Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Kestrel]

Assume makes an ASS of U and ME.

Scientists state their assumptions. Idiots repeat this childish insult.

 

[Bill Williams]

To say Knox "confessed" is misleading at best, and downright mendacious and unbalanced at worst.

Knox was, by all reasonable accounts (and backed up by the damning testimony of interpreter Donnino and the triumphalist remarks of Perugia police chief de Felice) put under intense pressure in her interrogation of 5th/6th November 2007 to "confirm" to the police "what they already knew": that Lumumba was Kercher's killer, and that Knox had arranged to meet with him that evening and took him to the cottage where he carried out the attack, sexual assault and murder. The police told Knox she would face severe judicial consequences if she didn't now "tell them the truth", and that she would also be at personal risk from the evil and dangerous Lumumba. They went on to "suggest" to Knox that the reason she couldn't remember all this was due to "traumatic amnesia" (with a helpful example provided by the interpreter!).

It was not a confession in the meaningful sense of the word. I am one who actually does not dispute that 97 times out of 100, to have the police (at interrogation) lie to and manipulate the interrogatee is actually a short (albeit lazy) way of saving the tax-payer the cost of a trial.

However, here's the deal. Three times out of 100 the cops actually do come into an interrogation-room with the wrong theory of what had happened. One of the reasons enhanced interrogation techniques*** don't work is because they actually do get innocent people to confess to crimes they did not commit. (This is especially true when during international conflicts one side believes that using enhanced interrogation techniques will provide actionable, usable intelligence - it's just as likely to produce what the interrogators simply wish to hear.....

...... because it is exceptionally hard not to subtly "lead" the interrogatee where you want him/her to go.)

This is also true in relation to the Reid Technique, which trains interrogators to cut off at the pass any talk of innocence; which trains interrogators to "help" the victim of it interrogatee feel good about confessing; by offering relatively innocent reasons why the victim of it interrogatee might have done what they're accused of doing.

There is only one goal to an interrogation. One. Only.

That is to get the victim of it interrogatee to admit to the corpus of facts that the interrogators go into the room with. The goal is not to elicit information from the victim of it interrogatee, it is to get them to confess.

Interrogations go wrong when the cops have the wrong corpus of facts going into it, even before the victim of it interrogatee enters the room. It goes even further off the rails when the interrogation is actually a fishing trip, where they hope to elicit information from the victim of it interrogatee.

The danger is simply too great that whoever it is who is the victim of it interrogatee, will simply admit to whatever it is they are being presented with - as happened in Perugia in the wee morning hours of Nov 6, 2007.

As a pure information level, it was particularly egregious in relation to Raffaele as well as with Patrick.


***by this, I am not saying that enhanced techniques were used in Perugia. The cops there screwed up the old fashioned way.

 

[Numbers]

An additional comment on use of the word and concept of "exoneration".

In the US, anyone who, after being convicted, is found not guilty in a retrial, or is pardoned because the relevant executive authority (state governor or state pardon board, or, for federal crimes, US president) considers that person to be actually innocent, or whose case is dismissed by a court or prosecutor because misconduct by the authorities led to the conviction, will be considered "exonerated".

On that basis, the final and definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation on the charges of murder/rape of Kercher, after their prior (clearly wrongful) convictions by two lower-level courts and their prior acquittal by one lower-level court, must be considered an exoneration according to common US usage.

 

[Bill Williams]

An additional comment on use of the word and concept of "exoneration".

In the US, anyone who, after being convicted, is found not guilty in a retrial, or is pardoned because the relevant executive authority (state governor or state pardon board, or, for federal crimes, US president) considers that person to be actually innocent, or whose case is dismissed by a court or prosecutor because misconduct by the authorities led to the conviction, will be considered "exonerated".

On that basis, the final and definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation on the charges of murder/rape of Kercher, after their prior (clearly wrongful) convictions by two lower-level courts and their prior acquittal by one lower-level court, must be considered an exoneration according to common US usage.

This is only after considering what the Italian judiciary consider it, because of the action of the Supreme Court there in March 2015.

They consider it "l'assoluzione". The case is now definitively closed.

 

[Numbers]

It was not a confession in the meaningful sense of the word. I am one who actually does not dispute that 97 times out of 100, to have the police (at interrogation) lie to and manipulate the interrogatee is actually a short (albeit lazy) way of saving the tax-payer the cost of a trial.

However, here's the deal. Three times out of 100 the cops actually do come into an interrogation-room with the wrong theory of what had happened. One of the reasons enhanced interrogation techniques*** don't work is because they actually do get innocent people to confess to crimes they did not commit. (This is especially true when during international conflicts one side believes that using enhanced interrogation techniques will provide actionable, usable intelligence - it's just as likely to produce what the interrogators simply wish to hear.....

...... because it is exceptionally hard not to subtly "lead" the interrogatee where you want him/her to go.)

This is also true in relation to the Reid Technique, which trains interrogators to cut off at the pass any talk of innocence; which trains interrogators to "help" the victim of it interrogatee feel good about confessing; by offering relatively innocent reasons why the victim of it interrogatee might have done what they're accused of doing.

There is only one goal to an interrogation. One. Only.

That is to get the victim of it interrogatee to admit to the corpus of facts that the interrogators go into the room with. The goal is not to elicit information from the victim of it interrogatee, it is to get them to confess.

Interrogations go wrong when the cops have the wrong corpus of facts going into it, even before the victim of it interrogatee enterst the room. It goes even further off the rails when the interrogation is actually a fishing trip, where they hope to elicit information from the victim of it interrogatee.

The danger is simply too great that whoever it is who is the victim of it interrogatee, will simply admit to whatever it is they are being presented with - as happened in Perugia in the wee morning hours of Nov 6, 2007.

As a pure information level, it was particularly egregious in relation to Raffaele as well as with Patrick.


***by this, I am not saying that enhanced techniques were used in Perugia. The cops there screwed up the old fashioned way.

In all this, you miss that Knox never stated in the false statement coerced from her by the police in the November 5/6, 2007 interrogation that she had committed any violent or sexual act with Kercher. The police were intent on coercing a statement from her of who was responsible for the rape and murder of Kercher and under police pressure she named Patrick Lumumba.

After the police and prosecutor found that they could not successfully frame Lumumba, they charged Knox with calunnia (false accusation) for naming him. Knox then stated in a November 6, 2007 memo to the police, soon after the coercive interrogation was done, that - in effect - they had coerced her and she was unsure of her statement. The next day Knox fully withdrew her statement in a second memo to police. Knox's explanations were made even though she was denied legal counsel - contrary to Italian and international law - at the relevant time.

Knox went on to state her version of the events of the interrogation during her trial and in each appeal. For this statement and for each appeal, she was charged with aggravated continuous calunnia (false accusation) against the police and prosecutor (Mignini), by the prosecutor (Mignini) who was in charge of the interrogation and investigation. Knox was fully and definitively acquitted of the charge of aggravated continuous calunnia against the police and prosecutor (Mignini) by the Boninsegna court.

Knox has lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that her conviction for calunnia against Lumumba was a violation of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. This case is in progress; the complaint was communicated to Italy by the ECHR on April 29, 2016. A judgment may be forthcoming in 2017 or 2018.

My review of case-law suggests that the ECHR will find that Italy violated Knox's rights, and, under the Convention, Italy will be obligated to consider Knox's request for a retrial to be held fully in compliance with the provisions of the Convention and ECHR case-law. Such a trial would not allow admission of statements made by a person under interrogation without a lawyer who had not knowing waived the right to a lawyer. Thus, there would be no false accusation admissible as evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

In all this, you miss that Knox never stated in the false statement coerced from her by the police in the November 5/6, 2007 interrogation that she had committed any violent or sexual act with Kercher. The police were intent on coercing a statement from her of who was responsible for the rape of Kercher and under police pressure she named Patrick Lumumba. After the police and prosecutor found that they could not successfully frame Lumumba, they charged Knox with calunnia (false accusation) for naming him. Knox then stated in a November 6, 2007 memo to the police, soon after the coercive interrogation was done, that - in effect - they had coerced her and she was unsure of her statement. The next day Knox fully withdrew her statement in a second memo to police. Knox's explanations were made even though she was denied legal counsel - contrary to Italian and international law - at the relevant time. Knox went on to state her version of the events of the interrogation during her trial and in each appeal. For this statement and for each appeal, she was charged with aggravated continuous calunnia (false accusation) against the police and prosecutor (Mignini), by the prosecutor (Mignini) who was in charge of the interrogation and investigation. Knox was fully and definitively acquitted of the charge of aggravated continuous calunnia against the police and prosecutor (Mignini) by the Boninsegna court.

The point is that neither did the police, at interrogation, accuse Knox of committing a violent act, other than not intervening with Lumumba's theorized violence.

The whole sequence of what the police/PM were accusing Knox of, shows/proves that the cops did not go into that interrogation, first with Raffaele, then with Knox, then with Lumumba.....

With anything resembling the facts of the case. GIGO.

 

[LondonJohn]

In all this, you miss that Knox never stated in the false statement coerced from her by the police in the November 5/6, 2007 interrogation that she had committed any violent or sexual act with Kercher. The police were intent on coercing a statement from her of who was responsible for the rape and murder of Kercher and under police pressure she named Patrick Lumumba.

After the police and prosecutor found that they could not successfully frame Lumumba, they charged Knox with calunnia (false accusation) for naming him. Knox then stated in a November 6, 2007 memo to the police, soon after the coercive interrogation was done, that - in effect - they had coerced her and she was unsure of her statement. The next day Knox fully withdrew her statement in a second memo to police. Knox's explanations were made even though she was denied legal counsel - contrary to Italian and international law - at the relevant time.

Knox went on to state her version of the events of the interrogation during her trial and in each appeal. For this statement and for each appeal, she was charged with aggravated continuous calunnia (false accusation) against the police and prosecutor (Mignini), by the prosecutor (Mignini) who was in charge of the interrogation and investigation. Knox was fully and definitively acquitted of the charge of aggravated continuous calunnia against the police and prosecutor (Mignini) by the Boninsegna court.

Knox has lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that her conviction for calunnia against Lumumba was a violation of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. This case is in progress; the complaint was communicated to Italy by the ECHR on April 29, 2016. A judgment may be forthcoming in 2017 or 2018.

My review of case-law suggests that the ECHR will find that Italy violated Knox's rights, and, under the Convention, Italy will be obligated to consider Knox's request for a retrial to be held fully in compliance with the provisions of the Convention and ECHR case-law. Such a trial would not allow admission of statements made by a person under interrogation without a lawyer who had not knowing waived the right to a lawyer. Thus, there would be no false accusation admissible as evidence.

This is precisely my analysis of this matter as well (as it probably is with many more commentators here).

The salient fact, as you point out above, is that if the ECHR finds Knox's human rights to have been breached by virtue (pun intended) of unlawfully-obtained statements to police on 5th/6th November 2007, then the net effect of this will be the Italian state having to completely drop the case, acquit Knox, annul the previous guilty verdict, and leave no possibility for a retrial. That is (again, as you point out) because the very things that would have led to the breach of Knox's human rights (the unlawfully-obtained statements) are the very things that formed the sole basis of her conviction.

Like you, I too strongly believe that objective analysis of precedent and the facts of this case lead to the clear likelihood of the ECHR ruling in Knox's favour in this matter. If so, Italy will either have to apply the required remedy - which will necessitate acquittal and annulment, as set out above - or it will have to ignore the ECHR's ruling and directive. That will almost certainly lead to wider problems at a constitutional and governmental level. And since this is not a "class action" type matter (i.e. where an ECHR ruling could potentially affect hundreds or thousands of a country's citizens and have material impact politically), it would appear unlikely that it would be in Italy's best interests to take on the ECHR over a stand-alone case involving a single person. We'll see, I suppose........

 

[Vixen]

Deleted.

 

[Numbers]

This is precisely my analysis of this matter as well (as it probably is with many more commentators here).

The salient fact, as you point out above, is that if the ECHR finds Knox's human rights to have been breached by virtue (pun intended) of unlawfully-obtained statements to police on 5th/6th November 2007, then the net effect of this will be the Italian state having to completely drop the case, acquit Knox, annul the previous guilty verdict, and leave no possibility for a retrial. That is (again, as you point out) because the very things that would have led to the breach of Knox's human rights (the unlawfully-obtained statements) are the very things that formed the sole basis of her conviction.

Like you, I too strongly believe that objective analysis of precedent and the facts of this case lead to the clear likelihood of the ECHR ruling in Knox's favour in this matter. If so, Italy will either have to apply the required remedy - which will necessitate acquittal and annulment, as set out above - or it will have to ignore the ECHR's ruling and directive. That will almost certainly lead to wider problems at a constitutional and governmental level. And since this is not a "class action" type matter (i.e. where an ECHR ruling could potentially affect hundreds or thousands of a country's citizens and have material impact politically), it would appear unlikely that it would be in Italy's best interests to take on the ECHR over a stand-alone case involving a single person. We'll see, I suppose........

Yes, if Italy refuses a request by Knox for a revision trial on the calunnia against Lumumba conviction after an ECHR judgment that Italy had violated her rights, it would not only be in a potential conflict with a general ruling of its Constitutional Court, but would be generating a new case which Knox would be entitled to take before the ECHR. It is a violation of Convention Article 6 to unjustly deny an individual the right to a trial.

 

[Bill Williams]

deleted

 

[Vixen]

It was not a confession in the meaningful sense of the word. I am one who actually does not dispute that 97 times out of 100, to have the police (at interrogation) lie to and manipulate the interrogatee is actually a short (albeit lazy) way of saving the tax-payer the cost of a trial.

However, here's the deal. Three times out of 100 the cops actually do come into an interrogation-room with the wrong theory of what had happened. One of the reasons enhanced interrogation techniques*** don't work is because they actually do get innocent people to confess to crimes they did not commit. (This is especially true when during international conflicts one side believes that using enhanced interrogation techniques will provide actionable, usable intelligence - it's just as likely to produce what the interrogators simply wish to hear.....

...... because it is exceptionally hard not to subtly "lead" the interrogatee where you want him/her to go.)

This is also true in relation to the Reid Technique, which trains interrogators to cut off at the pass any talk of innocence; which trains interrogators to "help" the victim of it interrogatee feel good about confessing; by offering relatively innocent reasons why the victim of it interrogatee might have done what they're accused of doing.

There is only one goal to an interrogation. One. Only.

That is to get the victim of it interrogatee to admit to the corpus of facts that the interrogators go into the room with. The goal is not to elicit information from the victim of it interrogatee, it is to get them to confess.

Interrogations go wrong when the cops have the wrong corpus of facts going into it, even before the victim of it interrogatee enters the room. It goes even further off the rails when the interrogation is actually a fishing trip, where they hope to elicit information from the victim of it interrogatee.

The danger is simply too great that whoever it is who is the victim of it interrogatee, will simply admit to whatever it is they are being presented with - as happened in Perugia in the wee morning hours of Nov 6, 2007.

As a pure information level, it was particularly egregious in relation to Raffaele as well as with Patrick.


***by this, I am not saying that enhanced techniques were used in Perugia. The cops there screwed up the old fashioned way.

I agree that in the case of Brendan Dassey, the police took advantage of his openness and honesty. As a vulnerable 16/17 year old his mother or a similar adult should have been with him.

Having said that, he came across as truthful (although in the witness stand, he and his sobbing cousin understandably claimed they each 'made it all up').

However, whilst I do not agree with a whole life sentence without parole in his case (although I do for Steven Avery), I do believe he is guilty as charged.

Dassey was interviewed over several sessions for up to four hours at a time.

Amanda Knox blabbed within about an hour within a friendly atmosphere after learning Raff withdrew her alibi. I believe she was in Piazza Grimana where she met 'Patrik' = Rudy Guede, and took him to the cottage for sex. Like Rudy and Raff, of course she distances herself from the actual killing, however, it is clear she did hear Mez scream and also heard thuds, as did Rudy and Kokomani.


I believe she was about to confess, when her lawyer shut her up, just like Edda and Curt shut her up sharpish during the prison visits.

 

[Vixen]

Please do not put biographical material on this thread, even autobiographical material. Apparently it is not against the rules to post autobiographical material, but it is not very wise.

It's a temporary message.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, if Italy refuses a request by Knox for a revision trial on the calunnia against Lumumba conviction after an ECHR judgment that Italy had violated her rights, it would not only be in a potential conflict with a general ruling of its Constitutional Court, but would be generating a new case which Knox would be entitled to take before the ECHR. It is a violation of Convention Article 6 to unjustly deny an individual the right to a trial.

I rather think it was unjust and malicious of her to falsely accuse Patrick Lumumba knowing full well he was innocent. Likewise, how amoral of Edda to know he was innocent yet fail to do anything about it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda Knox blabbed within about an hour within a friendly atmosphere after learning Raff withdrew her alibi. I believe she was in Piazza Grimana where she met 'Patrik' = Rudy Guede, and took him to the cottage for sex. Like Rudy and Raff, of course she distances herself from the actual killing, however, it is clear she did hear Mez scream and also heard thuds, as did Rudy and Kokomani.

I believe she was about to confess, when her lawyer shut her up, just like Edda and Curt shut her up sharpish during the prison visits.

What you believe is of no consequence, given that you (laughingly) consider the interrogation to have been a "friendly atmosphere". That one made me spew coffee on to the smartphone!

Thanks a lot, Vixen. Now everyone here thinks I'm a nut!

 

[Samson]

I agree that in the case of Brendan Dassey, the police took advantage of his openness and honesty. As a vulnerable 16/17 year old his mother or a similar adult should have been with him.

Having said that, he came across as truthful (although in the witness stand, he and his sobbing cousin understandably claimed they each 'made it all up').

However, whilst I do not agree with a whole life sentence without parole in his case (although I do for Steven Avery), I do believe he is guilty as charged.

Dassey was interviewed over several sessions for up to four hours at a time.

Amanda Knox blabbed within about an hour within a friendly atmosphere after learning Raff withdrew her alibi. I believe she was in Piazza Grimana where she met 'Patrik' = Rudy Guede, and took him to the cottage for sex. Like Rudy and Raff, of course she distances herself from the actual killing, however, it is clear she did hear Mez scream and also heard thuds, as did Rudy and Kokomani.


I believe she was about to confess, when her lawyer shut her up, just like Edda and Curt shut her up sharpish during the prison visits.

No doubt Edda and Curt shut her up because the converse was not working. It reminds me of people who expect people to take the witness stand at their second trials to explain themselves, when it failed at the first. Of course Amanda did both times, a very brave young woman.
And you are on the wrong side of history with Dassey and Avery, why not explain your crime theory on the thread? I would be fascinated.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=302005

It needs to beat that of dumb old Kratz.

 

[Mike1711]

Sorry, that is incorrect. Of the calunnia conviction, Marasca say:

Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it.


Of her presence at the murder, it writes:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Marasca-Bruno_Report_(English)

Vixen, why do you think the word "fact" is followed by "...in the trial...".

I will give you a clue...it's to do with judicial truths not necessarily being empirical truths.

 

[bagels]

I rather think it was unjust and malicious of her to falsely accuse Patrick Lumumba knowing full well he was innocent. Likewise, how amoral of Edda to know he was innocent yet fail to do anything about it.

A rather bulletproof defense for Italy wouldn't you say? Just play the tape of Amanda freely implicating Patrick, and the whole thing goes away.

They have what, over 1000 hours of tape of Amanda and everyone she ever spoke to all on police wiretap, including hidden microphones in the lobby/waiting area...the interrogation tape from the official designated interrogation room must be in there somewhere? Right?

Hilarious.

 

[LondonJohn]

Amanda Knox blabbed within about an hour within a friendly atmosphere

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a pretty vivid illustration of the shortcomings and deficiencies here.............

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen, why do you think the word "fact" is followed by "...in the trial...".

I will give you a clue...it's to do with judicial truths not necessarily being empirical truths.

Marasca's panel also had its hands tied well and truly in respect of the criminal slander conviction. All the judicial facts related to that conviction were passed off by a previous SC panel, so at this point it would cause all sorts of problems for the Marasca panel to contradict any of the judicial findings underpinning the criminal slander conviction.

And this illustrates yet again just how stupid, improper and unjust it was to try the criminal slander case in conjunction with the murder-related charges. It should have been subjected to a completely separate trial. (It should never have been tried at all, of course, but that's another matter....). The combination of Guede's fast-track trial and the criminal slander trial, and their highly material (and unjust) impacts upon the Knox/Sollecito murder trial, were yet another low point for the Italian criminal justice system.

As soon as Guede opted for a fast-track trial, his proceedings should have been held in camera, and the verdict and motivations should have remained sealed until after the Knox/Sollecito murder trial had fully concluded. Likewise, any criminal slander trial against Knox should either have been held in camera before the Knox/Sollecito murder trial with a sealed verdict, or it should have been held only once the Knox/Sollecito murder trial had been fully concluded. None of the courts in either of the three separate trials processes should either have been bound by or influenced by verdicts or motivations from any of the other trials. This is pretty-much Criminal Justice 101: only evidence introduced into the court can be used in the deliberations and verdict of that court, and any defendant is entitled to hear (and challenge) the case against him/her in court, as it applies to the charges against that person. Italy should, once again, be very ashamed indeed of its anti-judicial conduct in this respect in the Knox/Sollecito case.

 

[LondonJohn]

(My belief, based on the tone of the rest of the Marasca report, is that the Marasca panel believes there's no evidence that either Knox or Sollecito had anything to do with the murder. But it has to go along - for now - with the judicial reasoning driving the SC-affirmed verdict in the Knox criminal slander trial. Of course, the Marasca panel also knows full well that an ECHR application is well under way in that case. My reading is that Marasca expects the ECHR to sort things out properly and fairly in respect of the criminal slander conviction; and this (IMO) also informed the Marasca panel decision not to open an internal constitutional can of worms at this stage by contradicting the previous SC ruling on the criminal slander conviction - Marasca believes that the ECHR will fix this soon enough anyhow.....)