Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

<snip>

In America, witnesses are indeed afforded attorneys during questioning if they ask for one, and they cannot be held against their will unless the police charge them with a crime.

<snip>

In the U.S. witnesses are not "afforded attorneys during questioning if they ask for one". They can request that their attorney be present during such questioning, but there is no obligation for the state to provide one. So that part is wrong. For that matter even formally charged suspects are not just afforded an attorney. They can demand that their own be present, or subsequent to a determination of indigence, they can have one provided.

As far as whether or not witnesses can be held against their will, all I can say is do some research on "material witness" statutes. Not only can they be, but anyone who has been watching the news since 9/11 should be fully cognizant of the fact that they are.

This doesn't even touch on the thousands of cases where LE detains people for interrogation without bothering with petty things like warrants in the U.S., generally with impunity, because the victims ... er, witnesses are without the social or financial resources to make a fuss. As a rule they defend themselves by claiming that those people could hve left anytime they wanted, but the excuse often doesn't bear up to scrutiny. Here's one example.

Chicago Tribune

September 10, 2002

A federal judge on Monday ruled that Chicago police and Cook County prosecutors have routinely violated the rights of witnesses by denying them access to lawyers while holding them for long hours in small, locked interrogation rooms.

In a sharply worded opinion, Judge Milton Shadur of U.S. District Court in Chicago issued a wide-ranging injunction ordering Chicago police to begin allowing lawyers to see the witnesses immediately. To verify police compliance, the attorneys must be present when police tell the witnesses they have arrived, Shadur ordered.

Shadur, who in the past has issued rulings critical of Chicago police, wrote Monday that while in theory police treat witnesses and suspects differently--saying witnesses are free to leave the police station while suspects are not--"that pristine theory is totally at odds with actual practice."

"No reasonable person," the judge wrote in a 41-page opinion, "would knowingly volunteer to remain in a small, windowless, locked interrogation room for such extended periods of time."

Shadur said holding witnesses--particularly those who are poor and ignorant of their rights--is often a pretext to questioning them as suspects and sometimes leads to violations of their constitutional rights.

I'll let you exercise your own research skills to find more examples. There are plenty out there. Compared to the U.S. Knox's treatment in Italy seems to be a stellar example of professionalism. Maybe we should be learning from them.

That's two abject fails in the same sentence. Not bad for a newcomer.

 

[Kestrel]

Science has shown that police interrogation techniques can elicit false statements from suspects. When these techniques were used on Amanda Knox, she signed a statement that included things that were clearly false.

So why do so many so called "skeptics" on JREF insist that that other parts of her statement are proof that Amanda was at the scene of the crime when Meredith was murdered?

When science conflicts with the decrees of an authority figure, a skeptic should be siding with science.

 

[shuttlt]

Science has shown that police interrogation techniques can elicit false statements from suspects. When these techniques were used on Amanda Knox, she signed a statement that included things that were clearly false.

So why do so many so called "skeptics" on JREF insist that that other parts of her statement are proof that Amanda was at the scene of the crime when Meredith was murdered?

What parts of her statement are we talking about here? For myself, I would be very interested to see her statement in order to form an opinion of it.

When science conflicts with the decrees of an authority figure, a skeptic should be siding with science.

I hope I'm not just moving the goal posts, but one question that comes to my mind is, what percentage of ******** statements are caused by this, for want of a better description, false confession syndrome, and what percentage are due to guilty suspects making stuff up? I don't particularly expect anybody else to do the leg work for me in finding this out, but without knowing the ratio here it seems to me we have no context for all these reports about false confessions. Statistics that start with a bunch of known false confessions are answering a different question to the one we are asking.

 

[43degreesNorth]

What parts of her statement are we talking about here? For myself, I would be very interested to see her statement in order to form an opinion of it.


I hope I'm not just moving the goal posts, but one question that comes to my mind is, what percentage of ******** statements are caused by this, for want of a better description, false confession syndrome, and what percentage are due to guilty suspects making stuff up? I don't particularly expect anybody else to do the leg work for me in finding this out, but without knowing the ratio here it seems to me we have no context for all these reports about false confessions. Statistics that start with a bunch of known false confessions are answering a different question to the one we are asking.

Kestrel's video link showed 2.. only 2 examples of false confessions and 1 was a mentally ill person and the second a mentally disabled person

 

[Kestrel]

Kestrel's video link showed 2.. only 2 examples of false confessions and 1 was a mentally ill person and the second a mentally disabled person

Read the article I linked in that same post.

ETA: The experiment were subjects were falsely accused of damaging the equipment is rather telling.

 

[shuttlt]

The study sampling the greatest number of false confessions that I've looked at so far contains 125 cases in the US between 1971 and 2002 (4 per year). Clearly the number who are able to prove it will be the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Kestrel]

What parts of her statement are we talking about here? For myself, I would be very interested to see her statement in order to form an opinion of it.

Amanda heard Meredith scream, therefore she was at the scene of the murder. Even a few hours later, Amanda wrote it seemed more like a dream to her than reality.

 

[shuttlt]

In this study all offenders admitted to Icelandic prisons over a one year period were approached and 229 (95%) agreed to co-operate with the study. Twenty-seven (12%) of the 229 subjects claimed to have in the past made a false confession during police interviewing. Women prisoners more commonly claimed to have made a false confession than males. The main motives given for having made the false confession were to protect somebody else (48%) and police pressure or escape from custody (52%). The great majority (78%) of the subjects had never retracted the confession, claiming that they had perceived no point in dong so. Twenty-one (78%) of the subjects were convicted of the offenses to which they had, allegedly, made a false confession. The findings in the present study raise the possibility that within an inquisitorial system false confessions may go relatively undetected by the judiciary and be rarely retracted or disputed.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a789207292&db=all

I guess we aren't going to capture people who have "internalized" their false confessions, though surely they are a minority? Also not captured would be ******** statements made by genuinely guilty people in order to try to minimize their guilt and throw attention on somebody else. I find it interesting here that almost 50% of false confessions were diliberate attempts to mislead the police, all be it for unselfish reasons.

 

[shuttlt]

Amanda heard Meredith scream, therefore she was at the scene of the murder. Even a few hours later, Amanda wrote it seemed more like a dream to her than reality.

That argument is not a very good one. I've seen it of course. I hope people just say this to be provocative. There are some lame arguments on both sides. The "seemed like a dream" part of it is more problematic because, again, it puts us into the realm of false memories rather than simply false confessions.

 

[43degreesNorth]

Well, if it was a 'false' confession she 1. doesn't appear to be protecting anyone.. instead names an innocent man as the murderer 2. saying she heard Meredith scream isn't going to get her out of police custody either, duh.. places her at the scene.

she only retracted part of it when she realized what a deep hole she dug.

 

[shuttlt]

There seem to be a bunch of interesting Icelandinc studies that seem to give a way into the frequency of false confessions:

The main aims of the study were twofold. Firstly, to ascertain a national base rate of custodial interrogation, confession, denial and false confession among Icelandic youth (age group 16–24 years), and secondly, to investigate psychological and criminological factors associated with false confession. The participants were 10,472 students in further education in Iceland. All colleges of secondary education in Iceland were represented. As a part of a large national study into the background, behaviour, and mental health of adolescents, each pupil was asked about custodial interrogation, confessions, denials, and false confessions. Almost one-fourth (18.6%) of the participants stated, that they had been interrogated by the police in relation to a suspected offence, of whom 53% said they had confessed truthfully. A small minority of those interrogated (7.3% of those interrogated and 1.6% of the total sample) claimed to have made false confessions to the police. The false confession rate was highest (12%) among those interrogated more than once and lowest (3%) among those interrogated only once. A Discriminant Function Analysis found that false confessions during interrogation were mostly associated with the extent of involvement in delinquent activities, the involvement of friends in delinquency, and depression.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a789207292&db=all

 

[43degreesNorth]

also...from kestrel's article

People who are intellectually impaired, as measured by conventional IQ tests, are also overrepresented within the population of false confessors (Drizin & Leo, 2004). This result is also not surprising. People who are mentally retarded also exhibit an acquiescence response bias that leads them to say ‘yes’ to a whole range of questions – even when an affirmative response is incorrect and absurd (Finlay & Lyons, 2002). They also tend to be highly suggestible, as measured by the degree to which they are influenced by leading and misleading questions on the GSS (Everington & Fulero, 1999; Gudjonsson & Clare, 1995).

 

[Alt+F4]

The prosecution have no more obligation to provide this information to the outside world than Bruce, or Charlie, or Dr Waterbury are obliged to hadn over their evidence.

It would be nice if Dr. Waterbury could provide some evidence regarding this claim that he has made:

Rudy Guede, whom the overwhelming evidence points to as the murderer of Meredith Kercher, was a police informant.

 

[43degreesNorth]

Kestrel......There is a big difference in a false confession for murder or being at the scene of a murder and a false confession obtained in a study accusing people of crashing a computer by hitting a forbidden key

 

[shuttlt]

Well, if it was a 'false' confession she 1. doesn't appear to be protecting anyone.. instead names an innocent man as the murderer

True. I haven't been able to find any statistics on false accusations of other people that put you at the scene of the crime, but play down your guilt. On some level she might be protecting herself, or possibly protecting Lumumba in order to protect herself. At best the numbers I posted give us a slightly better idea of the statistical landscape of these false confessions/accusations.

2. saying she heard Meredith scream isn't going to get her out of police custody either, duh.. places her at the scene.

Well, she may not have realized the amount of trouble the "confession" would get her into, witness the frantic back peddling a few hours later. Again, this just gives more detail to the false confession statistics.

she only retracted part of it when she realized what a deep hole she dug.

How and in what sense she retracted it is a discussion in itself, and the fact that it isn't clear is illustrative of something I'm sure. Not that most of us have seen the statement in order to be sure what she has and hasn't retracted.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Here is a book suggestion for anyone interested in false confessions:

http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Guys-Murder-Confessions-Norfolk/dp/1595584013

Brief synopsis:

Suspect 1 (Danial Williams) is arrested and makes confession, naming no accomplices. But perp DNA doesn't match Suspect 1. So...

Suspect 2 (Joseph Dick) is arrested and makes confession, naming Williams as his accomplice. But perp DNA doesn't match Suspect 2. So...

Suspect 3 (Eric Wilson) is arrested and makes confession, naming Williams and Dick as his accomplices. But perp DNA doesn't match Suspect 3. So...

Suspect 4 (Derek Tice) is arrested and makes confession, naming Williams, Dick, and Wilsom as his accomplices. But perp DNA doesn't match Suspect 4. So...

Three more suspects are arrested, none of whose DNA matches the perp, but they refuse to confess.

Eventually, the guy who did it, who is in jail for something else, confesses. His DNA matches the perp. So...

The authorities mount a full-court press to convict ALL their suspects, with or without good physical evidence, because to do otherwise would be to admit they made a mistake.

And that is one thing they will not do.

 

[shuttlt]

Kestrel......There is a big difference in a false confession for murder or being at the scene of a murder and a false confession obtained in a study accusing people of crashing a computer by hitting a forbidden key

And the study took as it's starting point that it's subjects were innocent. That is not our starting point.

 

[shuttlt]

Charlie, what is the point of posting lists of cases of false confessions? I can post lists of cases of true confessions. How many people confess to stuff in the world every day? False confessions could be incredibly rare and you could still produce cases.

 

[43degreesNorth]

Have you read this book? What were the techniques used to get confessions out of 3 innocent strapping young military men?

 

[Alt+F4]

also...from kestrel's article

People who are intellectually impaired, as measured by conventional IQ tests, are also overrepresented within the population of false confessors (Drizin & Leo, 2004). This result is also not surprising. People who are mentally retarded also exhibit an acquiescence response bias that leads them to say ‘yes’ to a whole range of questions – even when an affirmative response is incorrect and absurd (Finlay & Lyons, 2002). They also tend to be highly suggestible, as measured by the degree to which they are influenced by leading and misleading questions on the GSS (Everington & Fulero, 1999; Gudjonsson & Clare, 1995).

Perhaps Raffaele is intellecutally impaired. That would explain his lie regarding pricking Meredith with the big knife. For those who believe he did not tell the Carabinieri there is "a lot of blood", it would also explain how poorly he spoke Italian, his native language.