Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

Numbers said:
Why would someone charged with a crime imagine a scenario that never happened in reality about alleged evidence in a crime, or about involvement in the crime? There is a large scientific literature on the topic of false confessions that can provide explanations.

The following scientific review article is relevant to the Knox - Sollecito and similar cases; I post here some excerpts (bolding, except in the title, is my emphasis):

The Science-Based Pathways to Understanding False Confessions and Wrongful Conviction​

Gisli H. Gudjonsson












Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7937609/
Click to expand...
The fact that confessions can be coerced and people make false confessions doesn't ipso facto mean that is what happened here. As we have seen, Knox is a very confident speaker, loves being in the limelight, thought her trial was a theatre production, smiling and waving to people, wearing unsuitable court wear, insisted on taking the stand, thinking she was a star. She mentions Mez only once in her entire 80-page Prison Diary and not at all in the wiretap with her Mom. Her confession wasn't a false one nor was it a wrongful conviction; her confession was a coldly calculated one and she was rightly convicted for it and remains so. She actually theatrically screamed (of Lumumba) 'He's bad! He's bad!' pure theatre designed to manipulate the cops.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
I hope it's taught in Criminology curricula.

You may be aware that Saul Kassin, who did considerable work on the science of false confessions, is a Distinguished Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, part of the City University of New York system, so his findings and that of other workers in the field are, one may hope, increasingly taught.

Kassin has written a book, copyright 2022:

Duped: Why Innocent People Confess – and Why We Believe Their Confessions​

Here's an excerpt from the Amazon summary (my bolding for emphasis):



See:

Saul Kassin | John Jay College of Criminal Justice

www.jjay.cuny.edu www.jjay.cuny.edu

Duped: Why Innocent People Confess – and Why We Believe Their Confessions: Kassin Ph.D, Saul: 9781633888081: Amazon.com: Books

Duped: Why Innocent People Confess – and Why We Believe Their Confessions [Kassin Ph.D, Saul] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Duped: Why Innocent People Confess – and Why We Believe Their Confessions
www.amazon.com
Click to expand...
Yes, I did criminology as part of my Psychology degree but only on a basic second-year option level. What I found out is, that studies show that where there are defendants that include a male and a female, juries and courts almost always assume the male is the main perpetrator and the female merely his accessory, so the male gets the tough sentence and the female the lesser one. In addition, juries find it hard to comprehend a female can commit a serious crime, such as premeditated murder so women are more likely to get off (statistics show). However, WHEN females are convicted of serious heinous crimes such as the murder of a child or something as aggravated as the crime against Kercher, they are looked upon more severely and given harsher sentences (and we saw Knox get 28 years). Problem with this case is, it got hijacked by the PR agencies and gung-ho patriotic US politicians and Innocence Project bods who simply assumed Knox must be innocent, mainly IMV because the general public simply don't have the intelligence or imagination to realise that hey, 'Amanda' as they affectionately call her, actually did it! It really isn't some kind of theatre production or some kind of heartwarming WOMAN'S OWN life story; it's a horrible brutal, nasty, vicious and calculating murder of a young woman for psychopathic kicks. It's really quite shocking how gullible the average person is.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Yes, I did criminology as part of my Psychology degree but only on a basic second-year option level. What I found out is, that studies show that where there are defendants that include a male and a female, juries and courts almost always assume the male is the main perpetrator and the female merely his accessory, so the male gets the tough sentence and the female the lesser one. In addition, juries find it hard to comprehend a female can commit a serious crime, such as premeditated murder so women are more likely to get off (statistics show). However, WHEN females are convicted of serious heinous crimes such as the murder of a child or something as aggravated as the crime against Kercher, they are looked upon more severely and given harsher sentences (and we saw Knox get 28 years). Problem with this case is, it got hijacked by the PR agencies and gung-ho patriotic US politicians and Innocence Project bods who simply assumed Knox must be innocent, mainly IMV because the general public simply don't have the intelligence or imagination to realise that hey, 'Amanda' as they affectionately call her, actually did it! It really isn't some kind of theatre production or some kind of heartwarming WOMAN'S OWN life story; it's a horrible brutal, nasty, vicious and calculating murder of a young woman for psychopathic kicks. It's really quite shocking how gullible the average person is.
Click to expand...
More fanfic. Bolding mine. Do you have a cite for this? Everything I find says that women get lighter sentences.
 
Vixen said:
Snipped for blah, blah. blah.....

all the glass on top of Filomena's stuff scattered around.
Click to expand...
I'll let the evidence and Filomena speak for themselves here:
On the subject of the contrast between the testimony and the documents (photographs of Filomena's room that do not show pieces of glass on top of the clothes and objects scattered around), Romanelli's own declarations are significant and decisive.
Click to expand...
(Massei, p. 53)

...the broken glass not only appeared on top of items or clothing, but also underneath, as is clear from the testimony given by Ms Romanelli at the hearing on February 7, 2009 who depicted an extremely chaotic condition of the room, all a ʺjumbleʺ. Thus verbatim: ʺ...
THE PRESIDENT ‐ Iʹm sorry, what does a jumble mean?
ANSWER ‐ It was a jumble of broken glass, clothes, broken glass...
PRESIDENT ‐ So they were under the glass too?
ANSWER ‐ Yes, they were also under, but they were on top too.
Click to expand...
(Hellmann, p. 78)
Vixen said:
(Please don't come out with the bull butter about there was some glass on the floor proving it wasn't. Police and forensics confirmed it was. As was upheld by the final Supreme Court.)
Click to expand...
Who has claimed that "some glass on the floor" proved it wasn't staged? Of course there was glass on the floor. I've ever seen anyone, including me, claim such nonsense.
No forensics proved anything about the glass because no forensic tests were performed, including a test shatter test. However, ballistic expert Pasquale (after filming 3 re-enactments shown in court), testified it was broken from the outside and not from the inside as the police and Mignini erroneously claimed from day one. Do you now want to claim it wasn't thrown from outside, but inside?
 
A former US government medical official who had been fired for disagreeing with her politically-appointed superior, recently stated before a US Senate committee hearing:

I could have kept the office, the title, but I would have lost the one thing that cannot be replaced: my integrity.
Click to expand...

I'm posting her statement to point out the lack of integrity in the investigation and prosecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

A lack of integrity of the police and the prosecutor is not uncommon in US cases of miscarriages of justice, as found by the National Registry of Exonerations.

Official misconduct contributed to the false convictions of 54% of defendants who were later exonerated. In general, the rate of misconduct is higher in more severe crimes.
Click to expand...

Sources:


 
Vixen said:
The fact that confessions can be coerced and people make false confessions doesn't ipso facto mean that is what happened here.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what happened here according to Prof. Kassin who has written and spoken extensively about it. As an expert of the subject, I'll take his opinion over yours.

Vixen said:
As we have seen, Knox is a very confident speaker, loves being in the limelight, thought her trial was a theatre production, smiling and waving to people, wearing unsuitable court wear, insisted on taking the stand, thinking she was a star.
Click to expand...
No, as YOU infer. And how DARE she smile and wave at her family, wear a T-shirt that was a gift from her aunt and, most outrageously of all, take the stand in her own defense! I remember you criticizing Raffaele for NOT testifying in court.
Vixen said:
She mentions Mez only once in her entire 80-page Prison Diary
Click to expand...
That took about 2 seconds to prove a lie:
If it were up to me my friend would never have been killed and we all would still be living together in our home.

Meredith was also the most studious and she also went out with her friends.... She was very smart. To me she was always a good friend.
She gave me advice an also protected me when she knew I was in an uncomfortable situation. She was the most solitary of us all, but only because at home she liked to be at peace to read her mysteries, but at the same time she also joined us to watch silly game shows on TV together.
Click to expand...
(p. 4, first page of writing)

....worried that maybe the police were right, maybe I had seen Meredith's death, and maybe I really was confused...
Click to expand...
p.5
I was asleep the night Meredith was murdered.
Click to expand...
p. 7

There are even more.

Vixen said:
and not at all in the wiretap with her Mom.
Click to expand...
The first wiretap on Nov. 3? She mentions Meredith by name four times. I didn't bother to count the "she" references to her.


Vixen said:
Her confession wasn't a false one nor was it a wrongful conviction; her confession was a coldly calculated one and she was rightly convicted for it and remains so.
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah, blah....
Vixen said:
She actually theatrically screamed (of Lumumba) 'He's bad! He's bad!' pure theatre designed to manipulate the cops.
Click to expand...
Speaking of pure theater up finger.JPG
 
Vixen said:
The fact that confessions can be coerced and people make false confessions doesn't ipso facto mean that is what happened here. As we have seen, Knox is a very confident speaker, loves being in the limelight, thought her trial was a theatre production, smiling and waving to people, wearing unsuitable court wear, insisted on taking the stand, thinking she was a star. She mentions Mez only once in her entire 80-page Prison Diary and not at all in the wiretap with her Mom. Her confession wasn't a false one nor was it a wrongful conviction; her confession was a coldly calculated one and she was rightly convicted for it and remains so. She actually theatrically screamed (of Lumumba) 'He's bad! He's bad!' pure theatre designed to manipulate the cops.
Click to expand...


Spin it anyway you want, but Lumumba wasn't there, so that alone makes it a false confession.
 
Stacyhs said:
That is exactly what happened here according to Prof. Kassin who has written and spoken extensively about it. As an expert of the subject, I'll take his opinion over yours.


No, as YOU infer. And how DARE she smile and wave at her family, wear a T-shirt that was a gift from her aunt and, most outrageously of all, take the stand in her own defense! I remember you criticizing Raffaele for NOT testifying in court.

That took about 2 seconds to prove a lie:

(p. 4, first page of writing)


p.5

p. 7

There are even more.


The first wiretap on Nov. 3? She mentions Meredith by name four times. I didn't bother to count the "she" references to her.



Blah, blah, blah, blah....

Speaking of pure theater View attachment 63983
Click to expand...
Guilters have shown vile industrial scale hypocrisy when attacking Amanda for lying by spreading lies about Amanda such as not mentioning Meredith in her diary as this post has pointed out. Again why resort to industrial scale lying if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid and there was hard evidence? Vixen has consistently refused to answer this question.
 
Welshman said:
Guilters have shown vile industrial scale hypocrisy when attacking Amanda for lying by spreading lies about Amanda such as not mentioning Meredith in her diary as this post has pointed out. Again why resort to industrial scale lying if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid and there was hard evidence? Vixen has consistently refused to answer this question.
Click to expand...
I'll suggest that the Knox - Sollecito case began with the actions of the police and the prosecutor who lacked integrity in unreasonably and unfairly coercing them in the questioning on 5 -6 November, and continuing with the dishonesty of the guilters who continue a hoax against Knox and Sollecito.
 
Besides the question of why it would be necessary for Vixen to resort to lying if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was a slam dunk, other issues are created by guilters having to resort to lying :-



*Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling numerous lies. How do you reconcile guilters having to resort to lying because the facts don’t support the case for guilt with Amanda and Raffaele having to resort to lying because the facts don’t support the case for innocence. Both can’t be true.

*Vixen claims Amanda, Raffaele and Guede came together to kill Meredith. If this was the case, why are there massive holes in the scenario? As can be seen from the below link, the evidence against Rudy is so solid you would not need to lie to argue the case for guilt. The case for guilt against Amanda and Raffaele can only be argued by resorting to lying. How is this massive difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime? If there was solid evidence against Guede which meant you could argue the case for his guilt without resorting to lying, surely the same should also apply to Amanda and Raffaele.

Rudy Guede

*Vixen complains bitterly about the supreme court annulment and argues an injustice was committed which implies this is was due to hard evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele. How can this view be valid if resorting to lying to argue the case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt destroys the notion there was hard evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele? Doesn’t the fact that guilters have to resort to lying indicates there was no valid case against Amanda and Raffaele and justifies the decision of the supreme court?

* Vixen bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling numerous lies. It is repulsive hypocrisy to lie on an industrial scale in your posts and then viciously attack people for telling numerous lies. How does Vixen explain this hypocrisy?

* The notion Amanda voluntarily accused Lumumba of killing Meredith without pressure from the police has been ruthlessly weaponised by Vixen and used against Amanda. It is disgusting hypocrisy for guilters to attack Amanda for falsely accusing someone of a crime when guilters use falsehoods to imply Amanda killed Meredith. How does Vixen explain this hypocrisy?
 
Welshman said:
Besides the question of why it would be necessary for Vixen to resort to lying if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was a slam dunk, other issues are created by guilters having to resort to lying :-



*Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling numerous lies. How do you reconcile guilters having to resort to lying because the facts don’t support the case for guilt with Amanda and Raffaele having to resort to lying because the facts don’t support the case for innocence. Both can’t be true.

*Vixen claims Amanda, Raffaele and Guede came together to kill Meredith. If this was the case, why are there massive holes in the scenario? As can be seen from the below link, the evidence against Rudy is so solid you would not need to lie to argue the case for guilt. The case for guilt against Amanda and Raffaele can only be argued by resorting to lying. How is this massive difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime? If there was solid evidence against Guede which meant you could argue the case for his guilt without resorting to lying, surely the same should also apply to Amanda and Raffaele.

Rudy Guede

*Vixen complains bitterly about the supreme court annulment and argues an injustice was committed which implies this is was due to hard evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele. How can this view be valid if resorting to lying to argue the case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt destroys the notion there was hard evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele? Doesn’t the fact that guilters have to resort to lying indicates there was no valid case against Amanda and Raffaele and justifies the decision of the supreme court?

* Vixen bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling numerous lies. It is repulsive hypocrisy to lie on an industrial scale in your posts and then viciously attack people for telling numerous lies. How does Vixen explain this hypocrisy?

* The notion Amanda voluntarily accused Lumumba of killing Meredith without pressure from the police has been ruthlessly weaponised by Vixen and used against Amanda. It is disgusting hypocrisy for guilters to attack Amanda for falsely accusing someone of a crime when guilters use falsehoods to imply Amanda killed Meredith. How does Vixen explain this hypocrisy?
Click to expand...
They don't just 'imply', they flat-out accuse her.
 
Something I just found out: Guede was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder while in prison (p.43):
A diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder must meet 5 of the 9 characteristics. Guede met six:

The DSM IV identifies the presence of only five (or more) of the aforementioned elements in Rudy Guede we find the points 1), 2), 3),6),7),9) perfectly corresponding to it.

1) fear of abandonment.

2) A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships, characterized by extremes of hyperidealization and devaluation.

3) alteration of identity: markedly and persistently unstable self-image and self-perception.

6) Emotional instability due to marked mood reactivity (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety, usually lasting a few hours and rarely more than a few days).

7) chronic feelings of emptiness.

9) paranoid ideation, or severe transient dissociative symptoms related to stress.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
The DAILY MIRROR was one of the better tabloids. Its webpage, alas is too full of ads to bear looking at. Kate Mansey is now with the SUNDAY TIMES and is a well-respected journalist. Unlike Nina Burleigh, Mansey was there doing her gumshoe duty interviewing people at the scene.
Click to expand...
Ted Bundy was one of the better serial killers.

Gee, maybe Burleigh hadn't been assigned to do gumshoe duty by virtue of not being a ground reporter for a daily "newspaper". I don't know, and don't really care, who, if anyone, Burleigh was full-time employed by at the time. This is just a silly and meaningless "comparison", is all. Amusing only due to its utter typicality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom