Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

On the subject of the confession, I think Amanda's statement really does sound like a classic false confession in a lot of ways. I read this book a while back which had a lot of interesting things to say about the way false confessions are obtained, risk factors and so on. This is one quote I wrote down (because I am a geek, and made notes):

Ofshe argues that the primary mechanism [in coercing a suspect to falsely confess] consists of inducing sufficient self-doubt and confusion in the suspect's mind to permit the alteration in their perceptions of reality. This involves the interrogator successfully convincing the suspect that:

1. There is incontrovertible evidence that they committed the crime they are accused of, even though they have no recollection of it;

2. There is a good and valid reason why they have no memory of having committed the crime.

Evidence of (1) from Amanda's handwritten statement:

I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened.

My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me.

1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.

Evidence of (2) from Amanda's trial testimony:

While I was there, there was an interpreter who explained to me an experience of hers, where she had gone through a traumatic experience that she could not remember at all, and she suggested that I was traumatized, and that I couldn't remember the truth.

And so, in my confusion, I started to imagine that maybe I was traumatized, like what they said.

Because the police and the interpreter told me that maybe I just wasn't remembering these things, but I had to try to remember. It didn't matter if I thought I was imagining it. I would remember it with time.

As Kevin_Lowe said, if Amanda faked it she must know a fair bit of the psychology of false confessions...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

citation on Amanda's state of mind

Fuji,

Amanda’s cousin Dorothy recalled that Amanda was scared and confused, terrified that a murderer was on the loose (Murder in Italy, p. 131). She told her friend DJ that she was afraid to stay alone or to walk from Corso Garibaldi to her class (p.132). Her letter to her mother says that she needs to talk to her boss because she cannot work at night any longer (p. 133). She and Patrick met on the street on the afternoon of 5 November where she told him she would have to quit (p. 135).

There is a news report to the effect that Mr. Lumumba fired her, but I do not think it has much credibility.

 

[LondonJohn]

These are actually good questions involving logic and reasoning. The answer is: in statements "A" and "B" one only has to modify the pronoun to "an African man" and the truth is there, supported by available evidence, verified by standard scientific protocol, and finally accepted by a thorough examination in the courtroom.

Nobody has yet been able to refute "C". "D" is an additional detail added by Amanda to clarify "C".

We believe that all four statements contain an element of truthfulness to them and both the science and the courts agreed.

You speak for yourself only.

 

[Kestrel]

These are actually good questions involving logic and reasoning. The answer is: in statements "A" and "B" one only has to modify the pronoun to "an African man" and the truth is there, supported by available evidence, verified by standard scientific protocol, and finally accepted by a thorough examination in the courtroom.

Nobody has yet been able to refute "C". "D" is an additional detail added by Amanda to clarify "C".

We believe that all four statements contain an element of truthfulness to them and both the science and the courts agreed.

I guess you didn't understand my point, when the conditions of interrogation produce false statements, how do you know that any of statements from that interrogation are true?

It's clear from this thread that some of you feel you can pick and choose, declaring what you want to believe is true as the truth. In this case, picking the statements that maximize Amanda's guilt and declaring they must be true.

I find the belief that harsh interrogation tactics are the way to extract the truth even more disturbing.

 

[Malkmus]

There is a news report to the effect that Mr. Lumumba fired her, but I do not think it has much credibility.

I'm confused by this whole Amanda firing Amanda/Amanda quitting stuff, and I'm at work so I'm not able to thoroughly read the article. But doesn't Amanda being fired conflict with Patrick's text telling her not to come in that night because it wasn't busy? Doesn't that imply she was still working there? Also, the headline of that article seems to be misleading since the line about firing her is not in quotations. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no evidence

These are actually good questions involving logic and reasoning. The answer is: in statements "A" and "B" one only has to modify the pronoun to "an African man" and the truth is there, supported by available evidence, verified by standard scientific protocol, and finally accepted by a thorough examination in the courtroom.

Nobody has yet been able to refute "C". "D" is an additional detail added by Amanda to clarify "C".

We believe that all four statements contain an element of truthfulness to them and both the science and the courts agreed.

Stilicho,

With respect to point C, there is no evidence that puts Amanda at the cottage at the time of the murder, either. Let’s make sure that we are all on the same page about this point with respect to the kitchen knife. Amanda’s DNA is on the handle, but the presence of DNA by itself rarely gives evidence as to when it was deposited (this is not a controversial assertion, BTW). And there is a perfectly innocent explanation for why Amanda’s DNA is there; she used the knife while cooking. The prosecution has no forensic evidence to place Amanda in the flat, let alone the room, at the time of the murder. That is one of the many issues I have with its case.

 

[Kestrel]

I think Sophie later clarified her statements (at least according to Micheli; not sure what she said during the trial) to say she arrived home around 20.55, meaning she must've left Meredith some minutes before that. She wanted to be home in time to watch a show which started at 21.00, so knew she was home before then.

One thing I still haven't been able to find out is what the actual time stamp on the CCTV footage which is supposed to show Meredith is. The time reported - very early on - was 20.43, which makes it either 20.55 or 21.05, depending on whether 20.43 is the actual or adjusted time.

If the footage does show Meredith, you'd think it would be quite a critical bit of evidence, especially from the defence perspective. I'm surprised it doesn't really seem to have been discussed.

Sophie lives very close to the corner were she parted company with Meredith. She only had a few yards to walk.

As for the video, I would also like to see a copy with that includes the timestamp. But when the 20:43 time was reported, the police were claiming the camera was 10 minutes fast. Given this, the timestamp is most likely 20:53. Knowing that the camera is really 10 to 12 minutes slow, Meredith walked past it between 21:03 and 21:05. Or eight to ten minutes for Meredith to walk from the corner where she left Sophie. Knowing the distance she had to walk, this time is just about right.

 

[Danceme]

You obviously don't have a very good picture of the scene. Place yourself on that balcony about to break into the house. Just as you smash the kitchen window the kitchen light comes on. Where are you going to hide to avoid being seen by the occupant? Do you take a header over the railing?

If you know for a fact that the premisses are vacant such as when the entrance is sealed with crime tape then the kitchen window would be a safe entry. But when there is a possibility of someone inside it's exposed.

The evidence is all consistent with an entry through Fillomina's window without climbing up from below including scuffing where he would have slid across the edge of the porch and abrasion on the rock where the ball of his right foot would pivot. It's just a quick swing out holding onto the the planter to open the shutter, and back to fetch the rock. With no climbing, the left hand is free to hold the rock while smashing the window although a toss from the opposite bank is equally viable. There is even abrasion visible on top of the lower window casing where the left foot would have found support. Even if entry wasn't gained through that window, someone certainly tried.





You are revealing your lack of knowledge of how memory works.

Would you mind posting the photos of the scuffing and abrasions you refer to in this new theory of the break-in.

I don't need to be an expert in how memory works to recognize that a completely contrived response, initiated entirely on one's own, in one's own unsolicited writing, is a complete work of fiction and bears no connection to the truth.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Things must be reaching a pretty desperate stage when those people questioning the safety of Knox/Sollecito's convictions are being accused of doing so merely because they are driven by some sort of creepy lust towards Knox.

They've got it backwards. It is Amanda's critics who are consumed by a "creepy lust." Here's an excerpt from Darkness Descending:

Amanda breezed through her story again. “I stayed the night in Raffaele's flat.” She let the image hang there for a second, so the middle-aged officer could salivate, if he chose, over what the euphemism “stay the night” really meant when it involved a beautiful young student in full flower. The officer looked at Raffaele, the blank expression thinly veiling his smugness.

Coyly, Amanda continued: “And then I came back home to have a shower.” She let the image hang there, giving the officer a glimpse into a world he could only fantasize about.

I think some of these people are men and women who spent their youth too well, heeding the advice of parents, studying when their peers were out carousing, and suppressing their basic instincts. Now they have reached life's plateau - a place where most of us breathe a deep sigh of relief, but they look back resentfully at a missed opportunity they'll never have again.

Philip Larkin, whose poetry examines his own character defects, wrote this quatrain called "Administration":

Day by day your estimation clocks up
Who deserves a smile and who a frown,
And girls you have to tell to pull their socks up
Are those whose pants you'd most like to pull down.

That's how I picture Mignini. He's a dirty old man if ever there was one. Beneath his mien of respectable authority is a cesspool of misogyny and sexual frustration.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Fuji,

There is a news report to the effect that Mr. Lumumba fired her, but I do not think it has much credibility.

I too have a problem with this article. From the article regarding Patrick firing Amanada:

By Tuesday, October 30, his patience ran out. He told Amanda she could carry on handing out club flyers, but could no longer work in the bar.

Now I don't know if that assertion is accurate, but if it is why did Patrick text Amanda on Nov. 1st to tell her she didn't have to come into work that night? If my memory is correct, Amanda worked twice a week at Le Chic, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Nov. 1st, 2007 was a Thursday which would have been her normal night of work. Something's not right. Either Patrick never fired Amanda (i.e., the article is wrong or Patrick lied) or he texted her regarding another matter.

 

[katy_did]

Sophie lives very close to the corner were she parted company with Meredith. She only had a few yards to walk.

As for the video, I would also like to see a copy with that includes the timestamp. But when the 20:43 time was reported, the police were claiming the camera was 10 minutes fast. Given this, the timestamp is most likely 20:53. Knowing that the camera is really 10 to 12 minutes slow, Meredith walked past it between 21:03 and 21:05. Or eight to ten minutes for Meredith to walk from the corner where she left Sophie. Knowing the distance she had to walk, this time is just about right.

Are you sure the police were already saying the CCTV was fast at the time the footage was first reported? It was mentioned very early on, just a week or so after AK and RS were arrested, and at the time of course they said it was Amanda. I wonder whether at that stage they'd even checked the accuracy or otherwise of the CCTV time - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the theory it was 10 minutes slow only came about after they looked into the issue of the 112 call, took Battistelli's word for it he arrived at 12.35, then checked the CCTV and saw the police arriving at 12.48...

What could've caused them to think it was 10 minutes fast so early on?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't need to be an expert in how memory works to recognize that a completely contrived response, initiated entirely on one's own, in one's own unsolicited writing, is a complete work of fiction and bears no connection to the truth.

How many times are we going to go over and over this one talking point based on a total mistranslation?

In context it's clear that Raffaele wrote that he remembered touching Amanda's hand with the knife. Yes, it's grammatically ambiguous, but the alternative interpretations make no sense whatsoever. He wrote this after being told that Meredith's DNA was on the knife from his house, in attempt to make sense of this claim - once again, RS and AK were naive enough to take everything the police told them at face value.

It's an evil absurdity to twist AK and RS's attempts to make sense of what they were told by police into admissions of guilt.

Addressing Charlie Wilkes' post, yes, I too had noticed an element of creepy sexuality and over-familiarity in some guilters' attitudes towards Amanda Knox, and I suspect that's a big part of why so much attention gets focused on her despite the fact that there's no evidence linking her to the murder room at all, and why so little focuses on Raffaele despite the (dodgy) footprint evidence and (dodgy) DNA evidence linking him more closely to the actual murder, not to mention his knives and comics. The only thing making Knox a more interesting subject is the fact that she was sexually active and female, as far as I can see.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

What could've caused them to think it was 10 minutes fast so early on?

It served their narrative, which was that they surprised Amanda and Raffaele in the act of cleaning up, and Raffaele tried to cover his butt by calling the emergency number 20 minutes after the police were already there.

They didn't realize it would be possible for the defense to match the cell phone records against the CCTV output and prove the police were lying.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Amanda breezed through her story again. “I stayed the night in Raffaele's flat.” She let the image hang there for a second, so the middle-aged officer could salivate, if he chose, over what the euphemism “stay the night” really meant when it involved a beautiful young student in full flower. The officer looked at Raffaele, the blank expression thinly veiling his smugness.

Coyly, Amanda continued: “And then I came back home to have a shower.” She let the image hang there, giving the officer a glimpse into a world he could only fantasize about.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously one of the funniest passages I've ever read....ever....ever. I mean really? REALLY?! Man that is good stuff.

Seriously. Do not hesitate to show us more nuggets like that.

Hoooooo man.

 

[LondonJohn]

I too have a problem with this article. From the article regarding Patrick firing Amanada:



Now I don't know if that assertion is accurate, but if it is why did Patrick text Amanda on Nov. 1st to tell her she didn't have to come into work that night? If my memory is correct, Amanda worked twice a week at Le Chic, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Nov. 1st, 2007 was a Thursday which would have been her normal night of work. Something's not right. Either Patrick never fired Amanda (i.e., the article is wrong or Patrick lied) or he texted her regarding another matter.

I agree. And in any case, it's hardly of huge importance to the case either way (unless you want to try to weave into the narrative stuff about Knox being insanely jealous about Meredith "taking her job").

I imagine that when Lumumba gave his interview, he was incredibly angry at Knox for what he saw as an inexplicable false accusation. Add to that the fact that Knox was in custody at that point, accused of direct involvement in the murder herself, and it wouldn't be a great leap for him to twist history a little and vaguely suggest that he had fired her prior to the 1st November.

Contrast this with the very detailed recollection that Lumumba gave in that interview about police malpractice (including specific details of racism and physical & mental abuse). Lumumba seemed to blame Knox exclusively for his arrest and incarceration, so these statements probably weren't fuelled by "revenge" against the police. It's hard to imagine any reason why he said those things about the police, outside the explanation that they did actually happen.

 

[LondonJohn]

Are you sure the police were already saying the CCTV was fast at the time the footage was first reported? It was mentioned very early on, just a week or so after AK and RS were arrested, and at the time of course they said it was Amanda. I wonder whether at that stage they'd even checked the accuracy or otherwise of the CCTV time - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the theory it was 10 minutes slow only came about after they looked into the issue of the 112 call, took Battistelli's word for it he arrived at 12.35, then checked the CCTV and saw the police arriving at 12.48...

What could've caused them to think it was 10 minutes fast so early on?

*Hums "Keystone Cops" theme tune quietly to self*

We can add Battistelli's name to the long and illustrious list of exemplary and entirely trustworthy professionals in the Perugia police department. His excellent recall around his time of arrival and his actions within the house (especially concerning whether he entered Meredith's room and interfered with the crime scene after the door was broken in) is first rate!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

another version of the supposed firing

I too have a problem with this article. From the article regarding Patrick firing Amanada:



Now I don't know if that assertion is accurate, but if it is why did Patrick text Amanda on Nov. 1st to tell her she didn't have to come into work that night? If my memory is correct, Amanda worked twice a week at Le Chic, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Nov. 1st, 2007 was a Thursday which would have been her normal night of work. Something's not right. Either Patrick never fired Amanda (i.e., the article is wrong or Patrick lied) or he texted her regarding another matter.

JungleJim.
From NBC, “Lumumba told us two years ago he was going to fire Amanda and offer her job to the English roommate Meredith.” Going to fire someone is not the same as doing it. Another mole whacked, at least for now.

 

[RoseMontague]

This may shed some light on the question of when the police became interested in a "black man".

The agent described how, during an intercepted conversation with Raffaele Sollecito, 4 November 2007, Amanda Knox made reference to another person, perhaps a black man. " Particolare che spinse la polizia a sviluppare l'ipotesi che potesse esserci qualcun altro nell'appartamento di Via della Pergola. Particular, that led police to develop the hypothesis that there might be someone else in the apartment on Via della Pergola. Barbadori ha spiegato, quindi, che che la giovane statunitense durante la conversazione con Raffaele parlava in inglese e il tono dei due ex fidanzatini a volte si abbassava. Barbadori said then that the young American during a conversation with Raphael spoke English and the tone of the two former sweethearts are sometimes lowered.

Quite a bit here to process, looks like a good resource.

http://translate.google.com/transla...es/news/article.php?storyid=428&sl=auto&tl=en

 

[RoseMontague]

Italian source and links to archives

http://lnx.giovinazzo.it/modules/news/article.php?storyid=428

 

[Kestrel]

If the intercepted phone conversation on Nov. 4 led the police to suspect a black man, why didn't they play the recording back in court or at least quote directly from it?