Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[43degreesNorth]

I agree, sorry we are off topic of Amanda's 'confession' 'gift' 'declaration' whatever.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

43degreesNorth writes:

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

I have read it and that is why I recommend it as an interesting true crime book.

The technique boils down to making the suspect think he will be better off confessing to something he did not do than continuing to deny involvement in something the police think he did.

 

[43degreesNorth]

43degreesNorth writes:

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

I have read it and that is why I recommend it as an interesting true crime book.

The technique boils down to making the suspect think he will be better off confessing to something he did not do than continuing to deny involvement in something the police think he did.

Then I think we are back to the high proportion of mentally challenged being caught up in false confessions. If this is the state of the US navy... that is a more serious problem for the US than false confessions

 

[stilicho]

Did it honestly take you until December 4, 2009 to make up your mind whether they were innocent or guilty?

I'd never heard of any of them, including the victim, until after 04 DEC 2009. Note the date on the OP.

 

[stilicho]

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.

Most of us are perplexed not by the fact that AK made false statements but by the accusation that her employer had murdered her housemate. I've never read any example like this in any of the scientific studies of false confessions. Moreover, after being able to speak to her lawyers, she did not retract the accusation.

We sceptics are not at all surprised at AK telling lies.

 

[Alt+F4]

Then I think we are back to the high proportion of mentally challenged being caught up in false confessions. If this is the state of the US navy... that is a more serious problem for the US than false confessions

One of the men accused said he would have confessed to involvement in the JFK assassination if the police said he was involved. He wasn't even alive in 1963.

 

[Mary_H]

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 fact that the press are interested in a case doesn't mean they deservse information about it. From the looks of things, the Perugian police called up their pals at the local paper and invited them over to the crime scene the minute they found the body.

It would be one thing if they reported only facts, but it wasn't long before the prosecution's whole case against Amanda, pink bunny vibrator and all, was in the international media. What purpose was there in providing that kind of information to the press other than to prejudice them?

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 believe HumanityBlues and I were asking you to explain why the shopkeeper's information was considered to be relevant evidence.

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.

And a wife-beater wouldn't have to beat his wife if she would only behave.

 

[stilicho]

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.

Could be a regional dialect, though.

Regardless, the dialect issue doesn't explain his 17 NOV 2007 knife-pricking culinary adventures. I doubt there's anything wrong with his intellect. It's his judgement that needs a little polishing.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Amanda did repeat the truth. The police chose not to believe her. Predictably, the clarity she had had for four days became confused. She was a young person in a room full of older authority figures that she had no desire to defy. That she held on for as long as she did is admirable.

 

[stilicho]

The fact that the press are interested in a case doesn't mean they deservse information about it. From the looks of things, the Perugian police called up their pals at the local paper and invited them over to the crime scene the minute they found the body.

What?

Aren't there police scanners in Italy? Where is your evidence that the only way the story became newsworthy was through the efforts of the Perugia authorities and not by the feeding frenzy of members of the media? Don't forget to itemise the 'scoops' that were actually releases by family members of the accused or their lawyers.

 

[43degreesNorth]

Could be a regional dialect, though.

Regardless, the dialect issue doesn't explain his 17 NOV 2007 knife-pricking culinary adventures. I doubt there's anything wrong with his intellect. It's his judgement that needs a little polishing.

It's his lying errrr false confessions that need polishing

 

[stilicho]

Amanda did repeat the truth. The police chose not to believe her. Predictably, the clarity she had had for four days became confused She was a young person in a room full of older authority figures that she had no desire to defy. That she held on for as long as she did is admirable.

Get real.

They all barely had time to sit down and adjust their chairs before AK blurted out that Patrick had murdered Meredith.

 

[quadraginta]

Amanda did repeat the truth. The police chose not to believe her. Predictably, the clarity she had had for four days became confused She was a young person in a room full of older authority figures that she had no desire to defy. That she held on for as long as she did is admirable.

Are you saying that the police spent four days trying to browbeat her into randomly accusing an innocent man of murder?

 

[HumanityBlues]

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.

Skeptics, the reasoning here is so inherently flawed I'm surprised it's not jumped on. You don't need any context whatsoever or know anything about the case to tear this illogical syllogism apart. Where are you all hiding?

 

[stilicho]

Are you saying that the police spent four days trying to browbeat her into randomly accusing an innocent man of murder?

And Mary H is conveniently forgetting the one crucial step in this crescendo of lies. It was the moment at which her Italian boyfriend decided to cut her loose and hopefully save his own skin.

 

[stilicho]

Skeptics, the reasoning here is so inherently flawed I'm surprised it's not jumped on. You don't need any context whatsoever or know anything about the case to tear this illogical syllogism apart. Where are you all hiding?

I know what he's talking about. It's been discussed to death, too. I wouldn't have put it in exactly the same words but it's clear to most of us what it's about.

 

[Mary_H]

Are you saying that the police spent four days trying to browbeat her into randomly accusing an innocent man of murder?

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. Nobody seemed to have a problem with Amanda's account of things until the interrogation. Suddenly they changed their approach.

 

[Alt+F4]

Skeptics, the reasoning here is so inherently flawed I'm surprised it's not jumped on. You don't need any context whatsoever or know anything about the case to tear this illogical syllogism apart. Where are you all hiding?

I'm not very familiar with the store keeper. Did the defense object to his testimony? What questions did the defense ask him?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

43degreesNorth writes:

Then I think we are back to the high proportion of mentally challenged being caught up in false confessions. If this is the state of the US navy... that is a more serious problem for the US than false confessions

That description applies to one of the four, Joseph Dick, but not to the other three.

Christopher Ochoa is today an attorney in Wisconsin. He was never "mentally challenged," but he was young and naive when he confessed to a murder he did not commit, and accused an equally innocent friend. They both spent years in prison, where Ochoa's friend was attacked and suffered severe permanent brain damage.

There are a lot of cases out there. One way to tell is if the confession or statement does not check out with the actual facts of the crime. If Amanda and Raffaele had been at the cottage when Meredith was murdered, and had rolled over on the guy who actually did it - Guede - they would probably be out today. But they weren't there, so, although they both changed their stories under pressure, neither of them mentioned the guy who left bloody fingerprints and DNA inside the victim's body.

 

[Mary_H]

The question I keep wondering, is 'why' the police kept telling Amanda to 'remember'. The only reason I can think of, is that they were asking her straight questions and instead of answering yes or no, or with some detailed answer, she instead was answering with 'I don't remember'. It's probably the most common answer given by criminals to police and the answer they like least, because they know it's bunk. Police are never going to let you get away with 'I can't remember', especially when you are being asked questions about events that happened not years ago, months ago or even weeks ago, but only several days ago. So, it's therefore clear they were asking her to remember because she kept answering 'I can't remember' to their questions.

As I understand it, Amanda couldn't remember who the text message was from, until she had had some time to figure it out. I would be the same way -- who remembers a text message from four days ago? Can you imagine how many of her friends and family she had been in touch with in the interveniing four days?

The question is how the text message came to be presented at the interrogation. Do you think the police repeatedly asked Amanda to remember what happened the night of the crime and she said, "Wait, let me look at my phone?" Or do you think the police presented the text message to her and asked her to remember what and who it was about?

I tend to favor the latter. Which leads back to the suggestion that the police were prepared with a line of questioning about Patrick, which leads back to why they did not question Patrick in a conventional way without interrogating Amanda.

She couldn't remember what happened at the crime scene because she wasn't there. That is illustrated by the fact that she described things that didn't happen, such as seeing Patrick go into the bedroom with Meredith and hearing Meredith scream.

Can you establish that Amanda was not truthful in an way before her interrogation? If not, there is more evidence that the police lied than that Amanda did.