Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
JREF2010 said:
The recording was not done because of incompetence or intentionally not recorded.

Due to the quantity of professionals present for that interrogation/questioning, including even a Rome based Edgardo Giobbi, it would appear the group, as a whole, could not be incompetent.

This leaves the decision to not record as intentional.

Then it appears there is a need to know why this decision, to not record, was intentionally made.
Click to expand...

Here's that false dilemma for you, again, Moss. Enjoy :)
 
JREF2010 said:
The recording was not done because of incompetence or intentionally not recorded.

Due to the quantity of professionals present for that interrogation/questioning, including even a Rome based Edgardo Giobbi, it would appear the group, as a whole, could not be incompetent.

This leaves the decision to not record as intentional.

Then it appears there is a need to know why this decision, to not record, was intentionally made.
Click to expand...

This is arrant nonsense.
 
Bob001 said:
The Innocence Project is a U.S. legal organization that has worked to free more than 200 people who were falsely convicted of terrible crimes, some of whom were sentenced to death. Here's what they say about false confessions:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

Links to other pages on their site, particularly the ones about DNA, are also enlightening.

As to the business about Knox falsely accusing Lumumba, why would she falsely name a co-conspirator who she knew wasn't there (and who might be able to prove it) rather than name someone she would have known was there? We know Guede was at the scene. If she had been there, why wouldn't she have named him instead? Or is it more likely that the police said something like, "We found hairs from a black man at the scene. What black men do you know? Pretend you did this, who could have been with you?" Knox's confession reeks of police intimidation. A real criminal would have tried to pin the blame on a real co-conspirator.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]





[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Yes, I know of the Innocence Project. Do you have numbers on how many coerced confessions were wrong? And how man coerced accusations were made by innocent people?

Freeing 200 people is notable...however, that is anecdotal evidence at this point. How many of those 200 actually were coerced into confessions, not just mistakenly found guilty? And how many of those coerced confessions were accusations of another person (innocent or not) by an innocent person?

As to why she named Patrick, it's quite possible that as Patrick was the recipient of the text and the text had raised Police suspicion of the anonymous (at the time) recipient, pointing the finger at Patrick very likely was a knee-jerk reaction (something Amanda is prone to, as both sides can (or should be able to) readily admit).
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Here's that false dilemma for you, again, Moss. Enjoy :)
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by JREF2010
The recording was not done because of incompetence or intentionally not recorded.

Due to the quantity of professionals present for that interrogation/questioning, including even a Rome based Edgardo Giobbi, it would appear the group, as a whole, could not be incompetent.

This leaves the decision to not record as intentional.

Then it appears there is a need to know why this decision, to not record, was intentionally made.
__________________________________________________________________________

Hi Moss,
Please do chime in, since I for one do not understand how any profesional detective,
in this modern age, is not recording eyewitness interviews, or suspect's questioning while out on the streets without use of an audio or video recording device.

Maybe "Tradition - always a good excuse for stupidity on purpose.", might have kept these fine police officers from moving into the moden age, or maybe they just like writing police reports from memory, without useage of the eyewitness or suspects actual statements. I don't know WHY that would be though, as 1 of my police detective friends CAN'T stand writing reports...

Why wouldn't any 1 of the 8 investigators that surround Amanda Knox in that photo that Fulcanelli posted in post #1232 have used a audio voice recorder, such as my own Sony 670v Microcassette-corder, or a small camcorder, to record what she is actually saying?

Or why wasn't this done so on the night of Nov 5/6th, 2007 as she was questioned AGAIN, in the police station?!?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
While I do think it would have been better if the interview had been recorded, my posts before merely pointed out that
a) it was not a standard procedure, therefore took some more thinking whether or not they would need it
b) we do not know how they came to that conclusion and there does not seem to be much more that points in either direction
and
c) there is always the old technique of stenography/shorthand for recording spoken words accurately.

But just because it would have been better and a better recording technique was available we cannot from what we have definitely conclude that something fishy was going on. It just doesn't automatically follow.
At best we can say "we do not know why no audio/video recording was produced" and "we do not know if Amanda Knox told the truth about being hit or not".
Because even if they had deliberately chosen not to record that in itself is no proof of what happened. It would only make it more likely.

Speaking of this incident reminds me of yet another detail in this part of the case: There's more than one possibility of why Amanda was unable to identify the allegedly responsible policewoman. Apart from lying about it she may also been unable to do it because there was a length of time between interview and the identification. And she may not have had much time to look at her. I'm not too sure about the details of interview and identification, so that is indeed again speculation to point out that there is often more than just one possible interpretation.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
That's 25% of the cases that have been taken on (DNA exoneration cases - not simply the number of false confessions in general).

How many of those were false accusations?
Click to expand...

No information provided. I don't know where you would look for something like that. In the Perugia case the police went out and arrested Lumumba based on Knox's false accusation before they even determined that he could prove his whereabouts. I doubt that happens very often (yes, I'm sure there are lots of false accusations in the criminal justice system, but I'm talking about a case where the police already think they've caught the right person). More likely, if the suspect says something like "I didn't do it, maybe Johnny did...," the cops won't even pursue it if they have already made up their minds. They'll at least check out Johnny's alibi before they lock him up.
 
Last edited:
RWVBWL said:
Moss said:
c) there is always the old technique of stenography/shorthand for recording spoken words accurately.QUOTE]

Or flip side of the coin, inaccurately!
Then it's just your word against the police's...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...


That is among other things why you should read what they recorded and only when you think it is indeed what transpired sign it.

And there is always the possibility of tampering with audio and video recordings. Is this going somewhere?
Click to expand...
 
Has Amanda even disputed what she told the police in these interviews? I think the main issue is if she was somehow forced into a confession. Popping her on the back of the head a couple times would probably not fly on video. Calling her a stupid liar might qualify them for membership here but I don't think her case would be thrown out because of it. I think it comes down to if you can believe that she was frightened enough to make a false confession. I see that as possible.

Intentionally not taping this interview would only be wrong if the forcing of the confession was preplanned. I can just see them talking about this beforehand. I will be the bad cop and call her a stupid liar and you can be the worse cop and pop her on the back of the head. In the meantime we will have our interpreter suggest someone to her that she could accuse. We will not record this one because that will surely work. I'm sorry but that one does not work for me. She gave in way to easy here and they had to have been surprised she did. She may have been very scared and intimidated but I don't see her prior actions at the police station showing a propensity for folding under a bit of pressure.
 
Moss said:
RWVBWL said:
That is among other things why you should read what they recorded and only when you think it is indeed what transpired sign it.

And there is always the possibility of tampering with audio and video recordings. Is this going somewhere?
Click to expand...
RWVBWL said:
Originally Posted by Moss
c) there is always the old technique of stenography/shorthand for recording spoken words accurately.QUOTE]

Or flip side of the coin, inaccurately!
Then it's just your word against the police's...
RWVBWL
__________________________________________________________________________

Hi Moss,
Thanks for the input, it's nice to hear the other side speak, even if we all disagree some or most of the time...

You also asked if this was going anywhere,
so in response I would just say that it will go where ever the members want to to go,
which will probably just be around and around in circles,
for there have been 15080+1291 posts on this subject
since Skeptic Ginger first started the post on Dec. 4, 2009!
Have a good one,
RWVBWL

PS- Greetings and welcome to "s pepys"!
You read ALL of the postings on this topic here on JREF?
WOW, Incredible!
RWVBWL
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Has Amanda even disputed what she told the police in these interviews?
Click to expand...

According the Friends of Amanda web site, she wrote a letter to the police a few hours after her interrogation stating that she was confused and felt like she was dreaming:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/statements.html

You can believe her or not, but she did try to take back her confession as soon as she got some sleep.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
According the Friends of Amanda web site, she wrote a letter to the police a few hours after her interrogation stating that she was confused and felt like she was dreaming:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/statements.html

You can believe her or not, but she does try to take back her confession as soon as she got some sleep.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree she tried to take it back. What I said was if she disputed what she told them when she was "confused". I don't see that she did.
 
funk de fino said:
She is a flagrant liar.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute the liar part, that probably applies to all of us at some points in our lives. It is the flagrant part that is not proven, in my opinion. Some people tell a lie, get caught in that lie and tell another one to explain the first lie that didn't work and it snowballs from there. I don't know if I would consider that "flagrant", maybe just a poor liar. I have not seen evidence from her history prior to this case to consider her a "flagrant liar".
 
RoseMontague said:
I don't dispute the liar part, that probably applies to all of us at some points in our lives. It is the flagrant part that is not proven, in my opinion. Some people tell a lie, get caught in that lie and tell another one to explain the first lie that didn't work and it snowballs from there. I don't know if I would consider that "flagrant", maybe just a poor liar. I have not seen evidence from her history prior to this case to consider her a "flagrant liar".
Click to expand...

Most of us won't do it while we're being interviewed for an ongoing murder investigation.
 
Amazer said:
Most of us won't do it while we're being interviewed for an ongoing murder investigation.
Click to expand...

And all of us are not Amanda Knox. Who can say what was going on in her mind?

I could say that she was tired, she wanted to go home, smoke a joint, take a shower, have sex, take another shower, smoke another joint, eat some munchies, and go to bed only to come back to the police station the next morning and explain that she was confused and tired and just wanted to tell them what they wanted to hear the night before so she could just go home, for goodness sake.

Beats me.
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Moss,
Greetings from chilly, gloomy Southern California!
How's it in Germany right now?

I was reading your post, and I also saw your
"Tradition - always a good excuse for stupidity on purpose.", statement,
and it got me thinking about what I had posted a short while ago.

It's our modern world, with many new ways to communicate, study and examine evidence, it seems odd that the police would rely on antiquated interview and questioning tactics. Specifically, I find it odd that the police in Perugia in this particular extraordinary murder case decided not to record by either audio or video the interviews of 2 young people, Mr. Sollecito and Miss Knox, that they must have felt suspicious about.
But I believe, from what I have read, they were already intercepting and/or recording their phone calls.

Camcorders are cheap, even cell phones have recording capabilities, as I remember from seeing Saddam Hussein getting hanged a few years ago. Gosh, even I have a small voice recorder to conduct my own interviews with as I work on a research project involving a long ago fatal shark attack...

My point being that in this modern world, why the heck WOULDN'T any police department record all the statements, questions, and interviews that were conducted in a high profile murder case.

Post #1232 in this continuation of the JREF Amanda Knox story shows Miss Knox surrounded by 8 investigators, I believe.

And I bet that those 8 would have different recollections of what Miss Knox actually said.
I know that I do have different recollections when I record something and then go back to refresh my memory after re-listening to the EXACT words that my subject did say.
I get the jist of the conversation the first time, but by having the spoken words actually recorded, I can truly hear what was spoken, and often times 1 word is actually incorrect, which can change the meaning and interpretation of the persons intent.

As I conduct my own research project, I interview folks who speak English as the main language, so I could only imagine the difficulty of trying to question and interview someone, without recording it, who is speaking a foreign language and has only a small grasp of my own language.

An experienced, excellant detective should, in my opinion, carry a voice recorder at all times, such as the 1 that I have and use, a Sony Microcassette-Corder 670V.

And if not, WHY, in this day and age?
Why rely on someone's memory of what was said, when you can easily record it?

Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni appears to be doing "cuttting edge" work in her laboratory with regards to capturing criminals,
but yet the Perugian Police seem to rely on human memory, an antiquated technique
when simple, cheap audio, and video recorders are available...

Maybe the police DO NOT want to record the initial questions, for some reason?
Maybe it's "Tradition - always a good excuse for stupidity on purpose.", as you wrote
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening if you expect the police, anywhere, to be so nice as to make sure every word of anyone they ever talk to is recorded for posterity in some way. They are the police! they are trained to be manipulative and are legally allowed to lie. They have their ways of questioning designed to elicit the truth which may not always seem so above board to a lay person. They would also probably assume most people would clam up and request a lawyer as soon as they haul out a recording device. I would.


Bob001 said:
The Innocence Project is a U.S. legal organization that has worked to free more than 200 people who were falsely convicted of terrible crimes, some of whom were sentenced to death. Here's what they say about false confessions:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

Links to other pages on their site, particularly the ones about DNA, are also enlightening.

As to the business about Knox falsely accusing Lumumba, why would she falsely name a co-conspirator who she knew wasn't there (and who might be able to prove it) rather than name someone she would have known was there? We know Guede was at the scene. If she had been there, why wouldn't she have named him instead? Or is it more likely that the police said something like, "We found hairs from a black man at the scene. What black men do you know? Pretend you did this, who could have been with you?" Knox's confession reeks of police intimidation. A real criminal would have tried to pin the blame on a real co-conspirator.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Well according to the theory, all three of them were in on it so why incriminate Guede who could only turn around and incriminate her and Rafaelle as well. Patrick must have seemed like a much safer bet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom