LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Right. I want to say something about the "confession" made by Amanda Knox during her police interrogation of the 5/6 November.
I preface my argument by saying - once again - that I'm not a cheerleader for AK (or RS or RG for that matter). I'm simply trying to look at things through a clear lens of disinterested analysis. It may well be that I am wrong, naive, uninformed or guilty of poor logic in my arguments, but I'm NOT arguing with a particular agenda in mind.
I think the overarching point of huge significance in this regard is that people sometimes confess to things that they didn't do. There's a wealth of evidence to support this assertion. Sometimes these false confessions come completely unprovoked from people who have a desire to insert themselves into an "exciting" scenario - such people are usually mentally unbalanced, and it's also usually not hard for police to quickly discount their confession (although, before this phenomenon was widely known, there were some truly horrible miscarriages where these sorts of confessions were taken entirely at face value, and the case was effectively closed - juries were essentially told that since Mr A had confessed to the crime, it was an open-and-shut case).
The second form of false confession, and the one that's more relevant to this case, is the one where someone is - shall we say - "coerced" into making a full or partial confession. And this form very often also involves potential accomplices. The confession comes because the suspect feels placed on the horns of a dilemma, coupled with feeling intimidated and confused. The dilemma often arises because the suspect is told that the "accomplice" has turned against him/her, and that as a result he/she is in big trouble. The suspect is often also told (sometimes disingenuously) that other evidence (forensic, identification, other) has been discovered that puts him/her even further into the frame. The suspect is then told that his/her best course of action, given this seemingly hopeless position, is to confess in order to mitigate any future sentence.
This is all a modified form of the well-known "prisoner's dilemma" game, which itself is a backbone of the whole area of game theory. And the suspect in the scenario that I've painted above is essentially being asked to engage in a dangerous example of game theory, with no zero-sum outcome. The options being placed in front of the suspect in this game are essentially "bad" or "worse".
Now, a layperson would say - with some justification - "But why would an innocent person confess, even under such extenuating circumstances?". The answer lies in the incredibly complex application of game theory that's taking place here. And in addition to the game theory aspect, the suspect is often bewildered and angry to be told that their supposed ally has turned against him/her. Add in some well-tested psychological pressures from the interrogating police ("good cop / bad cop" or - heaven forbid - verbal or physical abuse), and you have a situation where strange things can happen.
For a fairly good example of just how people can "confess" under these sorts of circumstances, please read about this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Downing_case
I apologise for my relentless Anglocentricity (is that a word?!), and it's not exactly analogous to the Kercher case admittedly, since there's no accomplice "turning" to add to the pressure, and since Downing had a low mental age. But many other things tally. It's clear that the confession evidence had a big bearing on the conviction (and, interestingly enough, the way in which some of the forensic evidence was presented with academic certainty draws some parallels too).
So, I think it's CRUCIALLY important to place the AK "confession" in context. I'd add that for those who'd argue something like: "Well, I could just about buy her blurting out a false confession in the interview room, but the fact that she wrote it down some hours later tells me that she knew and meant exactly what she was saying", the game theory elements would still apply to her written "confession", especially since she still hadn't consulted an attorney at that point. In other words, she may still have believed that she was making her situation the "least bad" through her actions.
Of course, it's entirely possible that AK did indeed make a frank confession to a crime in which she actually did play at least a part. However, in that respect, I'd argue that it's hard to reconcile her naming Lumumba as the killer. She could not have had any knowledge of his whereabouts at the time of the murder, and had no real malicious reasons to place him in the frame (other than that she may or may not have been sacked by him days previously). The naming of Lumumba can be somewhat better explained - I think - if one sees it in the context of the "prisoner's dilemma"-style scenario:
I think that AK could well have been told by the police that a) RS had turned against her; b) they KNEW from the language in the text message that she had plans to meet Lumumba that evening; c) the fact that AK denied a plan to meet Lumumba - in spite of "proof" to the contrary from the text message - means that the meeting was clandestine and indicative of nefarious activity; d) all these factors, when coupled with the "inevitable" damning forensic evidence that was surely forthcoming, would send AK down for a very long time for murder; e) that she could help herself by "confessing" right here and now - a judge would look very kindly on that; f) maybe she didn't actively participate in the murder, and if she included that in her confession then once again this would improve her final outcome.
IF some or all that scenario WAS placed before AK that night, then it's perfectly logically possible to conclude that a "confession" in which she admitted some sort of prior planning (though not a plan to murder), placed herself at the murder scene, and implicated a person about whom the police already seemed to have some strong suspicions of involvement, was her "least bad" strategy.
Now, this is just ONE interpretation of events that night, and it's intended to show that such an interpretation CAN reasonably be made. Moreover, this interpretation is based on a wider understanding of false confessions or coerced confessions. My personal belief is that this particular confession WAS false and coerced. That doesn't mean that I necessarily believe that AK is either uninvolved in this crime, nor that she should necessarily be judged not guilty of this crime (and there's an important difference between the two). But I believe that the whole confession area could and should be challenged on appeal. I further think that if it's argued properly in appeal, it could lead to one of the strands of my metaphorical rope (see earlier posts) being removed. Whether the removal of this strand would cause the rope to break under tension is another matter of course.
Pffft, I knew working from home today was a mistake........
I preface my argument by saying - once again - that I'm not a cheerleader for AK (or RS or RG for that matter). I'm simply trying to look at things through a clear lens of disinterested analysis. It may well be that I am wrong, naive, uninformed or guilty of poor logic in my arguments, but I'm NOT arguing with a particular agenda in mind.
I think the overarching point of huge significance in this regard is that people sometimes confess to things that they didn't do. There's a wealth of evidence to support this assertion. Sometimes these false confessions come completely unprovoked from people who have a desire to insert themselves into an "exciting" scenario - such people are usually mentally unbalanced, and it's also usually not hard for police to quickly discount their confession (although, before this phenomenon was widely known, there were some truly horrible miscarriages where these sorts of confessions were taken entirely at face value, and the case was effectively closed - juries were essentially told that since Mr A had confessed to the crime, it was an open-and-shut case).
The second form of false confession, and the one that's more relevant to this case, is the one where someone is - shall we say - "coerced" into making a full or partial confession. And this form very often also involves potential accomplices. The confession comes because the suspect feels placed on the horns of a dilemma, coupled with feeling intimidated and confused. The dilemma often arises because the suspect is told that the "accomplice" has turned against him/her, and that as a result he/she is in big trouble. The suspect is often also told (sometimes disingenuously) that other evidence (forensic, identification, other) has been discovered that puts him/her even further into the frame. The suspect is then told that his/her best course of action, given this seemingly hopeless position, is to confess in order to mitigate any future sentence.
This is all a modified form of the well-known "prisoner's dilemma" game, which itself is a backbone of the whole area of game theory. And the suspect in the scenario that I've painted above is essentially being asked to engage in a dangerous example of game theory, with no zero-sum outcome. The options being placed in front of the suspect in this game are essentially "bad" or "worse".
Now, a layperson would say - with some justification - "But why would an innocent person confess, even under such extenuating circumstances?". The answer lies in the incredibly complex application of game theory that's taking place here. And in addition to the game theory aspect, the suspect is often bewildered and angry to be told that their supposed ally has turned against him/her. Add in some well-tested psychological pressures from the interrogating police ("good cop / bad cop" or - heaven forbid - verbal or physical abuse), and you have a situation where strange things can happen.
For a fairly good example of just how people can "confess" under these sorts of circumstances, please read about this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Downing_case
I apologise for my relentless Anglocentricity (is that a word?!), and it's not exactly analogous to the Kercher case admittedly, since there's no accomplice "turning" to add to the pressure, and since Downing had a low mental age. But many other things tally. It's clear that the confession evidence had a big bearing on the conviction (and, interestingly enough, the way in which some of the forensic evidence was presented with academic certainty draws some parallels too).
So, I think it's CRUCIALLY important to place the AK "confession" in context. I'd add that for those who'd argue something like: "Well, I could just about buy her blurting out a false confession in the interview room, but the fact that she wrote it down some hours later tells me that she knew and meant exactly what she was saying", the game theory elements would still apply to her written "confession", especially since she still hadn't consulted an attorney at that point. In other words, she may still have believed that she was making her situation the "least bad" through her actions.
Of course, it's entirely possible that AK did indeed make a frank confession to a crime in which she actually did play at least a part. However, in that respect, I'd argue that it's hard to reconcile her naming Lumumba as the killer. She could not have had any knowledge of his whereabouts at the time of the murder, and had no real malicious reasons to place him in the frame (other than that she may or may not have been sacked by him days previously). The naming of Lumumba can be somewhat better explained - I think - if one sees it in the context of the "prisoner's dilemma"-style scenario:
I think that AK could well have been told by the police that a) RS had turned against her; b) they KNEW from the language in the text message that she had plans to meet Lumumba that evening; c) the fact that AK denied a plan to meet Lumumba - in spite of "proof" to the contrary from the text message - means that the meeting was clandestine and indicative of nefarious activity; d) all these factors, when coupled with the "inevitable" damning forensic evidence that was surely forthcoming, would send AK down for a very long time for murder; e) that she could help herself by "confessing" right here and now - a judge would look very kindly on that; f) maybe she didn't actively participate in the murder, and if she included that in her confession then once again this would improve her final outcome.
IF some or all that scenario WAS placed before AK that night, then it's perfectly logically possible to conclude that a "confession" in which she admitted some sort of prior planning (though not a plan to murder), placed herself at the murder scene, and implicated a person about whom the police already seemed to have some strong suspicions of involvement, was her "least bad" strategy.
Now, this is just ONE interpretation of events that night, and it's intended to show that such an interpretation CAN reasonably be made. Moreover, this interpretation is based on a wider understanding of false confessions or coerced confessions. My personal belief is that this particular confession WAS false and coerced. That doesn't mean that I necessarily believe that AK is either uninvolved in this crime, nor that she should necessarily be judged not guilty of this crime (and there's an important difference between the two). But I believe that the whole confession area could and should be challenged on appeal. I further think that if it's argued properly in appeal, it could lead to one of the strands of my metaphorical rope (see earlier posts) being removed. Whether the removal of this strand would cause the rope to break under tension is another matter of course.
Pffft, I knew working from home today was a mistake........
