Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

In this article they are using old quotes about Amanda in the introduction. The new interview doesn't mention her at all and focuses on false confessions of innocent people in general.

Forensic Magazine recently spoke with Dr. Saul Kassin about what makes an innocent person confess, and how false confessions can be turned around by simply turning on the cameras.

Forensic Magazine: Public opinion shifted after Amanda Knox confessed early on in the investigation. Even after she recanted, people still believed she was guilty in the face of mounting evidence that suggested otherwise. Why does confession evidence have such power in criminal cases?

Saul Kassin: Most reasonable people believe that a person would not confess unless they were actually guilty. The instinct is to believe confession evidence, especially when people don’t understand the risks that can be associated with them. Confessions are often problematic, but are mostly viewed as if they have no strings attached. The literature is very clear on pointing out the problems, but the general public doesn’t seem to know what those problems are.

Does not read like he is backing off from her having falsely confessed. . . .

 

[bagels]

Vixen I'll trade my Saul Kassin guy secretly believing in Amanda the butcher rookie card for your vintage Alan Dershowitz got it wrong on team Harvard card.

 

[Vixen]

Forensic Magazine recently spoke with Dr. Saul Kassin about what makes an innocent person confess, and how false confessions can be turned around by simply turning on the cameras.

Forensic Magazine: Public opinion shifted after Amanda Knox confessed early on in the investigation. Even after she recanted, people still believed she was guilty in the face of mounting evidence that suggested otherwise. Why does confession evidence have such power in criminal cases?

Saul Kassin: Most reasonable people believe that a person would not confess unless they were actually guilty. The instinct is to believe confession evidence, especially when people don’t understand the risks that can be associated with them. Confessions are often problematic, but are mostly viewed as if they have no strings attached. The literature is very clear on pointing out the problems, but the general public doesn’t seem to know what those problems are.

Does not read like he is backing off from her having falsely confessed. . . .

False confessions are his subject speciality. He no longer advocates for Amanda.

There is zero evidence Amanda was subjected to police brutality, torture or forced confession.

Amanda herself remarks in her Prison Diary the police were much better skilled at questioning than the busybodies she met in prison.

The police are trained in examination techniques to get to the truth. That doesn't equal torture.

 

[Vixen]

Deleted.

 

[bagels]

False confessions are his subject speciality. He no longer advocates for Amanda.

There is zero evidence Amanda was subjected to police brutality, torture or forced confession.

Amanda herself remarks in her Prison Diary the police were much better skilled at questioning than the busybodies she met in prison.

The police are trained in examination techniques to get to the truth. That doesn't equal torture.

He no longer advocates for a girl acquitted and released from prison four years ago? Weird.

You know what else is weird? That every other suspect the police questioned that night claimed the police either hit them or threatened to beat them. Patrick's description of their behavior was particularly vile.

It's also weird that Amanda immediately wrote that her interrogation was abusive and physical, fully prepared for the police to release a tape from their interrogation room of her freely and willingly implicating Patrick. A tape that has yet to come, eight years later. So weird!

 

[Desert Fox]

False confessions are his subject speciality. He no longer advocates for Amanda.

There is zero evidence Amanda was subjected to police brutality, torture or forced confession.

Amanda herself remarks in her Prison Diary the police were much better skilled at questioning than the busybodies she met in prison.

The police are trained in examination techniques to get to the truth. That doesn't equal torture.

We could find out if they followed the proper procedures if we just watched the recording. . . . Ah, snap, it seems to have gone missing.

Maybe Amanda hired a group of Ninjas to steal the disk/tape while she was in prison?

 

[Desert Fox]

He no longer advocates for a girl acquitted and released from prison four years ago? Weird.

You know what else is weird? That every other suspect the police questioned that night claimed the police either hit them or threatened to beat them. Patrick's description of their behavior was particularly vile.

It's also weird that Amanda immediately wrote that her interrogation was abusive and physical, fully prepared for the police to release a tape from their interrogation room of her freely and willingly implicating Patrick. A tape that has yet to come, eight years later. So weird!

I blame Ninjas

 

[Planigale]

The thing is, in the UK a judge's verdict is the end of the matter and there is no written reasons, unless one of the parties asks for it, with a view to appealing.

My guess is, having had the press release from Reuters and Associated Press the verdict was overturned, the UK press, at least assumed the only issue was the 'media attention' and 'stunningly flaws in the investigation' = straight from the short Reuters report, not realising there were actually back pages that incriminate Amanda in particular very badly.

This is not true. In criminal cases where there is a jury, judges cannot give a motivation report because they do not know the jury's rationale for a verdict. Cases are appealed on a judges summing up which can be somewhat similar to a motivation report - sometimes very directive. However in criminal cases where there is no jury something equivalent to a MR is issued by the judges (e.g. judge only courts in NI).

 

[Grinder]

This is not true. In criminal cases where there is a jury, judges cannot give a motivation report because they do not know the jury's rationale for a verdict. Cases are appealed on a judges summing up which can be somewhat similar to a motivation report - sometimes very directive. However in criminal cases where there is no jury something equivalent to a MR is issued by the judges (e.g. judge only courts in NI).

Is there an example of this UK MR from a judge only available? Do they go into the same detail as the Italians?

 

[Planigale]

Desert Fox makes an important point here.

What the Italian authorities accuse Amanda Knox of doing is stating in open court in Italy that the police hit and threatened her during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007. She repeated that statement about alleged police abuse in each of her appeals to the Italian courts. The Italian authorities in prosecuting for calunnia against the police claim that she made those claims to protect herself from a charge of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba.

Thus, the Italian authorities are prosecuting her on charges of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police - aggravated since the Italian authorities claim it was committed it was done to cover up the alleged calunnia against Patrick Lumumba, and continuing because she stated it in court and in her appeals.

Even if Amanda Knox were finally definitively convicted in Italy on these charges, it would have no effect on her in the US, in part because Knox has lodged a complaint with the ECHR against Italy for the wrongful conviction for calunnia against Lumumba. Furthermore, there is no US equivalent to the Italian crime of "calunnia" in terms of description of the act and potential sentence*. Both must correspond in order for extradition to even be considered, according to the extradition treaty between the US and Italy.

Furthermore, the fact that the Italian authorities never effectively investigated Knox's allegations of abuse will also be understood as indicating there was no probable cause for them to charge her with calunnia against the police, and any conviction would be thus have no meaning in the US.

However, one must remember that trials in Italy last a very long time, and that a charge such as calunnia, even though it can carry a maximum sentence of many years of imprisonment, has a statute of limitations. It is likely that the ECHR will address Knox's complaint against Italy, or the statute of limitations will expire, before a definitive final CSC ruling will occur.

* (ETA) That is, the alleged crime would need to be a felony (sentence more than one year) in each country. "Calunnia" in this case cannot be filing a false police report (no report was filed) nor can it be perjury (Amanda established that she was hit and threatened by writing that in her Memoriale 1, which cannot be overcome by the police because they have not produced any contemporaneous recording of the interrogation, and with Memoriale 1 there is evidence that Amanda believed her statement in court to be true, thus it is not perjury in the US).

There is no appeal. The ECHR is not an appeal court. What Knox is doing is bringing a separate case against the Italian state for breach of human rights. The right to counsel. If she wins she will get some compensation. She will not be found not guilty. Italy will be required to remedy the breach. Italy may do nothing and ignore the ECHR. Italy may retry the case, in which case Knox may be found not guilty.

 

[LondonJohn]

Looks like he still stands by Amanda Knox's confession being false and due to police pressure
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...manda-knox-and-truth-behind-false-confessions

Indeed. And on top of all that, there's no real reason Kassin should be commenting at the moment, since the matter is pending at the ECHR. I have little doubt that as and when the ECHR rules on admissibility, Kassin will be providing some commentary.

Besides this, Vixen wasn't merely asserting that Kassin had gone quiet. She was mendaciously (and falsely) claiming that:

"Kassim (sic) was deceived and you note he has now distanced himself from her acordingly (sic)."

More of that fabled thoroughness, accuracy and objectivity in Vixen's research shining through there.......

 

[LondonJohn]

There is no appeal. The ECHR is not an appeal court. What Knox is doing is bringing a separate case against the Italian state for breach of human rights. The right to counsel. If she wins she will get some compensation. She will not be found not guilty. Italy will be required to remedy the breach. Italy may do nothing and ignore the ECHR. Italy may retry the case, in which case Knox may be found not guilty.

If the ECHR rules that Knox's human rights (specifically the right to counsel and the right to a fair trial) were significantly breached, then it will do two things: it will order Italy to compensate Knox, and it will order Italy to apply a full remedy. And in respect of the latter, if the ECHR rules that the HR breaches around the various Knox statements from 6th November 2007 are sufficiently serious (as I suspect they will do), then the ECHR will effectively be ordering Italy to annul the criminal slander conviction. That's because the only practical alternative for Italy in that scenario would be to quash the original conviction and conduct a retrial, but with the exclusion of Knox's statements - which themselves are the sole basis for the conviction!

As you point out, one of the more interesting factors could be around whether Italy complies with any ECHR remedy order, or whether it digs its heels in. If it does the latter, it risks being struck out as a signatory to the Convention, which would have far-reaching ramifications for Italy. Normally, countries only take on ECHR rulings where there are general principles at stake (for example, there's one on the table here in UK at the moment over giving prisoners the right to vote in elections). For that reason, I suspect that Italy would be better off quietly complying with any ECHR directives, and annulling Knox's conviction.

If I were being asked to bet on an outcome, I'd say that IMO the best bet is on the ECHR issuing a pretty damning judgement, pointing out the serious, systematic and choreographed breaches of the law and of Knox's human rights on that fateful night. I think the report will call out such things as the deliberate and planned (and HR-breaching) sleight-of-hand whereby Knox was treated formally as a "person of interest" long after the point when she should, by any reasonable measure, have been being treated as a criminal suspect - and thus informed of and afforded the appropriate rights. I think the report will call out the improper (and HR-breaching) way in which Knox was interrogated that night, from moments after she entered the interrogation room, right through to Mignini's trick of getting Knox to make a "spontaneous declaration" with the deliberate intent of manipulating the law/code to obtain a statement that would be usable in court. I think the report will call out the wholly-inappropriate and improper role played by the police's interpreter. I think the report will call out the grossly improper (and HR-breaching) manipulation of the law by Mignini in denying Knox access to a lawyer until literally moments before her court arraignment. And I think the report will call out the shockingly improper (and HR-breaching) way in which her criminal slander trial was conducted in parallel with the murder trials, thus giving an improper reinforcement loop to each (i.e. "Knox admitted she was there and falsely accused Lumumba, thus Knox participated in the murder - and if Knox participated in the murder, this is the obvious proof of her motivation to falsely accuse Lumumba....").

And I think that Italy will indeed quietly comply with the ECHR directives, and will quietly strike off her criminal slander conviction. We'll see.

 

[Mike1711]

Her entire 'Innocence Project' and Friends of Amanda PR campaign is predicated exactly on her hoax she only framed Patrick because of police brutality and torture.

In so doing, she has attempted to ruin the careers and besmirch the characters of outstanding cops and forensics guys.

Shades of Jodi Arias' prison diary, wherein she claims that only one of the jurors was not corrupt: the one who stood against the death penalty. Everybody else in the court room, says Arias, was as bent as a nine-bob note.

"...outstanding cops and forensic guys." How can you say this in any way other than in jest?

Didn't you read the B/M report?

 

[Bill Williams]

False confessions are his subject speciality. He no longer advocates for Amanda.

He doesn't have to. She's been exonerated.

There is zero evidence Amanda was subjected to police brutality, torture or forced confession.

Amanda herself remarks in her Prison Diary the police were much better skilled at questioning than the busybodies she met in prison.

The police are trained in examination techniques to get to the truth. That doesn't equal torture.

No.... interrogations are solely about getting the suspect to confess. Period. To confess around the narrative the police went into the interrogation with.

"She buckled and told us what we already knew."

 

[Bill Williams]

Indeed. And on top of all that, there's no real reason Kassin should be commenting at the moment, since the matter is pending at the ECHR. I have little doubt that as and when the ECHR rules on admissibility, Kassin will be providing some commentary.

Besides this, Vixen wasn't merely asserting that Kassin had gone quiet. She was mendaciously (and falsely) claiming that:

"Kassim (sic) was deceived and you note he has now distanced himself from her acordingly (sic)."

More of that fabled thoroughness, accuracy and objectivity in Vixen's research shining through there.......

I am shocked, LondonJohn, shocked and disappointed about your veiled accusation that Vixen might be embellishing.........

..... this is not like you to quote someone's words back to them to prove they were embellishing. Wouldn't some veiled reference about Vixen's motives be better.....

Maybe Vixen might want to repost the picture of the window below Filomena's, you know the one with the BARS on it!

 

[Planigale]

If the ECHR rules that Knox's human rights (specifically the right to counsel and the right to a fair trial) were significantly breached, then it will do two things: it will order Italy to compensate Knox, and it will order Italy to apply a full remedy. And in respect of the latter, if the ECHR rules that the HR breaches around the various Knox statements from 6th November 2007 are sufficiently serious (as I suspect they will do), then the ECHR will effectively be ordering Italy to annul the criminal slander conviction. That's because the only practical alternative for Italy in that scenario would be to quash the original conviction and conduct a retrial, but with the exclusion of Knox's statements - which themselves are the sole basis for the conviction!

As you point out, one of the more interesting factors could be around whether Italy complies with any ECHR remedy order, or whether it digs its heels in. If it does the latter, it risks being struck out as a signatory to the Convention, which would have far-reaching ramifications for Italy. Normally, countries only take on ECHR rulings where there are general principles at stake (for example, there's one on the table here in UK at the moment over giving prisoners the right to vote in elections). For that reason, I suspect that Italy would be better off quietly complying with any ECHR directives, and annulling Knox's conviction.

If I were being asked to bet on an outcome, I'd say that IMO the best bet is on the ECHR issuing a pretty damning judgement, pointing out the serious, systematic and choreographed breaches of the law and of Knox's human rights on that fateful night. I think the report will call out such things as the deliberate and planned (and HR-breaching) sleight-of-hand whereby Knox was treated formally as a "person of interest" long after the point when she should, by any reasonable measure, have been being treated as a criminal suspect - and thus informed of and afforded the appropriate rights. I think the report will call out the improper (and HR-breaching) way in which Knox was interrogated that night, from moments after she entered the interrogation room, right through to Mignini's trick of getting Knox to make a "spontaneous declaration" with the deliberate intent of manipulating the law/code to obtain a statement that would be usable in court. I think the report will call out the wholly-inappropriate and improper role played by the police's interpreter. I think the report will call out the grossly improper (and HR-breaching) manipulation of the law by Mignini in denying Knox access to a lawyer until literally moments before her court arraignment. And I think the report will call out the shockingly improper (and HR-breaching) way in which her criminal slander trial was conducted in parallel with the murder trials, thus giving an improper reinforcement loop to each (i.e. "Knox admitted she was there and falsely accused Lumumba, thus Knox participated in the murder - and if Knox participated in the murder, this is the obvious proof of her motivation to falsely accuse Lumumba....").

And I think that Italy will indeed quietly comply with the ECHR directives, and will quietly strike off her criminal slander conviction. We'll see.

I agree with all this.

 

[Desert Fox]

No.... interrogations are solely about getting the suspect to confess. Period. To confess around the narrative the police went into the interrogation with.

"She buckled and told us what we already knew."

Thanks for catching this. . . . .It deserves repeating that interrogations are not really about getting at the truth, they are about getting a confession which they can use against the defendant in some manner - Either by getting them to turn against somebody else or to be used in court.

Of course you can also see the slight of hand with bringing Amanda's confession in with the civil trial tied into the criminal trial. If Amanda was tried for the murder of Meredeth without that, there is effectively no evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for catching this. . . . .It deserves repeating that interrogations are not really about getting at the truth, they are about getting a confession which they can use against the defendant in some manner - Either by getting them to turn against somebody else or to be used in court.

Of course you can also see the slight of hand with bringing Amanda's confession in with the civil trial tied into the criminal trial. If Amanda was tried for the murder of Meredeth without that, there is effectively no evidence.

A New Yorker article about the very first interrogation which Reid conducted....

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/the-interview-7

The Reid Technique begins with the Behavior Analysis Interview, in which you determine whether the suspect is lying. The interview has its roots in polygraph testing, and involves asking a series of nonthreatening questions to get a sense of the suspect’s baseline behavior, and then following up with more loaded questions. Such “behavior-provoking questions” might include “What kind of punishment should they give to the person who committed this crime?” You can also imply that you have evidence, a technique called “baiting.” You might say, “We’re in the process of analyzing evidence from the crime scene. Is there any reason that your DNA would turn up there?”


Senese asked the class, “What do you think is more important, verbal or nonverbal behavior?” Intuitively, we responded, “Nonverbal.” “Yeah,” he said. “That’s the whole ballgame right there.” He told us that a video of an interview without sound would be more likely to reveal lying than one that included the audio. He showed us footage of a dark-haired woman being questioned about having changed her prescription for oxycodone from ten pills to forty. She gave equivocal answers, touched her face, and cast her eyes down and to the left. “I say that’s deceptive,” Senese pronounced. In another video, a bearded bank-robbery suspect sighed and shrugged while giving meandering answers. A teen-ager accused of setting fire to his family’s house responded with details that were oddly specific—such as arriving at school at 7:49 A.M.—while picking at his sock, jiggling his foot, and touching his cheek. When the kid paused to rub his eye, Senese turned and shot us a look.​

Remember how Mignini said Amanda kept hitting her own forehead. That obviously meant she was guilty.

 

[Bill Williams]

More from the article:

Thirty-five years ago, a postdoctoral fellow in psychology named Saul Kassin began researching the psychological factors that affect jury decisions. He noticed that whenever a confession was involved, every juror voted guilty. Alibis and fingerprints didn’t matter in these cases. Kassin read the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1966 Miranda decision and found that it repeatedly cites the Reid Technique manual as the most authoritative source on American interrogation techniques. When he bought the manual, he says, “my first impression was, my God, this reads like a bad psychology textbook. It was filled with assertions with no empirical proof.”

Today, Kassin has appointments at Williams College, in Massachusetts, and at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, in New York, and is widely regarded as a leading expert on false confessions. He believes that the Reid Technique is inherently coercive. The interrogator’s refusal to listen to a suspect’s denials creates feelings of hopelessness, which are compounded by the fake file and by lies about the evidence. At this point, short-term thinking takes over. Confession opens something of an escape hatch, so it is only natural that some people choose it.​

 

[Grinder]

Thanks Bill, I've read some of it and it is a well written and researched article.

“They accused me of hitting the wrong button.” Some even confabulated details, such as “I hit it with the side of my hand.” Not only had they internalized their guilt; they had come up with a story to explain it. Although Kassin made sure to inform the students afterward that the experiment was a hoax, they sometimes replied, “You’re just trying to make me feel better.”

The above fits with Raf and the knife prick.

Vixen I highly recommend you read this. It really seems the two sides of this case and other guilt vs innocent groups hinge on how one accepts confessions and other police techniques. I really have the hardest time understanding why the PGP put such faith in LE. Do they live in fear and think the thin blue line is all that keeps them somewhat safe and any undermining of it will expose them to the underworld?

The other aspect of the article makes clear to me that the police really believe in the technique and when a confession is elicited they have their perp. it explains why they can't stop themselves from perusing the conviction.

We need to make a lawyer available to all if they are suspects. No confession or significant incriminating statement made when questioned without a lawyer should ever be allowed in court.