Of course it does.
However, if it was built 20 or 30 years ago, it probably has single pane glass, as does my residence, including the large picture window and doors that access my balconies.
Last edited:
Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Kevin_Lowe
- Start date
- Status
Of course it does.
However, if it was built 20 or 30 years ago, it probably has single pane glass, as does my residence, including the large picture window and doors that access my balconies.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Interesting how things can be selectively presented, isn't it?
See also this......imaginative......diagram from a professional defence attorney, which purports to show the differing lines of sight from Filomena's window and the balcony:
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=13&image_id=2180
Can anyone spot the confirmation-bias-induced flaws involved in the selection of the blue and red shading areas....?
Right, I'm off to Strasbourg and Paris until the weekend. It'll be very interesting to see what transpires in the court hearing on Saturday, so I look forward to catching up on my return.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Flogging a dead horse
Mignini obviously picked a sentence out of context to create an illusion of contradiction. It's a trick he tried more times, e.g. with the reasons for switching the phone off.
Mignini was trying very hard to show there's some contradiction between what she said on Dec 17 and in court year later. But his attempts were not exactly honest.There is no contradiction there, no matter how desperately you cling to what Migni's takes out of context. He needs to show that Patrick's name came out of the blue, that ILE never thought about him before Amanda told them to. But that's hopeless.
Mignini obviously picked a sentence out of context to create an illusion of contradiction. It's a trick he tried more times, e.g. with the reasons for switching the phone off.
Mignini was trying very hard to show there's some contradiction between what she said on Dec 17 and in court year later. But his attempts were not exactly honest.There is no contradiction there, no matter how desperately you cling to what Migni's takes out of context. He needs to show that Patrick's name came out of the blue, that ILE never thought about him before Amanda told them to. But that's hopeless.
Withnail1969
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 866
I can just imagine Rudy out there on the balcony, struggling to smash his way through the shutters and security glass. At least he'd have plenty of light from passing cars' headlights.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
LOL, never saw that one before. But it's posted recently. Is there some kind of "shadow discussion" with what we talk about here
?Have a nice trip
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Interesting, so you think that part of the story is fabricated? What would be the purpose?
With the Norfolk, 4 Google indicates the interrogation lasted 9-11 hours. That seems a lot longer than for Amanda, and hers only got intense in the early hours of the morning. Also, the first few Google hits seem to be talking about false confessions where they decided it was easier to confess than continue being interrogated, rather than false memories.
http://www.suite101.com/content/miscarriage-of-justice-for-the-norfolk-four-a307499
A search for "norfolk 4" "false memories" produces this thread as the top hit.
Last edited:
That view also shows the streetlight that illuminates the balcony.
This night shot shows that Filomena's window is on the side of the cottage away from the streetlight. Note the angle of the shadow at the front door. A burglar wearing dark clothes climbing into Filomena's window on the left side would be easy to miss.
Thanks for posting those images.
Amanda's interrogation occurred over several nights. When she showed up on the night of the 5th, it's probable that she was already in a sleep deprived state. She attended school that day after being interrogated much of the previous night. And I doubt she was sleeping well. Would you find it easy to sleep in the days after a friend had been murdered?
Are you equating Amanda's contact with the police over the course of several days with 11 hours of intense brow beating? Has Amanda ever described her previous contact with the police in this way? The Norfolk 4 seem to be talking about 9-11 hours of being threatened with the death penalty and being told that confessing was the only way out. My impression from Amanda's statements was that she doesn't describe the worst of it as being as bad as what the Norfolk 4 went through, and even if it was as bad that the high pressure stuff only started in the early hours of the morning. I don't see how the two can be equated.
Also, the Norfolk 4 don't seem to have been confused about what actually happened. They confessed in the knowledge that their confessions were false.
Last edited:
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
It started well before midnight and finally got intense in the morning. (I'm not even asking how do you know when exactly it got intense) Isn't it like 6 hours at least?
Have you seen the video I encouraged you to watch?
Here's a transcript of it.
It says:
It is common for people, and it would be wrong for people to assume, that only the weak and vulnerable confess to crimes they didn’t commit. It happens to people who are ordinary, smart, having mental health, and adults.The reason it happens is, now it gets down to a story about police interrogation tactics. In the United States, police are allowed to lie about evidence. Police are allowed to turn to a suspect who has, for hours, denied any involvement, and to say to that suspect, “You’ve denied your involvement, and yet we have your fingerprints on the murder weapon.” Or, “We have; the victim was in a struggle, we have hair in her grasp. We’ve done the test. The hair is yours.” Or, you’ve taken a polygraph test, a lie detector test, and you’ve failed it. Or you’ve been identified by a witness. Or we have your fingerprints, or your blood, or your DNA or what have you.
In these cases, we see a number of these cases where the suspect starts to get confused and disoriented and starts to question his or her own innocence. And often the conversation then turns to questions about memory and consciousness. And there are cases on record where suspects who we now know are innocent, not only confessed and signed a confession, but they concluded and inferred that they must actually have committed this crime.
In these cases, we see a number of these cases where the suspect starts to get confused and disoriented and starts to question his or her own innocence. And often the conversation then turns to questions about memory and consciousness. And there are cases on record where suspects who we now know are innocent, not only confessed and signed a confession, but they concluded and inferred that they must actually have committed this crime.
Last edited:
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
So you're suggesting that you see people hanging from the side of a two story house more often than you them standing on a balcony?
How peculiar.
Europe must be much more different than I had imagined.
There is a quote from Amanda about the early hours thing. Doubtless it can be dug up. As for 6 hours. She already had the false memories before 1:45am, no? In any case, to know if it was 6 hours, you'd have to know when the 5:45am session started.
I don't doubt that these things happen. The transcript you linked to seems to me thin on details. Is it reasonable, given the context of contact with a police investigation lasting a few days, and extended contact with the police during that, for an intelligent, extroverted person to develop false memories in an hour and a half or less of th techniques mentioned in the article being deployed. In any case, I was mainly reponding to the example of the Norfolk 4 which seems to be a counter example rather than demonstrating false memories.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
I doubt it.
The interrogation was intense already before even the translator arrived. The banging on the head, "we have proof you were there" and talking about memories repressed because of shock (isn't it similar to what prof. Kassin talks about in his speech?) occurred before signing the 1:45 confession.
It's a popular introduction by a leading researcher in the field of false confessions. I thought it would be adequate as you expressed lack of knowledge of that topic.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Are you suggesting that Knox's testimony as a witness was excluded due to base motives and manipulation by the prosecution?
This seems contrary to the often expressed sentiment by Knox advocates that the exclusion was a victory (albeit a small one) against the evil prosecutors, proving their duplicity.
No contradiction here, of course.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Just one more quote from that short video:
The second set of research questions that we are asking has to do with the fact that once a confession is released into the air, everything changes. The judge and the jury see the other evidence around that confession differently. Interpretations change. All sorts of cognitive and behavioral confirmation biases kick in so that once there’s a confession, it almost doesn’t matter that there’s a lot of contradictory exculpatory evidence: There is the confession.
In addition, and this, I think, is the most pernicious and most overlooked, and people don’t realize this, and I only came to realize this three or four years ago through work I’ve done in actual cases: The confession has the power to corrupt other evidence. It has the power to change identifications made by eyewitnesses, it has the power to change the reports given by forensic experts. It has the power to eliminate alibis, who conclude after hearing that the person they alibied had confessed; they conclude, “Maybe I was wrong about the time or the place.”
And so once there is a confession, that confession corrupts other evidence. And why that’s so significant is, when you go back and look at these false confession cases, guess what? You often find that the confession was not the only error in that case. There was a snitch, there was a forensic expert who made the wrong judgments about the testing that was conducted, alibis have dropped out, thinking they were mistaken. Eyewitnesses have changed their identification, this time identifying the confessor.
And so we’ve actually started to do those kinds of studies. And that’s significant. It’s significant because when an appeals court goes back to review a confession case, what they see, often, is an apparent mountain of evidence. But it’s a mountain of evidence that all stems from the confession itself. Essentially, it’s not a mountain of evidence. It’s a house of cards.
(Saul Kassin, Distinguished Professor of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice)
The second set of research questions that we are asking has to do with the fact that once a confession is released into the air, everything changes. The judge and the jury see the other evidence around that confession differently. Interpretations change. All sorts of cognitive and behavioral confirmation biases kick in so that once there’s a confession, it almost doesn’t matter that there’s a lot of contradictory exculpatory evidence: There is the confession.
In addition, and this, I think, is the most pernicious and most overlooked, and people don’t realize this, and I only came to realize this three or four years ago through work I’ve done in actual cases: The confession has the power to corrupt other evidence. It has the power to change identifications made by eyewitnesses, it has the power to change the reports given by forensic experts. It has the power to eliminate alibis, who conclude after hearing that the person they alibied had confessed; they conclude, “Maybe I was wrong about the time or the place.”
And so once there is a confession, that confession corrupts other evidence. And why that’s so significant is, when you go back and look at these false confession cases, guess what? You often find that the confession was not the only error in that case. There was a snitch, there was a forensic expert who made the wrong judgments about the testing that was conducted, alibis have dropped out, thinking they were mistaken. Eyewitnesses have changed their identification, this time identifying the confessor.
And so we’ve actually started to do those kinds of studies. And that’s significant. It’s significant because when an appeals court goes back to review a confession case, what they see, often, is an apparent mountain of evidence. But it’s a mountain of evidence that all stems from the confession itself. Essentially, it’s not a mountain of evidence. It’s a house of cards.
(Saul Kassin, Distinguished Professor of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice)
platonov
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,339
Yes - of the Dec 17 'interrogation' or 'judicial appearance' as I sometimes term it to avoid precisely this kind of confusion.
You appear to be confusing the Dec 17 'interrogation' with Nov 5/6 'interrogation' and 'statement' [1.45 & 5.45]
LondonJohn's and Malkmus' arguments appear to have incorporated the same misapprehension.
Last edited:
My source for the "early hours" thing was something from Bruce's website, he's cropped that bit out, so in order to track it back I'm going to have to go through some dumps I took way back when. As for Kassin, I don't think that the article is specific enough. Does this kind of thing happen over 20 minutes, or 30 hours of such treatment?
I don't think the article was aimed at addressing the questions I have. It establishes that people can get confused and develop false memories in the context of an interrogation and that you don't have to be a simpleton for this to happen.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,572
Norfolk Four and the innocent men in Ada, Oklahoma
Shuttlt,
This will have to be a little hasty. Laura remembered Amanda telling her on 3 November that the police were treating her like a criminal or a suspect. Amanda’s teacher, who had generally positive things to say about her, noted her tiredness on the morning of 5 November. I commented on this many months ago, and it might be possible to retrieve with searching here.
I also commented on two cases that coincidentally took place in Ada, Oklahomo, one of which is discussed in both Grisham’s The Innocent Man and also the book The Dreams of Ada. I seem to recall that Karl Fontenot gave a false confession within as little as two hours. Also, Amanda said that the police would ask her about something, she would say that it did not happen, then they would write it down anyway. That may have been in reference to the 1:45 statement, which we know contains an impossibility in terms of the 8:30 time that is mentioned. Two good rules of thumb: don’t tell the police about any dreams you have had, and if they ask you to imagine how a crime might have happened, stop talking and ask for a lawyer, because you have already been damaging yourself by talking too much.
As far as the Norfolk Four, at least one of the four (Joseph Dick?) continued to believe it for at least months afterward. I am not sure how long the others did, or even whether they did or not at the times of their interrogations. At another site a commenter said that he or she would not falsely claim to be present at a crime, even if being tortured, Casino Royale-style. I think that this idea, whether true or false for the majority of us, misses the point. Psychological pressure is much more insidious (and I believe more effective) than outright physical pain. Google “touchless torture” or something along these lines, and you might find something helpful.
Shuttlt,
This will have to be a little hasty. Laura remembered Amanda telling her on 3 November that the police were treating her like a criminal or a suspect. Amanda’s teacher, who had generally positive things to say about her, noted her tiredness on the morning of 5 November. I commented on this many months ago, and it might be possible to retrieve with searching here.
I also commented on two cases that coincidentally took place in Ada, Oklahomo, one of which is discussed in both Grisham’s The Innocent Man and also the book The Dreams of Ada. I seem to recall that Karl Fontenot gave a false confession within as little as two hours. Also, Amanda said that the police would ask her about something, she would say that it did not happen, then they would write it down anyway. That may have been in reference to the 1:45 statement, which we know contains an impossibility in terms of the 8:30 time that is mentioned. Two good rules of thumb: don’t tell the police about any dreams you have had, and if they ask you to imagine how a crime might have happened, stop talking and ask for a lawyer, because you have already been damaging yourself by talking too much.
As far as the Norfolk Four, at least one of the four (Joseph Dick?) continued to believe it for at least months afterward. I am not sure how long the others did, or even whether they did or not at the times of their interrogations. At another site a commenter said that he or she would not falsely claim to be present at a crime, even if being tortured, Casino Royale-style. I think that this idea, whether true or false for the majority of us, misses the point. Psychological pressure is much more insidious (and I believe more effective) than outright physical pain. Google “touchless torture” or something along these lines, and you might find something helpful.
Amanda's confusion was still apparent early the next afternoon when she wrote her 8 page note. At that time she had gone well over 24 hours with little if any sleep. Once she got some proper rest, she was no longer confused, but the damage had been done.
BTW - One of the Norfolk 4 internalized his confession. He still believed he had committed the crime at the trial.
- Status