Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

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".

There's a huge difference between a) being suspicious and b) employing confirmation bias and tunnel vision. The Perugia police had every right to be suspicious of Knox (and, to an extent, Sollecito). The problem was that they jumped to incorrect conclusions extremely early on, then went looking for evidence - and misinterpreted existing evidence - to support those conclusions.

(BTW, MI6 is not the "police intelligence arm" in the UK. It has no organisational link to the police at all. It's a totally separate agency. Intelligence for the police in the UK is done mainly by Special Branch and the intelligence unit of SOCA.)

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

No, I think they planned to arrest Knox some time in the middle of the night. I think they reasoned that if they started on Sollecito at around 10pm, they'd easily be able to "break" him within a couple of hours or so, and therefore they would be in a position to go and snatch a tired, disorientated and scared Knox by 2-3am at the latest.

And that plan, with those sorts of timings, would have a couple of distinct advantages for the police/PM. Firstly, it's always easier to go out and arrest someone in the community in the middle of the night (the suspect is likely to be asleep in a known location, is therefore likely to put up far less resistance to entry and arrest, and there are far fewer other people around on the streets etc to complicate things). And secondly, the suspect is likely to be more pliable if interrogated immediately: (s)he has just been woken in the middle of the night and hauled in with force and aggression, so mental resistance should be lowered.

I think the police "knew" that Knox was the cunning brains behind things, and that she was somehow controlling Sollecito to lie for her. I think they probably saw Sollecito as a weak man whom they'd be able to break easily, but I think they saw Knox as a shrewd operator and a seasoned liar. And I wouldn't be at all surprised therefore if the whole plan of action was put together with the explicit aim of maximising the opportunity to "break" Knox, whom the police viewed as the real (and challenging) target. It could have been, for example, that the police/PM had come to their conclusions about the crime early in the day on the 5th, but that they very deliberately held their plan back until that night in order to be able to haul Knox out of bed in a daze once Sollecito had "buckled".

 

[LondonJohn]

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

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

What's "amazing" about the timing of the return of the phones? Phones were discovered, they were handed in to the police, they were traced to an address, they were returned to that address. Why does the fact that they ended up being returned at some time just before 1pm on 1st November seem "amazing"? In the proper context - Kercher was murdered the night before, and the pieces of the puzzle were naturally falling into place throughout the following morning (nobody able to contact Kercher, her room door being found locked, signs of a break-in at the cottage and some blood, her stolen phones being found and handed in) - it's no surprise whatsoever that the Postal Police arriving with the phones happened to take place only shortly after Knox/Sollecito had called the Carabinieri, and while Romanelli et al were on their way over.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

"flirting"?

And there are extremely sound reasons why lie detector test results are not admissible as evidence in England & Wales courts. Such tests can be used to help aid police investigations, but nothing more. You need proper evidence of guilt to show a court - a positive lie detector test will not do. Think about why that might be the case..............

 

[andreajo]

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.

The American Psychological Association does not place much faith in the reliability of lie detectors. From The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests) published by the APA on August 5, 2004:

Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability.

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.

It might have appeared bizarrely callous to Giobbi, or to you, but neither one of you knew/knows what was going on inside her head.

This characterization of her behaviour as "bizarrely callous" is the kind of leap from suspicion to conclusion that ends up being a self-propagating bias toward guilty of murder.

The more behaviour you see that you perceive to be suspicious, the more suspicious behaviour you look for. The more suspicious behaviour you look for, the more you find, because now you are in full confirmation-bias mode. You begin to over interpret suspicious explanations for behaviour and discount normal explanations for behaviour.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

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.

The mindset you betray with these posts is indicative of confirmation bias. You argue from a conclusion of guilt backwards to distorted representations of behaviour, which you frame and interpret in pejorative terms in order to support such a conclusion. It is monstrous. You even manage to convince yourself elsewhere using the same grossly flawed method, such that "because" she's guilty, the luminol prints must be blood, the mixed samples can only have been deposited together during the commission of the murder and of course, the lamp can only have been left in Kercher's room by Amanda in its aftermath.

The prosecutors' light is shone on Amanda and you dutifully follow their direction to look here but not there, seeing only what they want you to see. Your arguments are their arguments and portray you as a willing and gullible dupe - misdirected, confused, confounded and befuddled by mere stories.

 

[Bill Williams]

The American Psychological Association does not place much faith in the reliability of lie detectors. From The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests) published by the APA on August 5, 2004:





It might have appeared bizarrely callous to Giobbi, or to you, but neither one of you knew/knows what was going on inside her head.

This characterization of her behaviour as "bizarrely callous" is the kind of leap from suspicion to conclusion that ends up being a self-propagating bias toward guilty of murder.

The more behaviour you see that you perceive to be suspicious, the more suspicious behaviour you look for. The more suspicious behaviour you look for, the more you find, because now you are in full confirmation-bias mode. You begin to over interpret suspicious explanations for behaviour and discount normal explanations for behaviour.

This quickly, then, develops into a subject that even Judge Massei had to consider in his motivations report.

Suspect-centred investigations.

The problem, really, with suspect-centric investigations is that other suspects (and other theories) are discounted way, way too soon. Generalized evidence collection stops (eg. semen stains are not tested, the outside door handle of Meredith's door is not forensicly examined.... an investigator later said that the reason for that omission was that the outside door-handle was not part of the "crime-scene".....). Suspect-centric evidnce collection begins (eg. suddenly finding a use 46 days later for a torn-off bra-clasp, which was noted and left in situ*** the days of the first forensic sweep.)

*** only when they returned they found it was NOT where it had been 46 days' previous. That alone should have disqualified the clasp as forensicly revealing. That is was not disqualified only adds to the suspect-centric conclusions; like the on Judge Nencini drew, "The important thing is that they found Raffaele's presence on the clasp."

Taken "osmotically", Nencini's conclusion was bunk, and bunk for a very revealing reason. Nencini followed in the grand tradition of this case - suspect-centrism.

A suspect-centrism which made them have to accept Quintavalle, Curatolo and Nara literally months after the investigation should have ceased....

 

[Dougm]

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.

LOL!! You have got to be kidding.

 

[carbonjam72]

No, I think they planned to arrest Knox some time in the middle of the night. I think they reasoned that if they started on Sollecito at around 10pm, they'd easily be able to "break" him within a couple of hours or so, and therefore they would be in a position to go and snatch a tired, disorientated and scared Knox by 2-3am at the latest.

And that plan, with those sorts of timings, would have a couple of distinct advantages for the police/PM. Firstly, it's always easier to go out and arrest someone in the community in the middle of the night (the suspect is likely to be asleep in a known location, is therefore likely to put up far less resistance to entry and arrest, and there are far fewer other people around on the streets etc to complicate things). And secondly, the suspect is likely to be more pliable if interrogated immediately: (s)he has just been woken in the middle of the night and hauled in with force and aggression, so mental resistance should be lowered.

I think the police "knew" that Knox was the cunning brains behind things, and that she was somehow controlling Sollecito to lie for her. I think they probably saw Sollecito as a weak man whom they'd be able to break easily, but I think they saw Knox as a shrewd operator and a seasoned liar. And I wouldn't be at all surprised therefore if the whole plan of action was put together with the explicit aim of maximising the opportunity to "break" Knox, whom the police viewed as the real (and challenging) target. It could have been, for example, that the police/PM had come to their conclusions about the crime early in the day on the 5th, but that they very deliberately held their plan back until that night in order to be able to haul Knox out of bed in a daze once Sollecito had "buckled".

Hey Lj, I think the police view of Amanda changed over time. At the initial arrest, Patrick had the dominant role. Once the police lost Patrick, and found Rudy, Amanda was promoted to the mastermind and prime mover of the attack. I think that's when the faux persona meme began to develop. Whereas the sex meme was present at the outset due to the inherent uncertainty of the coroners finding of sexual activity.

In short, I think you're compressing the time line of police thinking, moving conclusions they arrived at later, to the beginning, and overlooking how the police theory of the crime as contradictory evidence kept blowing apart their hypothesis du jour.

 

[Dougm]

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.

It might have appeared bizarrely callous to Giobbi, or to you, but neither one of you knew/knows what was going on inside her head.

This characterization of her behaviour as "bizarrely callous" is the kind of leap from suspicion to conclusion that ends up being a self-propagating bias toward guilty of murder.

We can analyze this to death, except that ... Amanda did not "flirt" with Giobbi! No one has ever said she did, prior to this moment on ISF!

It's amazing how the discussion can head off in weird directions simply because someone makes a statement out of the blue.

 

[Vixen]

"flirting"?

And there are extremely sound reasons why lie detector test results are not admissible as evidence in England & Wales courts. Such tests can be used to help aid police investigations, but nothing more. You need proper evidence of guilt to show a court - a positive lie detector test will not do. Think about why that might be the case..............

That's true, and rightly so, as these tests can be manipulated.

Behaviour however is a useful tool.

 

[Vixen]

The American Psychological Association does not place much faith in the reliability of lie detectors. From The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests) published by the APA on August 5, 2004:





It might have appeared bizarrely callous to Giobbi, or to you, but neither one of you knew/knows what was going on inside her head.

This characterization of her behaviour as "bizarrely callous" is the kind of leap from suspicion to conclusion that ends up being a self-propagating bias toward guilty of murder.

The more behaviour you see that you perceive to be suspicious, the more suspicious behaviour you look for. The more suspicious behaviour you look for, the more you find, because now you are in full confirmation-bias mode. You begin to over interpret suspicious explanations for behaviour and discount normal explanations for behaviour.

No, you have to look at the whole picture. The detectives good at this rise through the ranks.

 

[Dougm]

Hey Lj, I think the police view of Amanda changed over time. At the initial arrest, Patrick had the dominant role. Once the police lost Patrick, and found Rudy, Amanda was promoted to the mastermind and prime mover of the attack. I think that's when the faux persona meme began to develop. Whereas the sex meme was present at the outset due to the inherent uncertainty of the coroners finding of sexual activity.

In short, I think you're compressing the time line of police thinking, moving conclusions they arrived at later, to the beginning, and overlooking how the police theory of the crime as contradictory evidence kept blowing apart their hypothesis du jour.

I don't agree, and I think LJ is right. While I have no way of knowing for sure, the subsequent actions of the PM and police tell me their theory of the crime was heavily influenced by their views (at least Mignini's views) of morality and sexuality, and what they thought of Amanda because of her openness and naivete, which they read as crass and immoral. In essence, I think Mig assumed all along that this crime was committed by a man or men, but under the influence of the evil vixen Amanda, who's openly sexual ways were too much for these weak men to resist.

I don't think they started thinking of Amanda as the mastermind after Lumumba was released -- I think they thought of her as the mastermind very early on, and just replaced one man for another when Guede turned out to actually have evidence against him, and Lumumba had an alibi. It's too bad they did not have a hypothesis du jour, because if they did, maybe one of them would have been "Rudy did it himself".

 

[Vixen]

We can analyze this to death, except that ... Amanda did not "flirt" with Giobbi! No one has ever said she did, prior to this moment on ISF!

It's amazing how the discussion can head off in weird directions simply because someone makes a statement out of the blue.

Giobbi perceived it as a flirtatious shimmy. Amanda in her book claimed she imagined herself a being the star of some musical.

Thank goodness she didn't also burst into, "The hills are alive, with the sound of muuuusic".

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

I have to agree with you Vixen, the police likely did find the behavioral facts that Amanda and Raf were breathing, had heart beats, and may have perspired, to be very suspicious indeed.

And, their willingness to speak to the police without legal protection and appear otherwise naive and gullible, was no doubt part of a dastardly plan to appear to have nothing to hide, which could not help but be seen by the clousseau like genius giobbi as an important clue that they had a great deal to hide.

As to giobbi a perception of flirting, I'd imagine many women appear similarly suspicios as well.

As for you quote signature, highlighted in blue, which seems so often a part of your posting ritual, I wonder what the bard would make of that?

 

[Vixen]

I have to agree with you Vixen, the police likely did find the behavioral facts that Amanda and Raf were breathing, had heart beats, and may have perspired, to be very suspicious indeed.

And, their willingness to speak to the police without legal protection and appear otherwise naive and gullible, was no doubt part of a dastardly plan to appear to have nothing to hide, which could not help but be seen by the clousseau like genius giobbi as an important clue that they had a great deal to hide.

As to giobbi a perception of flirting, I'd imagine many women appear similarly suspicios as well.

As for you quote signature, highlighted in blue, which seems so often a part of your posting ritual, I wonder what the bard would make of that?

Of itself, it means nothing at all. The real evidence as meticulously collected by the police and the forensic team has been downplayed by the various usual suspects and false stories about police supposedly not liking her vibrator or promiscuity is substituted in its place. Even a salacious lie that Mignini claimed it was a "satanic rite".

At best such stories are anecdotal, a clue to character perhaps. After all, the habits and character of Rudy is exceedingly important to some posters here so clearly behaviour is admissable.

Truth is, the case has nothing to do with personality, except perhaps in criminal profiling, and everything to do with crimes committed.

 

[andreajo]

No, you have to look at the whole picture. The detectives good at this rise through the ranks.

I am getting a better understanding of your idea of good policing.

I went to some trouble to find and put forward evidence about why I think about the case the way I do. I would have liked to see you do the same.

 

[Mr Fied]

Of itself, it means nothing at all. The real evidence as meticulously collected by the police and the forensic team has been downplayed by the various usual suspects and false stories about police supposedly not liking her vibrator or promiscuity is substituted in its place. Even a salacious lie that Mignini claimed it was a "satanic rite".

At best such stories are anecdotal, a clue to character perhaps. After all, the habits and character of Rudy is exceedingly important to some posters here so clearly behaviour is admissable.

Truth is, the case has nothing to do with personality, except perhaps in criminal profiling, and everything to do with crimes committed.

Would this be the bloody footprints that weren't blood?
Or the womans shoeprint that wasn't a womans shoeprint?
Or the meticulously swabbed DNA samples?
Or the missed bra clasp that was moved around the room for weeks before it was collected?
Or the victims bloodied clothes that nobody bothered to collect?
Or the possible semen stain that wasn't tested?
Or the unfeasibly clean kitchen knife that was dirty?
Or the bleach receipts?
Or the witness statements that were taken within hours, sorry, months/years of the crime?

 

[acbytesla]

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.

By who's account? Not by her's.

 

[Ken Dine]

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?

Doubtful since the police were seemingly only trying to get Raffaele to recant his alibi for Amanda, which if successful would only lead to more intense questioning of Amanda, which appears to have already been set up to happen in the wee-hours of Nov 6th.

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)?

That's the way I see it too.