Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
Here's one lawyer's take on it:

"Stabbing someone to death is not an “entry level job”; the people who perpetrate such crimes have worked their way up to such deeds by committing school yard fights, animal cruelty, brandishing weapons, unlawful threats, etc.
Click to expand...

That lawyer is a clown if he wrote that.
 
shuttlt said:
Mary, what is your take on the distinction here between false confessions and false memories in this case?
Click to expand...

I don't know if false memory is that useful a concept in this case. The police asked Amanda to visualize in her mind what might have happened the night of the crime. She described what she was seeing in the visualization. She talked about it as if it were in the past (four nights earlier) but that doesn't necessarily give it the status of a memory.

With regard to what you wrote earlier about this, though, I think people can be persuaded to develop a false memory within a matter of minutes under the right circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Amazer said:
If they're asking you to remember something that happened, while it didn't happen, just keep telling them it didn't happen. That's what most innocent people do.
Click to expand...


Cite?

Studies have already been cited to show that a significant percentage of people without extenuating stress factors will readily confess to have done something that they didn't do when they are presented with evidence that they did.
 
Imprecise language from a lawyer who believe that someone can't kill unless they have a history of violence?
 
uk_dave said:
Imprecise language from a lawyer who believe that someone can't kill unless they have a history of violence?
Click to expand...

Do you know of any stabbing cases committed by anyone whose past wasn't troubled in some way?
 
oh Mary, do stop flirting with me and think with your head.

Did AK's lawyer use that as a defence at her trial and if not, why not?
 
Well, I gotta hit the hay so I will look for your answer in the morning.

As it turns out, pending does not necessarily mean the same as impending. According to some of the definitions on Dictionary.com, pending also means:

adj. 1. Not yet decided or settled; awaiting conclusion or confirmation.
prep. 1. While in the process of; during.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pending

Hard to believe, but that lawyer knows more than we do about some things.

Incidentally, you didn't answer my question: Do you know of any stabbing cases committed by anyone whose past wasn't troubled in some way?

Maybe you and funk de fino can come up with some alternatives to what the lawyer said about stabbings, instead of just saying he's wrong.
 
Dan O. said:
Cite?

Studies have already been cited to show that a significant percentage of people without extenuating stress factors will readily confess to have done something that they didn't do when they are presented with evidence that they did.
Click to expand...

I'll retract since I cannot actually provide you with a proper cite.

Perhaps later, once I've got a little more time on my hands that I'll see if I can dig up a study that supports my point, but for now work will not allow that.
 
Supernaut said:
No, I was referring to Fiona's rather worn mantra of "I see no evidence of absence" - in this case, the absence of controls run by Stefanoni - identical (equally unorthodox) tests run concurrently on other items, ideally taken from the same location.

Perhaps you both DO actually need the rules of logic explained.

I cannot PROVE that a fusion-reactor powered by banana skins is impossible. The onus is on someone who claims otherwise to prove that it IS.
Click to expand...
I am aware of where the burden of proof lies for fantastical claims. This is usually in the context of evidence for the existence of God, Russels teapot etc. It seems to me though that assuming that no controls were done is hardly a neutral position to return to if we decide there isn't enough evidence to be sure that the controls exist. May I suggest we agree that we don't know for certain whether controls were done and are cautious about any argument that depends on an assumption about the existence, or nonexistence of controls?
 
Dan O. said:
Cite?

Studies have already been cited to show that a significant percentage of people without extenuating stress factors will readily confess to have done something that they didn't do when they are presented with evidence that they did.
Click to expand...
Do any of those studies deal with people confessing based on false memories induced by the questioning? I don't mean to use this question as a way of dismissing the studies, I am curious.

I'll have a read back through those studies later today.
 
Mary_H said:
Barbie Latza Nadeau covered the case in Perugia. She wrote:

"From the moment they were arrested, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were a circulation bonanza for the Italian media and a front-page staple of the British tabloids. The Italian press funneled leaks from the lawyers and prosecutors to embellish the crime story and quickly dubbed Knox 'Angel Face,' fostering a cult of morbid fascination with this most unlikely killer."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-02/how-the-media-got-knox-wrong/

On the TLC documentary, she also said the prosecution (or maybe it was the police) "were practically handing out pictures of the crime scene" to reporters.



How so?



Amanda very credibly said it was. In her written statement to the police, she asked the police to stop yelling at her because it only made her more confused. She wrote it before she knew she was going to stand trial for the murder, so she had no reason to embellish.
Click to expand...


The press were interested in the case? So? The press are interested in lots of high profile murders. Note that in the order list of those releasing information she puts the lawyers first, before the prosecution. The prosecution releasing pictures of the crime scene...so? What's wrong with that?

The store keeper was clearly important since his information was considered evidence. It was evidence since his testimony was heard in the trial. Therefore, it was indeed relevant.

I didn't know it was a crime for police to yell. Perhaps if she'd given straight answers for a change to the questions they were asking her, they wouldn't have needed to yell.
 
If Amanda had been so thoroughly questioned for days, and all she had to do is repeat the truth, wouldn't that make her *more* familiar with and sure of the truth? Not more confusion, surely. The "harsh" questioning only lasted a couple hours before she told her story about Lumumba to deflect the attention from herself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom