Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[Stacyhs]

Didn't you say the cops went after Amanda because they were relying on their 'gut instincts'?

In other words, she must have been giving off 'criminal' vibes, rather than the sweet American Pie one you keep trying to push in your other argument as to why she could not have possibly killed her room mate.

Logical fallacy, Vix. Yes, I did say the police relied on their "gut feelings" but it does not follow that it was because Amanda was giving off "criminal" vibes or that her demeanor was "dodgy". For Giobbi, her "dodgy behavior" and "criminal demeanor" was eating pizza a few days after the murder. because if his roommate had been murdered, he'd be in bed crying. It was at that moment he "knew she was guilty". As he said,

We were able to establish guilt by carefully observing the suspects psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogation. We didn’t need to rely on other kinds of investigation as this method enabled us to get the guilty parties in very quick time.

No evidence, just their behavior...or how they interpreted their behavior based on what they "knew to be the truth". And all this before a shred of forensic evidence had been analyzed.

For the cop who took the chef knife out of Raffaele's kitchen drawer, it was his "gut feeling" that that particular knife was "suspiciously clean" and looked like the murder weapon even though he had seen no pictures of the wounds and admitted he didn't even know how large or deep they were. Idiot didn't even bother to take any of the other knives out of the drawer. His "gut feelings" were enough.

 

[Bill Williams]

I thought this thread was about the Kercher case and the administrative clerical error of forgetting to put Raff's right to a lawyer (which he had anyway) in writing by his back office staff.

You thought wrong.

 

[bagels]

Imagine there has been a crime committed. You are interviewed by the police.

If you are innocent, you just tell the truth.

No.

 

[Stacyhs]

Edited by novaphile: 

There were a lot of broken quote tags in this post. Let me know if they weren't all quotes from the same poster

Think about it. Advertising, or the 'art of persuasion' is all about telling lies, or at least 'overcoming people's resistance'.

I have thought about it. And your post is a load of nonsense. Statement analysis has nothing to do with the art of persuasion/advertising.

If the plain brown caremelised liquid known as 'coca-cola' was sold in a plain tin, there is no way it would cost >£1 a tin, nor would Coca-Cola have a larger profit that the GDP of the entire state of Mexico

Irrelevant.

Extrapolate this into criminal law. Imagine there has been a crime committed. You are interviewed by the police.

If you are innocent, you just tell the truth. If guilty, you have to come up with an 'innocent' script. This involves acting. You have to imagine how an innocent person would act in your position, and what they might say.

This is the crux of your problem. Innocent people do tell the truth. The problem comes in when the police decide you aren't telling the truth. As in the cases of the rape victims in the article I provided. As in the cases of false confessions that are on record. As in the cases of proven false convictions.

Thus we saw a situation in the Kercher murder of all of the other room mates and witnesses immediately seeking an attorney. Knox and Sollecito imagined that an innocent person wouldn't do this, so casually pretended they didn't need one and declined to appoint one.

All the Italian roommates and witnesses did, indeed, get attorneys. That in itself tell you something about the Italian system when even completely innocent people who have strong alibis feel the need to get a lawyer before speaking to police. How easily you try and twist AK's and RS's not getting a lawyer immediately into a sign of guilt. Most people would say that is a sign of innocence. Once again, you are assigning yourself the ability to know what AK and RS were thinking. You don't.

Now, because a guilty person aiming to evade justice has to dream up a pack of lies, in effect, of course statement analysis is useful, as we can pick out contradictions, changes in stories (Raff changed his five times), changes in reported emotions. One minute Knox claims she was frantic with worry about Mez, banging on her door and shouting her name, in her email to the world, yet all witnesses at the scene when the police arrived report she was entirely laid back about the locked door, even going so far as to telling Battistelli the door was often locked.

Knox only changed her story once during the Nov 5/6 interrogation which she recanted within hours. Sollecito's story also "changed" during that interrogation. As for the story by the reporter, who knows what was said during that? All we have is her word...no recordings and no witnesses.

Knox was not "entirely laid back about the locked door". Stop making things up. As for Kercher locking her door or not, who would know better? The girl who shared a bathroom with Kercher, whose room was immediately next door to Kercher's and who spent more time with Kercher or Filomena who spent little time with Kercher beyond some meals?

The problem with lying is that people forget their lies, so when we examine Knox and Sollecito's babblings, and compare their book, tv and film narratives with what they told the police and the courts, we see a fascinating phenomenon of one lie after another and a fake alibi.

We see no such thing. What we see are what the police say was said during interrogations that were not recorded and when there were no lawyers present.

Crini explained in his submissions that a fake alibi was a piece of evidence in itself.

Crini didn't explain this; he claimed it. Crini also "explained" how Curatolo being a drug addled addict and describing seeing the pair on Halloween night was not evidence of being unreliable. Hoots!

Thus, statement analysis is invaluable to courts and this is exactly what barristers are getting at when they cross-examine. They are aiming to highlight contradictions, fabrications and anomalies, which will go into their closing submissions.

Nice wrap up but it fails to address the fact that statement analysis is not, as you claimed, the same thing as the "art of persuasion" and "advertising". Which was my point.

 

[bagels]

*In Vixen voice* advertising is very important for changing public opinion

 

[bagels]

I can't believe someone who is wrong about literally almost everything has failed to figure out this case. What a shock.

 

[Stacyhs]

Polygraphs (lie detectors) work, because they measure the rate of perspiration (which we have no control over, although savvy crooks know how to take drugs to suppress this). The sweat arises because lying is stressful. The mositure causes an electronic impulse to register on galvanometer, which can be graphed.

Of course some people are more nervous than others. This is why the pyschologist performing the test will ask a few neutral questions first to discover the individual's baseline. A lie will manifest itself as above the normal baseline, whatever that was.

Psychopaths can often lie without any sweat, and drugs can inhibit a true physiological response, which is why lie detectors are not considered valid evidence on their own. However, for detectives, it can help rule out who is not a suspect. (The WM3 all failed the lie detector on five key questions. One weirdo who insisted he was the killer passed the test despite his fake claims.)

You are starting off with a fallacy by stating that polygraphs "work". The fact is, they work sometimes.
Polygraphs measure three physiological responses:
heart rate/blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity. The theory is that lying increases sweat. While this can be true, it is not always the case which is one reason why these tests are not considered reliable. There are many factors that can also affect their reliability. According to the American Psychological Association:

Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.

The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.

A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.

The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives).

Research on the processes involved in CQT polygraph examinations suggests that several examiner, examinee, and situational factors influence test validity, as may the technique used to score polygraph charts. There is little research on the effects of subjects' differences in such factors as education, intelligence, or level of autonomic arousal.

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

 

[Welshman]

I thought this thread was about the Kercher case and the administrative clerical error of forgetting to put Raff's right to a lawyer (which he had anyway) in writing by his back office staff.

It is funny how PGP come up with pathetic excuses as to why Raffaele was denied access to lawyers.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is funny how PGP come up with pathetic excuses as to why Raffaele was denied access to lawyers.

Don't be silly, Welshman. Vixen has told us that Raffaele and Amanda cleverly figured out that not having lawyers would make them look innocent! It was all part of their Machiavellian plan.

 

[fuelair]

Polygraphs (lie detectors) work, because they measure the rate of perspiration (which we have no control over, although savvy crooks know how to take drugs to suppress this). The sweat arises because lying is stressful. The mositure causes an electronic impulse to register on galvanometer, which can be graphed.

Of course some people are more nervous than others. This is why the pyschologist performing the test will ask a few neutral questions first to discover the individual's baseline. A lie will manifest itself as above the normal baseline, whatever that was.

Psychopaths can often lie without any sweat, and drugs can inhibit a true physiological response, which is why lie detectors are not considered valid evidence on their own. However, for detectives, it can help rule out who is not a suspect. (The WM3 all failed the lie detector on five key questions. One weirdo who insisted he was the killer passed the test despite his fake claims.)

I will here note that I have successfully misled a polygraph more than once. There are ways to do it physically and mentally. As republickers might wish to know those I won't disclose them here - but I got black (the able to go behind the security fence ) i.d. card while in the military at Detrick.......

 

[Numbers]

Amazingly, but not unsurprisingly, inaccurate and hyperbolic claims.

Amanda has never, ever claimed she was "tortured for 54 hours". What she has said is that she was smacked on the back of the head 3 times during the Nov.5/6 interrogation. It is only during that particular interrogation that she claimed verbal and physical abuse. But why let facts get in the way?

Amanda also never claimed there were "tag teams of twelve" interrogating her. Twelve officers were scheduled for the night of Nov.5/6 (some brought in from Rome), but they were divided into interrogating Amanda and Raff. Amanda only says there were sometimes several in the room at the same time and explicitly mentions Ficarra, the "silver haired" officer and a few others. The fact that SEVEN police officer sued her for defamation (and lost) is evidence that there were seven interrogating her that night.

Amanda did report being hit. It's in her memorial of Nov. 6 and she also told the prison doctor and nurse who examined her upon her arrest. Please cite evidence of your claim that "Under Italian law Dalla Vedova had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse".
Your claim that the ECHR case is not moving along is belied by the facts that have been reported here on the case status. This is just another example of you pulling a "fact" right out of thin air (and elsewhere).

There is no medical report of torture because she has never claimed she was "tortured" physically. Since when do three hand slaps to the back of the head result in physical damage? Again, this is just another classic example of your need to grossly exaggerate in an effort to support your position. And it fails miserably.

Knox v. Italy remains a communicated case that is among the "noteworthy pending cases" against Italy.

The ECHR is working its way through the cases against Italy, but it must also devote its time to the many cases against certain other Council of Europe states.

However, the ECHR is making progress at clearing the backlog of noteworthy cases against Italy. For example, it recently (22 Nov. 2017) held a Grand Chamber hearing of the case of Berlusconi v Italy, which may have been given some precedence because it involves an allegation of a violation of democratic election practices. The Chamber that received the Berlusconi case referred it to the Grand Chamber the day after it received it.

Both cases were communicated to Italy in 2016 - Knox v. Italy in April, and Berlusconi v. Italy in July. The Berlusconi case is listed on page 12 and the Knox case on page 13 of the Country Profile for Italy.

 

[Stacyhs]

Knox v. Italy remains a communicated case that is among the "noteworthy pending cases" against Italy.

The ECHR is working its way through the cases against Italy, but it must also devote its time to the many cases against certain other Council of Europe states.

However, the ECHR is making progress at clearing the backlog of noteworthy cases against Italy. For example, it recently (22 Nov. 2017) held a Grand Chamber hearing of the case of Berlusconi v Italy, which may have been given some precedence because it involves an allegation of a violation of democratic election practices. The Chamber that received the Berlusconi case referred it to the Grand Chamber the day after it received it.

Both cases were communicated to Italy in 2016 - Knox v. Italy in April, and Berlusconi v. Italy in July. The Berlusconi case is listed on page 12 and the Knox case on page 13 of the Country Profile for Italy.

Thank you, Numbers. This is what I was referring to. So much for Vixen's (untrue) claims.

 

[Stacyhs]

Please cite evidence of your claim that "Under Italian law Dalla Vedova had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse".

Still waiting.

 

[Planigale]

Think about it. Advertising, or the 'art of persuasion' is all about telling lies, or at least 'overcoming people's resistance'.

If the plain brown caremelised liquid known as 'coca-cola' was sold in a plain tin, there is no way it would cost >£1 a tin, nor would Coca-Cola have a larger profit that the GDP of the entire state of Mexico.
Extrapolate this into criminal law. Imagine there has been a crime committed. You are interviewed by the police.

If you are innocent, you just tell the truth. If guilty, you have to come up with an 'innocent' script. This involves acting. You have to imagine how an innocent person would act in your position, and what they might say.

Thus we saw a situation in the Kercher murder of all of the other room mates and witnesses immediately seeking an attorney. Knox and Sollecito imagined that an innocent person wouldn't do this, so casually pretended they didn't need one and declined to appoint one.

Now, because a guilty person aiming to evade justice has to dream up a pack of lies, in effect, of course statement analysis is useful, as we can pick out contradictions, changes in stories (Raff changed his five times), changes in reported emotions. One minute Knox claims she was frantic with worry about Mez, banging on her door and shouting her name, in her email to the world, yet all witnesses at the scene when the police arrived report she was entirely laid back about the locked door, even going so far as to telling Battistelli the door was often locked.

The problem with lying is that people forget their lies, so when we examine Knox and Sollecito's babblings, and compare their book, tv and film narratives with what they told the police and the courts, we see a fascinating phenomenon of one lie after another and a fake alibi.

Crini explained in his submissions that a fake alibi was a piece of evidence in itself.

Thus, statement analysis is invaluable to courts and this is exactly what barristers are getting at when they cross-examine. They are aiming to highlight contradictions, fabrications and anomalies, which will go into their closing submissions.

Why do you continually tell untruths?

Courtesy wikipedia, "Mexico's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in purchasing power parity (PPP) was estimated at US $2,143.499 billion in 2014, and $1,261.642 billion in nominal exchange rates."

NY Times, "Profit for the year rose to $7.4 billion, a 3 percent gain over $7.1 billion in 2014."

So ratio between Mexico GDP:Coca Cola profit is 2,000:7

 

[Matthew Best]

If the plain brown caremelised [sic] liquid known as 'coca-cola' was sold in a plain tin, there is no way it would cost >£1 a tin, nor would Coca-Cola have a larger profit that the GDP of the entire state of Mexico.

Extrapolate this into criminal law.

Quite apart from the mistakes (Coke doesn't cost more than £1 a tin, nor does Coca-Cola have a larger profit than the GDP of Mexico), this is simply hiliarious.

 

[Methos]

I thought this thread was about the Kercher case and the administrative clerical error of forgetting to put Raff's right to a lawyer (which he had anyway) in writing by his back office staff.

... Aaand back to Continuation part 24 we go now...

 

[Numbers]

Quite apart from the mistakes (Coke doesn't cost more than £1 a tin, nor does Coca-Cola have a larger profit

I think the PGP "syllogism" (silly-ism) is as follows:

A can or "tin" (330 ml) of Coca Cola costs more than 1 British pound, and
The profit of the Coca Cola company is more than the GDP of Mexico, therefore
Amanda Knox is a witch and guilty

The PGP view becomes more understandable when thus organized. And the truth or falsity of the first two statements (the premises) of the "syllogism" is irrelevant to the PGP belief in the conclusion.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think the PGP "syllogism" (silly-ism) is as follows:

A can or "tin" (330 ml) of Coca Cola costs more than 1 British pound, and
The profit of the Coca Cola company is more than the GDP of Mexico, therefore
Amanda Knox is a witch and guilty

The PGP view becomes more understandable when thus organized. And the truth or falsity of the first two statements (the premises) of the "syllogism" is irrelevant to the PGP belief in the conclusion.

The silly-isms continue.

That grand archivist, Methos, is able to link back to threads here, when Vixen (lacking anything new to post about) drops in a factoid long since discredited.

But every so often some silliness is truly new. By itself this is remarkable given that it is more than a decade past the original, horrid crime and almost 3 years past RS and AK being definitively acquitted of it.

Yet when Giuliano Mignini's defamation case against Sollecito and Gumbel is thrown out of court, and Mignini withdraws his private civil suit against the pair.......

...... we're told this is really a victory for Mignini. We're told this is to pave the way for an apology to Mignini from RS and AG.

How's that going?

The other recent silliness regards Nick van der Leek, whom Vixen (apparently) no longer posts about. Suddenly stopped.

 

[Stacyhs]

Please cite evidence of your claim that "Under Italian law Dalla Vedova had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse".

Still waiting.

 

[Stacyhs]

Why do you continually tell untruths?
Courtesy wikipedia, "Mexico's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in purchasing power parity (PPP) was estimated at US $2,143.499 billion in 2014, and $1,261.642 billion in nominal exchange rates."

NY Times, "Profit for the year rose to $7.4 billion, a 3 percent gain over $7.1 billion in 2014."

So ratio between Mexico GDP:Coca Cola profit is 2,000:7

It's quite easy to prove one's case when one can simply make up "facts".
Most certainly Amelia Earhart was never really missing as she was, undoubtedly, really a Japanese agent who, as we know, defected to Japan. You have been told.