Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

I agree with you both. LJ's scenario sounds a lot like what that Vancouver wrongful conviction conference found in 2007 as to commonalities on the dozen or so Canadian wrongful convictions. It may be more akin to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis in the States (see "The Big Short") where even the experts got fooled that bundled mortgages had value, even if each individual mortgage was junk.

That's a very good point. Many financial scandals share (IMO) common traits and human fallibilities with the sort of thing that (IMO) happened in Perugia in November 2007. You have an institutional group of people who believe they have special powers to do their jobs; who form false conclusions built on the combination of invalid inferences, hubris and group reinforcement; where those false conclusions are personally and professionally satisfying/rewarding; where the group only look for evidence to support their (erroneous) conclusions, and either minimise/ignore evidence that contradicts it or dismiss "naysayers" on the basis that their group is more intelligent/experienced/skilful than the naysayers'; where there becomes a dogmatic need to defend the (erroneous) conclusions, even when it's becoming increasingly obvious that those conclusions are fatally flawed; where there's a refusal to accept that they were ever wrong.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well this largely comes down to one's definition of "frame".

I don't think the PM or police ever set out to "frame" Knox, Sollecito or Lumumba in the classical sense of "decide without foundation to pin the blame on....". What I think happened was that the PM and police came to a number of incorrect conclusions (chief among which were the idea that the break-in was staged, and the idea that Knox's "see you later" text meant she was confirming plans for a physical meeting that night), and that by the small hours of the morning of 6th November 2007 they genuinely, sincerely thought they'd solved the crime and caught the right people.

And IMO once they'd reached that point, another level of malpractice and incompetence kicked in: the type of confirmation bias that led the PM and police - who IMO were certain they'd figured out the crime and its protagonists entirely accurately, remember - to go out looking for evidence to support this conclusion. After all (in their heads), since they'd solved the crime properly, it ought to be fairly easy to find evidence of something which they were already convinced had actually happened (i.e. that Knox had met with Lumumba, and that the two of them (with or without Sollecito in those early days of the investigation) had gone to the cottage where Lumumba (with or without Sollecito) had attacked, assaulted and killed Kercher, and Knox and Sollecito had cleaned up the crime scene later that night or the next morning and staged the break-in). The police and PM already "knew" that all this had actually taken place, so they went looking for evidence of it - just as if you know a ship has sunk, you go looking for ship wreckage on the bottom of the ocean.

So in the case of Lumumba's bar for example, the PM/police had decided that Lumumba was a direct participant in the murder. And they knew that Kercher hadn't arrived back until around 9pm, and believed that the murder had occurred at something around 10.30-11pm at that point. In order for all this to be true (which they were sure it was), it would have been necessary for Lumumba's bar to have been closed for at least a large part of that evening. And since the police "knew" Lumumba was involved, they also "knew" by extension that his bar HAD to have been closed for a good portion of that evening. So they went looking for evidence of the thing they already KNEW to be true - that Lumumba's bar was closed for a good part of that evening. Naturally when they found someone who was prepared to agree with their position, they used that as confirmation of the "truth". I am guessing that they might have talked with others who'd told them that Lumumba's bar had in fact been open all that evening, with Lumumba present - but the police and PM would have written off such people as unreliable or somehow wrong in some other way, since the police/PM already KNEW that Lumumba's bar had to have been closed for a large part of that evening.

That's how I think this all went down: false (but sincere) certainty in the "truth" of a set of events and protagonists, based on erroneous inferences and other factors, followed by an improper confirmation-bias-led approach to finding evidence to "confirm" this already-decided "truth".

Your scenario is exactly what I have always thought happened. I do not believe that there was any intention to frame Knox and Sollecito by the prosecution or police for a murder they knew they didn't commit. They really believed they were correct.

I do believe there was an intentional cover up by the police regarding the interrogations themselves. I believe they intentionally chose not to record them or did record them but then concealed/destroyed them. I believe Amanda and Raffaele were hit, threatened and coerced and the police lied about this in order to protect their careers.

 

[sept79]

Your (LondonJohn) scenario is exactly what I have always thought happened. I do not believe that there was any intention to frame Knox and Sollecito by the prosecution or police for a murder they knew they didn't commit. They really believed they were correct..
.
.

Wow! That is so scary . . .

 

[Planigale]

Wow! That is so scary . . .

But almost certainly true.

They may believe it still. Certainly there are posters on the internet who seem to have come to an early and fixed opinion of guilt and seem unable to go back and beginning with an assumption of innocence and using the evidence presented in court decide if guilt is proven BARD.

I rarely visit other sites that discuss this case, but I did just look and someone called catnip posted a quote;
"WHAT’S NOT TO CONTAMINATE?

“There are many myths and misunderstandings about contamination,… The first is that all scenes are examined using the highest standard of anti-contamination standards (suits, overshoes, mob caps, gloves, etc.), which is not the case. Most volume crime scenes (burglaries, stolen vehicles) are examined by CSIs who are not wearing such protection, although they will generally wear gloves and masks when taking samples such as DNA. Secondly, the belief that contamination can be completely prevented by wearing the kinds of protection described above and by controlling a scene is unfounded. If you accept Locard’s principle, then you have to accept that any examination of a scene is likely to disturb it and to ‘contaminate’ it in some way. Finally, the assumption that someone has failed (for whatever reason) to follow recommended operating procedures with regard to contamination does not mean that contamination will necessarily result and have an impact.” — Jim Fraser, Forensic Science: A Very Short Introduction, (2010) [Oxford University Press, 2010], at pp19-20. ISBN 9780199558056"

Which says two things that a murder should be examined using the highest anti-contamination standards (indirectly) and that contamination occurs even so. But having quoted this reference will that person integrate this into their view of the case, that contamination is a real phenomenon.

I know nothing about the history of the poster they may well be a perfectly nice rational person just with an idee fixe about Sollecito and Knox, I guess this was formed early in the case. But my guess is that at this point re-evaluation of the case is unacceptable. Vixen always goes back to the first reports which obviously deeply affected Vixen's view, and I think Vixen cannot re-evaluate the case. I came to this case much later (missing all the tabloid scandal), really only after the first court case, and the first detailed account I read was the Massei judgement. The convicting judgement was what convinced me of a miscarriage of justice. Similarly I think the police and Mignini became emotionally committed to convicting the cruel murderers of Meredith, but just directed their righteous wrath at the wrong people. Emotional commitment is a good thing but perhaps not in police and prosecutors.

 

[bagels]

A Knox thread with no PGP? What is the world coming to. Somebody needs to pop in and remind us that A&R made 4 phone calls spanning across 15 minutes totaling 6 minutes of talk time in front of two police officers in a tiny apartment without either of them noticing a single call. Or that a giant kitchen knife made the fatal wound in Meredith's neck the pathologist believed was made by a small penknife consistent with the other two wounds and the bloody imprint. Or that Knox was in Quintavalle's shop buying cleaning supplies and he later recognized her in the newspaper when she was arrested as the very girl in his shop that morning, only to forget this remarkable fact a few days later when the cops showed him pictures asking about her and said he didn't see her.

Such compelling points sad to see this thread go 10 pages without rehashing them. I guess an Italian court basically ruling the police did in fact beat a statement out of her was a nasty blow.

 

[Numbers]

A Knox thread with no PGP? What is the world coming to. Somebody needs to pop in and remind us that A&R made 4 phone calls spanning across 15 minutes totaling 6 minutes of talk time in front of two police officers in a tiny apartment without either of them noticing a single call. Or that a giant kitchen knife made the fatal wound in Meredith's neck the pathologist believed was made by a small penknife consistent with the other two wounds and the bloody imprint. Or that Knox was in Quintavalle's shop buying cleaning supplies and he later recognized her in the newspaper when she was arrested as the very girl in his shop that morning, only to forget this remarkable fact a few days later when the cops showed him pictures asking about her and said he didn't see her.

Such compelling points sad to see this thread go 10 pages without rehashing them. I guess an Italian court basically ruling the police did in fact beat a statement out of her was a nasty blow.

Are you saying Boninsegnor did not use enough of the ambiguity and obfuscation required of an Italian judge in writing a motivation report?

Isn't lack of such ambiguity and obfuscation illegal in Italy?

 

[Stacyhs]

But almost certainly true.

They may believe it still. Certainly there are posters on the internet who seem to have come to an early and fixed opinion of guilt and seem unable to go back and beginning with an assumption of innocence and using the evidence presented in court decide if guilt is proven BARD.

I rarely visit other sites that discuss this case, but I did just look and someone called catnip posted a quote;
"WHAT’S NOT TO CONTAMINATE?

“There are many myths and misunderstandings about contamination,… The first is that all scenes are examined using the highest standard of anti-contamination standards (suits, overshoes, mob caps, gloves, etc.), which is not the case. Most volume crime scenes (burglaries, stolen vehicles) are examined by CSIs who are not wearing such protection, although they will generally wear gloves and masks when taking samples such as DNA. Secondly, the belief that contamination can be completely prevented by wearing the kinds of protection described above and by controlling a scene is unfounded. If you accept Locard’s principle, then you have to accept that any examination of a scene is likely to disturb it and to ‘contaminate’ it in some way. Finally, the assumption that someone has failed (for whatever reason) to follow recommended operating procedures with regard to contamination does not mean that contamination will necessarily result and have an impact.” — Jim Fraser, Forensic Science: A Very Short Introduction, (2010) [Oxford University Press, 2010], at pp19-20. ISBN 9780199558056"

Which says two things that a murder should be examined using the highest anti-contamination standards (indirectly) and that contamination occurs even so. But having quoted this reference will that person integrate this into their view of the case, that contamination is a real phenomenon.

I know nothing about the history of the poster they may well be a perfectly nice rational person just with an idee fixe about Sollecito and Knox, I guess this was formed early in the case. But my guess is that at this point re-evaluation of the case is unacceptable. Vixen always goes back to the first reports which obviously deeply affected Vixen's view, and I think Vixen cannot re-evaluate the case. I came to this case much later (missing all the tabloid scandal), really only after the first court case, and the first detailed account I read was the Massei judgement. The convicting judgement was what convinced me of a miscarriage of justice. Similarly I think the police and Mignini became emotionally committed to convicting the cruel murderers of Meredith, but just directed their righteous wrath at the wrong people. Emotional commitment is a good thing but perhaps not in police and prosecutors.

I think, in general, police and prosecutors are inclined to see evidence of guilt rather than innocence. Studies also show that police think they are much better at distinguishing "guilty" behavior and recognizing lies than they really are. Studies show they are no better at this than the general public or chance.

 

[Stacyhs]

A Knox thread with no PGP? What is the world coming to. Somebody needs to pop in and remind us that A&R made 4 phone calls spanning across 15 minutes totaling 6 minutes of talk time in front of two police officers in a tiny apartment without either of them noticing a single call. Or that a giant kitchen knife made the fatal wound in Meredith's neck the pathologist believed was made by a small penknife consistent with the other two wounds and the bloody imprint. Or that Knox was in Quintavalle's shop buying cleaning supplies and he later recognized her in the newspaper when she was arrested as the very girl in his shop that morning, only to forget this remarkable fact a few days later when the cops showed him pictures asking about her and said he didn't see her.

Such compelling points sad to see this thread go 10 pages without rehashing them. I guess an Italian court basically ruling the police did in fact beat a statement out of her was a nasty blow.

Yes. Where is Vixen? She just disappeared. Now, I wonder why that is?

 

[Desert Fox]

I think, in general, police and prosecutors are inclined to see evidence of guilt rather than innocence. Studies also show that police think they are much better at distinguishing "guilty" behavior and recognizing lies than they really are. Studies show they are no better at this than the general public or chance.

I was listening to the Generation Why podcast and the hosts, who should not better, suggest that they trust the police's ability to distinguish guilt in an interrogation better than a lie detector. I had to groan at that.

There have been studies where they have tested police officer's ability to tell lying and they basically did little better than chance and no better than college students who took the same test.

As such, I don't trust any police interrogations.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think, in general, police and prosecutors are inclined to see evidence of guilt rather than innocence. Studies also show that police think they are much better at distinguishing "guilty" behavior and recognizing lies than they really are. Studies show they are no better at this than the general public or chance.

I was listening to the Generation Why podcast and the hosts, who should not better, suggest that they trust the police's ability to distinguish guilt in an interrogation better than a lie detector. I had to groan at that.

There have been studies where they have tested police officer's ability to tell lying and they basically did little better than chance and no better than college students who took the same test.

As such, I don't trust any police interrogations.

It bears repeating - interrogations are not fishing trips for information, they are not interviews of people informed of the facts, they are not tests as to whether or not the interogatee is a liar.......

The goal of interrogations is confession - confession to a scenario the cops go into it assuming. The Reid Technique is a method of heading off at the path any rhetorical diversions an interogatee might use to try to frustrate that goal...... confession.

The Reid Technique's nine steps of interrogation are:

1.Direct confrontation. Advise the suspect that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.
2.Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
3.Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt.
4.At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the confession.
5.Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.
6.The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
7.Pose the “alternative question”, giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.
8.Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.
9.Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written)​

Number 2 especially looks suspiciously like why Lumumba was introduced "to the room" to give Knox someone to "pin this on".

It's just that the big criticism of these sorts of techniques is their rate of false confessions, particularly among the young who assume no reason to distrust what the police are telling them.

 

[Stacyhs]

It bears repeating - interrogations are not fishing trips for information, they are not interviews of people informed of the facts, they are not tests as to whether or not the interogatee is a liar.......

The goal of interrogations is confession - confession to a scenario the cops go into it assuming. The Reid Technique is a method of heading off at the path any rhetorical diversions an interogatee might use to try to frustrate that goal...... confession.

​

Number 2 especially looks suspiciously like why Lumumba was introduced "to the room" to give Knox someone to "pin this on".

It's just that the big criticism of these sorts of techniques is their rate of false confessions, particularly among the young who assume no reason to distrust what the police are telling them.

Amanda's and Raff's interrogations were classic Reid Technique. When this is pointed out to PGP, the inevitable response is that only the mentally challenged and/or teenagers and children succumb to false confessions. I have to laugh every time someone declares HE/SHE would NEVER confess to a crime they didn't commit or blame another innocent person. People have no clue.

 

[Desert Fox]

Amanda's and Raff's interrogations were classic Reid Technique. When this is pointed out to PGP, the inevitable response is that only the mentally challenged and/or teenagers and children succumb to false confessions. I have to laugh every time someone declares HE/SHE would NEVER confess to a crime they didn't commit or blame another innocent person. People have no clue.

Actually I would argue that it was a very unskilled Reed Technique. In honesty, they could not even do that right. They really did not even get a coherent confession out of Amanda.

 

[Dougm]

A Knox thread with no PGP? What is the world coming to. Somebody needs to pop in and remind us that A&R made 4 phone calls spanning across 15 minutes totaling 6 minutes of talk time in front of two police officers in a tiny apartment without either of them noticing a single call. Or that a giant kitchen knife made the fatal wound in Meredith's neck the pathologist believed was made by a small penknife consistent with the other two wounds and the bloody imprint. Or that Knox was in Quintavalle's shop buying cleaning supplies and he later recognized her in the newspaper when she was arrested as the very girl in his shop that morning, only to forget this remarkable fact a few days later when the cops showed him pictures asking about her and said he didn't see her.

Such compelling points sad to see this thread go 10 pages without rehashing them. I guess an Italian court basically ruling the police did in fact beat a statement out of her was a nasty blow.

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but "Catnip" is a long time member of the PMF sites, and is a PGP as it gets (assuming it is the same person).

 

[Stacyhs]

Actually I would argue that it was a very unskilled Reed Technique. In honesty, they could not even do that right. They really did not even get a coherent confession out of Amanda.

The Reid Technique's nine steps of interrogation are:
1.Direct confrontation. Advise the suspect that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.

The police told Amanda they had "hard evidence" that she was at the cottage the night of the murder. They told her Raff had withdrawn her alibi.

2.Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.

The police coerced her into blaming Lumumba and saying he "liked" Meredith and wanted to have sex with her.


3.Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt.

Every time Amanda told the truth, they told her she wasn't remembering correctly or smacked her on the back of the head.


4.At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the confession.

Amanda said she was with Raff but the police tell her he says she went out. Donnino tells her she has amnesia and isn't remembering what really happened.

5.Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.

Donnino becomes "motherly" and tries to get Amanda to relate to her by relating her own story of "amnesia" and her broken leg. As Donnino said, she tried to "cultivate a rapport" with Amanda.


6.The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
7.Pose the “alternative question”, giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.

The police led Amanda to believe Lumumba met up with her and wanted Amanda to take him to the cottage so he could have sex with Meredith. They do not accuse HER of the murder but let her accuse Lumumba while she is in the kitchen.

8.Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.

There was always more than one police officer in the interrogation room plus Donnino as witnesses.

9.Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written)

The police write up her "confession" and have her sign it.

Seems pretty much a classic Reid Technique interrogation to me.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't mean that they did not follow the script but that they don't have the nuance. . . . .Look at the confessions that the Glenn Ford got out of the Norfolk Four.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't mean that they did not follow the script but that they don't have the nuance. . . . .Look at the confessions that the Glenn Ford got out of the Norfolk Four.

They managed well enough to get her convicted of murder twice and convicted of calunnia. That "confession" went a long way in those convictions.

 

[Desert Fox]

They managed well enough to get her convicted of murder twice and convicted of calunnia. That "confession" went a long way in those convictions.

I honestly think that in a US court, the confession would be a hard sell with a jury. It just is not complete enough. It would also certainly be disallowed with Raff's trial. You can look at the West Memphis Three where Misskelley "confessed" and could not be used (officially) as evidence in the other two trials. Of course, it was brought in by a dishonest juror. I think that having Italian judges in the "jury", it gives them ringers who can steer the jury*

According to Jim Clemente, on the US Federal level (But not state), a confession has to be corroborated by other evidence. Personally, I think that confessions should simply not be acceptable as evidence in trial. I would also disallow jailhouse informant testimony.

I see both could be used to find evidence but not in court.

*Using the term "Juror" because I have trouble actually considering the judges.

 

[Stacyhs]

I honestly think that in a US court, the confession would be a hard sell with a jury. It just is not complete enough. It would also certainly be disallowed with Raff's trial. You can look at the West Memphis Three where Misskelley "confessed" and could not be used (officially) as evidence in the other two trials. Of course, it was brought in by a dishonest juror. I think that having Italian judges in the "jury", it gives them ringers who can steer the jury*

According to Jim Clemente, on the US Federal level (But not state), a confession has to be corroborated by other evidence. Personally, I think that confessions should simply not be acceptable as evidence in trial. I would also disallow jailhouse informant testimony.

I see both could be used to find evidence but not in court.

*Using the term "Juror" because I have trouble actually considering the judges.

I think the entire case against Raff and Amanda would never have gotten to court in the first place, much less the "confession".

I agree that jailhouse informant testimony should not be allowed. These people are simply not reliable to give honest information. However, I think confessions should be allowed as long as the entire interrogation is visually and audibly recorded with no editing whatsoever.

In reality, the lay jurors in Italian trials mere symbols of "the people". The two judges make all the real decisions.

Italy's greatest judicial problem, imo, is the fact that prosecutors and judges and prosecutors and police are too much in bed with each other.

 

[bagels]

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but "Catnip" is a long time member of the PMF sites, and is a PGP as it gets (assuming it is the same person).

Err nobody named Catnip has posted in this thread. And I was referring to the lack of any PGP for 10+ pages now which must be a new record. I never did accomplish my quest to find out why 99.9% of PGP believe the postal police were talking to Amanda at 12:35 (impossible) and 100% believe Quintavalle saw her, remembered he saw her after she was arrested, then forgot again a few days later, then remembered again a year later. I'll never know

 

[Desert Fox]

I think the entire case against Raff and Amanda would never have gotten to court in the first place, much less the "confession".

I am shaking my head why New York is going after Angelika Graswald so some pretty poor cases while be pursued.

I can likely find a few dozen cases where they convict somebody with basically no evidence.

I agree that jailhouse informant testimony should not be allowed. These people are simply not reliable to give honest information. However, I think confessions should be allowed as long as the entire interrogation is visually and audibly recorded with no editing whatsoever.

Apparently the UK style of questioning is specifically not designed to be an interrogation. I think if you are going to allow police questioning, just recording is enough. There needs to be very specific rules of what they are allowed to do.

In reality, the lay jurors in Italian trials mere symbols of "the people". The two judges make all the real decisions.

I agree that it is probably the case