everyone. That's their job. But cops will tell you that their very presence makes some people act unusually. That it can have a spiraling effect. That their scrutiny increases a suspects odd behavior which leads to even more intense scrutiny and so on.

I don't believe the postal police showed up by chance at all. They knew exactly where they were going. They went to return the phones to their rightful owners. They didn't suspect a murder..no one did.

With the possible exception of Filomena, just about everyone had the same impression of the scene. There were obvious elements of a break-in, but there was no obvious burglary. While all these "suspicions' were being processed, no one (save for perhaps Filomena) could focus their suspicions onto what ended up being revealed..... that Meredith could have come to harm. Not the P.P., not Amanda, and certainly not Raffaele.... but no one, other than Filomena put together the 2 + 2 of the missing phones and what that could mean about Meredith.

It's not just "police presence". The fact of a horrible murder of a friend launches everyone into uncharted territory, including how one reacts. From this vantage point 7 1/2 years later, it seems ludicrous that seasoned cops claimed to be able to solve this on behavioural clues alone - like eating pizza when they "should" be home crying.

 

[Ken Dine]

I'll repeat the opinion that I've given before on this matter:

I believe it's highly possible that the police (in conjunction with the PM) wanted the following choreography to take place on the night of 5th/6th November. First off, I believe the police/PM thought they "knew" by this point (i.e. the evening of the 5th) that Knox was directly involved in the murder in some way, and that Sollecito was at the very least covering for her by lying to police about Knox having been in his apartment all evening/night. So they wanted to bring Sollecito in first, alone. They would then work on Sollecito until he dropped his protection of Knox, admitted to the police that he had been lying to protect her, and told the police what they "already knew to be correct" - that Knox had left his apartment that night.

Once they'd broken Sollecito in this way, the police would obviously have just cause to arrest Knox. I believe the plan was to send the primed arrest squad out to get Knox, with maximum fanfare and probably a tip-off to the media.

The police would have been surveilling Knox, so they'd know where to go to get her. They knew they'd get lots of kudos for the drama of the arrest. Once they'd got Knox in, they'd confront her with Sollecito's abandonment of her, and get her in turn to "buckle" and tell them "what they already knew to be correct".

But Knox thwarted their choreography by coming to the police HQ with Sollecito. I think that the police anger/frustration was everything to do with the sentiment of "Not yet! We don't want her here yet! We want to be able to go out into town and get her with maximum fanfare and publicity".

And I think that this explanation fits well with the various statements made by police, which on the face of it might have seemed contradictory. I think Giobbi was correct in saying that Knox was definitely going to be brought into the police HQ that night. What he omits to say, however, is that the plan was to bring Knox in only after Sollecito had been "broken".

I agree that something like what you describe happened. While the police likely did only ask Raffaele to come in that night, that doesn't mean they weren't also planning on interrogating Amanda later that night – after all, they had 12 detectives on hand at the station around 11:00 pm, five of whom were brought in from Rome, and having that many cops on hand, at that hour, certainly weren't needed to interrogate only Raffaele.

There are two possibilities:

1 - from watching them together for several days, they likely knew Amanda would tag along; or

2 - if Amanda didn't tag along, then they knew where she was and could quickly fetch her.

I agree with you that their tactic was to first interrogate Raffaele so that they could then tell Amanda during her subsequent interrogation that Raffaele no longer supported her alibi. No need for Raffaele to actually revoke his alibi, they just wanted the presumably guilty (and presumably paranoid) Amanda to think Raffael had abandoned her, which is why Raffaele had to go first that night.

Either scenario #1 or #2 above would allow for that "Reid Interrogation" tactic to work.

Where I disagree with you is the part where you feel the next morning they would go arrest Amanda with fanfare, much as they did with Lumumba.

The police knew Amanda's mother was arriving the next morning, so for their plan to succeed, they had to get their confession signed before Amanda's mom arrived the next morning and hired a lawyer.

 

[andreajo]

I tend to agree. A feature of our confirmation bias mechanism is that we interpret minor details as supporting our conclusions.

Police are suspicious, it is what they are trained to be. M16 the police intelligence arm in the UK relies on suspicions being reported.

A bug / feature of human thinking is the tendency to discern meaningful patterns in random or unrelated phenomena - a suspicion, gut feeling, a hunch. The problem with suspicions is that some people in some circumstances have difficulty in separating suspicions from evidence or even proof of the thing that they were suspicious of in the first place. Instead of taking the suspicion as a hypotheses to be tested, they jump over that part and go straight to the conclusion.

“Clearly, the tendency to look for order and to spot patterns is enormously helpful, particularly when we subject whatever hunches it generates to further, more rigorous test (as both Semmelweis and Darwin did, for example). Many times, however, we treat the products of this tendency not as hypotheses, but as established facts. The predisposition to impose order can be so automatic and so unchecked that we often end up believing in the existence of phenomena that just aren’t there.”

Excerpt From: Thomas Gilovich. “How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life.” iBooks. Chapter 2 - Something Out of Nothing

Modern law enforcement agencies, doubtless including MI6, train investigators about the cognitive bias to help them to avoid the pitfalls of jumping from suspicion to conclusion.

An interesting article entitled Criminal Investigative Failures: Avoiding the Pitfalls by D. Kim Rossmo, Ph. D. was published in two parts in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin It is an easy read and goes over cognitive biases, probability errors, and organizational traps that can lead to errors in the investigation of crimes.

It is worth reading both parts in their entirety. Here are some points that struck me as being particularly relevant to AK/RS. They would, of course, given my own biases.
Part One - Cognitive Biases from September 2006 Volume 75 Number 9

"Satisficing is the selection of the first alternative that appears good enough. These heuristics might work well for simple errands, such as buying a hammer, but they are ill suited to the task of solving complex investigations."

"...impressions remain even after the initial evidence they were based on is discounted. Often termed the “curse of knowledge,” this can lead to contrived theories that people cling to in the face of no evidence to support them."

Part Two - Probability Errors from October 2006 Volume 75 Number 10
PIP will like the Prosecutor's Fallacy:

The prosecutor’s fallacy occurs when people equate the probability of the evidence given guilt with the probability of guilt given the evidence. Put simply, while all cows are four- legged animals, not all four- legged animals are cows. This error (known as transposing the conditional) can occur in both forensic science and behavioral profiling.

PGP will enjoy the defence attorney's fallacy. The article goes on to use the OJ Simpson case as an example.

The defense attorney’s fallacy occurs when evidence is considered in isolation, rather than in totality.

The article wraps up with the group dynamics or "Organizational Traps" that can make it difficult for LE to abandon an initial theory that is not supported by emerging evidence. There is a particularly interesting section on groupthink.

the main symptoms of groupthink include three fundamental aspects.

1. Power overestimation: belief in the group's invulnerability (resulting in unwarranted optimism and risk taking); and belief in the morality of the group's purpose (leading to ignoring the ethical consequences of decisions).
2. Close-mindedness: group rationalizations; discrediting of warning signs; and negative stereotyping of the group’s opponents (e.g., evil or stupid).
3. Uniformity pressures: conformity pressures (those who disagree with the dominant views or decisions are seen as disloyal); self-censorship (the withholding of dissenting views and counterarguments); shared illusions of unanimity (silence is perceived as consent, and an incorrect belief exists that everyone agrees with the group’s decision); and self-appointed mind guards (individuals who elect to shield the group from dissenting information).

I have often wondered whether the postal police really did turn up "quite by chance".

Why do you think they turned up? I thought they were returning some phones.

 

[acbytesla]

With the possible exception of Filomena, just about everyone had the same impression of the scene. There were obvious elements of a break-in, but there was no obvious burglary. While all these "suspicions' were being processed, no one (save for perhaps Filomena) could focus their suspicions onto what ended up being revealed..... that Meredith could have come to harm. Not the P.P., not Amanda, and certainly not Raffaele.... but no one, other than Filomena put together the 2 + 2 of the missing phones and what that could mean about Meredith.

It's not just "police presence". The fact of a horrible murder of a friend launches everyone into uncharted territory, including how one reacts. From this vantage point 7 1/2 years later, it seems ludicrous that seasoned cops claimed to be able to solve this on behavioural clues alone - like eating pizza when they "should" be home crying.

It is the behavior of every one involved in this farce is the one thing that fascinates me about this case.. The combination of group think, arrogance, societal pressures, confirmation bias, mainstream media, tabloid press, social media, freelance journalists etc. in my mind is fascinating.

For example, Grinder for example thinks that these post hoc observations by Amanda and Raffaele that their own behavior is significant. But I agree with others that even and maybe especially Amanda's and Raffaele's opinion of their own behavior is likely to be distorted.

I don't think any of us can adequately imagine the pressure cooker that these people were experiencing. Amanda is in a foreign country, having the time of her life one minute, enjoying a torrid love affair and the next moment discovering a new friend was murdered.and then finding herself accused of being involved and the next moment in prison. Being in jail makes you think, because that is all you can do. Actually overthink. Amanda and Raffaele both probably over-examined everything that happened to and around them. They were probably rationalizing everyone and everything including themselves.

I would love to see an academic and scholarly review of human behaviors based on this case. I wish I had the ability to do this.

 

[Vixen]

Wow, we agree about something. Police are taught to be suspicious of everything and everyone. That's their job. But cops will tell you that their very presence makes some people act unusually. That it can have a spiraling effect. That their scrutiny increases a suspects odd behavior which leads to even more intense scrutiny and so on.

I don't believe the postal police showed up by chance at all. They knew exactly where they were going. They went to return the phones to their rightful owners. They didn't suspect a murder..no one did.

Wow I'm going to have to lie down in a dark room <g>.

Amazing timing re the phones, n'est ce-pas?

 

[acbytesla]

Wow I'm going to have to lie down in a dark room <g>.

Amazing timing re the phones, n'est ce-pas?

Why? Seriously, why do you think know so?

 

[Vixen]

Raf breaking and saying he didn't know if Amanda stayed in that night, or even saying she went out, would that provide a basis to arrest Amanda, or simply bring her in for more questioning?

I can see the tag team set-up for questioning, since they planned to get to amanda before her mother arrived. I can't see the 'sirens blasting' scenario, based only on Raf's cracking (unless it included a, "yes, she came home a bloody mess and I confusedly remember helping her wash her bloody clothes).

I thought it was only amanda's breaking and naming Patrick as the murderer, and placing herself at the crime scene that made the arrests possible, and even then, there was reportedly debate as to whether to arrest them at that point (according to follain)?

There was no tag team set up. That was a story made up by Steve Moore, "ex-FBI agent", based on his experiences at Guantanomo Bay (or something). Remember?

D'Oh!

 

[Vixen]

Why? Seriously, why do you think know so?

Just a casual passing thought. Hindsight.

 

[Vixen]

A bug / feature of human thinking is the tendency to discern meaningful patterns in random or unrelated phenomena - a suspicion, gut feeling, a hunch. The problem with suspicions is that some people in some circumstances have difficulty in separating suspicions from evidence or even proof of the thing that they were suspicious of in the first place. Instead of taking the suspicion as a hypotheses to be tested, they jump over that part and go straight to the conclusion.



Modern law enforcement agencies, doubtless including MI6, train investigators about the cognitive bias to help them to avoid the pitfalls of jumping from suspicion to conclusion.

An interesting article entitled Criminal Investigative Failures: Avoiding the Pitfalls by D. Kim Rossmo, Ph. D. was published in two parts in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin It is an easy read and goes over cognitive biases, probability errors, and organizational traps that can lead to errors in the investigation of crimes.

It is worth reading both parts in their entirety. Here are some points that struck me as being particularly relevant to AK/RS. They would, of course, given my own biases.
Part One - Cognitive Biases from September 2006 Volume 75 Number 9

Part Two - Probability Errors from October 2006 Volume 75 Number 10
PIP will like the Prosecutor's Fallacy:

PGP will enjoy the defence attorney's fallacy. The article goes on to use the OJ Simpson case as an example.

The article wraps up with the group dynamics or "Organizational Traps" that can make it difficult for LE to abandon an initial theory that is not supported by emerging evidence. There is a particularly interesting section on groupthink.


Why do you think they turned up? I thought they were returning some phones.

These are some good points. However, it would be a mistake to ignore behaviour. This is because the autonomous nervous system is largely involuntary. It's why we can breathe, our hearts beat and our glands perspire without our thinking about it.

The polygraph (lie detector) works on the principle we have no control over the ANS. Thus, no matter how cool headed you are, or rationally minded, lying is physiologically stressful, causing the damp from the increased perspiration, to cause the galvanometer swing above base rate.

Police and border control officers look out for signs of overly nervous reactions, for example excess sweating, the fight or flight syndrome caused by the adrenal glands kicking out cortisol, adrenaline and noradrenaline, which can cause trembling, the desire to run, fainting, vomiting, pallor, need to defaecate, etc.

It is known criminals are sometimes on a high after a crime. Of course, you will spot it.

Giobbi was a high ranking senior cop who recognises inappropriate behaviour. Amanda flirting with him was a bizarrely callous response whilst on the threshold of the murder scene.

 

[Vixen]

It is the behavior of every one involved in this farce is the one thing that fascinates me about this case.. The combination of group think, arrogance, societal pressures, confirmation bias, mainstream media, tabloid press, social media, freelance journalists etc. in my mind is fascinating.

For example, Grinder for example thinks that these post hoc observations by Amanda and Raffaele that their own behavior is significant. But I agree with others that even and maybe especially Amanda's and Raffaele's opinion of their own behavior is likely to be distorted.

I don't think any of us can adequately imagine the pressure cooker that these people were experiencing. Amanda is in a foreign country, having the time of her life one minute, enjoying a torrid love affair and the next moment discovering a new friend was murdered.and then finding herself accused of being involved and the next moment in prison. Being in jail makes you think, because that is all you can do. Actually overthink. Amanda and Raffaele both probably over-examined everything that happened to and around them. They were probably rationalizing everyone and everything including themselves.

I would love to see an academic and scholarly review of human behaviors based on this case. I wish I had the ability to do this.

By all accounts, Amanda was happy and relaxed in prison. I read somewhere this is the standard response of a sociopath. They are equanimous with their surroundings. They are not known for their sensitivity.