Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

The problem with Knox persuaded Sollecito to give her an alibi leads to a few problems.
Sollecito would be innocent of murder since he wasn't there. Which would then mean Curatolo is lying, Rudy is lying, Mignini's 3 person murder is a load of bullcrap. The bathmat footprint they claimed was Sollecito's would be crap and the Braclasp would be even more suspect than it is now. Thats not counting the knife which is claimed that knox took from Sollecito's to her own apartment. So basicly anyone that believes Sollecito is covering for knox must realize there is 0 evidence left that would support Knox being part of the murder.

I'm betting Mignini realized this also.

An important point to keep in mind, Chris.

 

[Malkmus]

Because that's the subject of the paper you linked to.

You're sinking to new lows now, Tsig. YOU linked to an article on false childhood memories, not me. Why did you even link to another article if you're trying to form an opinion of the one I quoted? I linked to an article entitled "It's easy to plant false memories, study finds".

Please tell me how an article with the following quote doesn't relate to the topic at hand:

Loftus and other experts on false memories, who spoke at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, cited several concerns. Police interrogation practices, for instance, may intentionally or unwittingly plant false memories in suspects or witnesses, they said, and embellish the memories with life-like detail.

 

[tsig]

You're sinking to new lows now, Tsig. YOU linked to an article on false childhood memories, not me. Why did you even link to another article if you're trying to form an opinion of the one I quoted? I linked to an article entitled "It's easy to plant false memories, study finds".

Please tell me how an article with the following quote doesn't relate to the topic at hand:

The article you linked to was based on the paper I gave you a link to.

Did you miss the name of the scientist in the article?

Scientific American
September 1997, vol 277 #3
pages 70-75
Elizabeth F. Loftus
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 USA

It's generally preferable to go to the source rather than news articles.

Your hilited comment is totally uncalled for.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

conjecture?

That the police managed to implant "false memories" in a healthy, outgoing, well-educated, independent young woman within a couple of hours or so is conjecture.

nopoirot,

Did the interrogator not discuss a traumatic incident from her life with Amanda in an attempt to get Amanda to supposedly remember the traumatic incidents surrounding Meredith's murder? The interrogator was a witness at the trial; therefore, some of her testimony should be available.

 

[Malkmus]

The article you linked to was based on the paper I gave you a link to.

Did you miss the name of the scientist in the article?



It's generally preferable to go to the source rather than news articles.

Your hilited comment is totally uncalled for.

It wasn't uncalled for. It's a petty tactic you're resorting to, Tsig. The article you linked to is not the source for the article. The article clearly states that it is based on "a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science" where one of the topics discussed was "police interrogation practices" and Elizabeth Loftus was one of the speakers there. I quoted the parts specifically dealing with interrogations. Instead of arguing the points I quoted, you try to discredit the entire article by misrepresenting it to be specifically about false childhood memories. Loftus has written several articles and books on the subject of false memories and how they pertain to criminal trials and you went and found one about childhood memories.

Childhood trauma is just one of the types of false memories that can be implanted.

Again:

Loftus described planting false memories in more than 20,000 research volunteers. They included recollections of accidents, leisure time activities, childhood trauma and other events that never occurred.

Hence the line:

Everything you remember from last week may not be real, a panel of scientific experts cautioned yesterday.

The section pertaining to childhood memories is specifically attributed to psychologists, not police interrogations.

You still have yet to show how any of the quotes I cited are irrelevant to Amanda Knox.

 

[moodstream]

father falsely confesses to murder of daughter

Speaking of false memories, one reason I sided with Knox from the start was my awareness of the Michele Dorr case.

Here, Michele Dorr, a young child, was murdered and the father Carl Dorr falsely incriminated himself after intensive police interrogation. Why would any parent falsely blame themselves? A combination of stress and guilt.

And so, it is true that intense police interrogation can wear down the innocent as well as the guilty. It’s an interesting case for people interested in things like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dorr/dorr1.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/sept99/dorr27.htm

 

[nopoirot]

Well, Hal, I don't know what your experience has been but, back in the day, I didn't find attractive young women like Amanda so exquisitely susceptible to suggestion as you imagine.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, Hal, I don't know what your experience has been but, back in the day, I didn't find attractive young women like Amanda so exquisitely susceptible to suggestion as you imagine.

It can have a lot to do with who is doing the suggesting.

 

[Fine]

What's The Problem?

If, for purposes of discussion, and charity, we assume that the lovebirds are innocent---and innocent of all charges, including the defamation charge against Amanda--- I wonder if we're not then forced to admit that Raffaele is just plain stupid.

Their troubles begin the night of November 5th at the police station when Raffaele breaks their mutual alibi, by saying that Amanda had left him the night of the murder, and then when he retracted that statement---on seeing the "inconsistencies"---he blamed Amanda for inducing him to say it. Let's suppose that Raffaele was not attempting to deceive the cops.

In that case the only explanation must be a language problem mixed with stupidity. Some time prior to that November 5th interrogation Amanda must have said something to him which he mis-understood to mean "Tell the cops I left you to go to work." (Whether she said that in English or Italian doesn't matter because Amanda couldn't express herself clearly in Italian and Raffaele couldn't clearly understand English.) Now, a normal person, when told this by Amanda would have asked for a clarification, Right?, but Raffaele just accepted it, and behaved according to her instructions on the night November 5th,....until the cops pointed out the inconsistencies. Inconsistencies with what he's been saying just the previous day, ferchrisake!

Is this theory at all plausible? Ordinarily it wouldn't be. But bare in mind that this is the same guy who offered the "I pricked Meredith" explanation ten days later. The same guy who---as Machiavelli once observed---asked in his Diary concerning those inconsistencies in his interrogation, "What's the problem?" The same guy who, before Merdith's door, in mistranslating Amanda's comments about Meredith "locking her door" didn't seek a clarification and ---worse--- couldn't appreciate the gravity of whether Amanda was saying "locked" or "closed"? The same 23 year-old guy who was being contacted, by phone, multiple times daily by his father, apparently for some sort of "support," prior to the murder. The same guy whose attorneys, while insisting on his innocence, prefer that he not testify before the court.

If I were an Innocentist I'd blame Raffaele for the mess.

///

 

[Mary_H]

If, for purposes of discussion, and charity, we assume that the lovebirds are innocent---and innocent of all charges, including the defamation charge against Amanda--- I wonder if we're not then forced to admit that Raffaele is just plain stupid.

Their troubles begin the night of November 5th at the police station when Raffaele breaks their mutual alibi, by saying that Amanda had left him the night of the murder, and then when he retracted that statement---on seeing the "inconsistencies"---he blamed Amanda for inducing him to say it. Let's suppose that Raffaele was not attempting to deceive the cops.

In that case the only explanation must be a language problem mixed with stupidity. Some time prior to that November 5th interrogation Amanda must have said something to him which he mis-understood to mean "Tell the cops I left you to go to work." (Whether she said that in English or Italian doesn't matter because Amanda couldn't express herself clearly in Italian and Raffaele couldn't clearly understand English.) Now, a normal person, when told this by Amanda would have asked for a clarification, Right?, but Raffaele just accepted it, and behaved according to her instructions on the night November 5th,....until the cops pointed out the inconsistencies. Inconsistencies with what he's been saying just the previous day, ferchrisake!

Is this theory at all plausible? Ordinarily it wouldn't be. But bare in mind that this is the same guy who offered the "I pricked Meredith" explanation ten days later. The same guy who---as Machiavelli once observed---asked in his Diary concerning those inconsistencies in his interrogation, "What's the problem?" The same guy who, before Merdith's door, in mistranslating Amanda's comments about Meredith "locking her door" didn't seek a clarification and ---worse--- couldn't appreciate the gravity of whether Amanda was saying "locked" or "closed"? The same 23 year-old guy who was being contacted, by phone, multiple times daily by his father, apparently for some sort of "support," prior to the murder. The same guy whose attorneys, while insisting on his innocence, prefer that he not testify before the court.

If I were an Innocentist I'd blame Raffaele for the mess.

///

Raffaele and Amanda both did some things that, with hindsight, may be called mistakes. That doesn't necessarily make them stupid. There is no evidence they did anything other than cooperate with the police and the prosecutor on the night of the 5th-6th. The police and prosecutor are the only ones at fault.

 

[capealadin]

Raffaele called the cops stupid. On many criminal shows, the police have said that arrogance, and thinking they're smarter than the cops, have tripped criminals up.

 

[RoseMontague]

Raffaele called the cops stupid. On many criminal shows, the police have said that arrogance, and thinking they're smarter than the cops, have tripped criminals up.

The cops called Amanda a stupid liar. It is their own arrogance and thinking they had already solved the question of whodunit that led them to arrest Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick; all three of whom had nothing to do with Meredith's murder. Amanda and Raffaele were stupid for not getting a lawyer early and believing the cop's lies.

 

[katy_did]

Their troubles begin the night of November 5th at the police station when Raffaele breaks their mutual alibi, by saying that Amanda had left him the night of the murder, and then when he retracted that statement---on seeing the "inconsistencies"---he blamed Amanda for inducing him to say it. Let's suppose that Raffaele was not attempting to deceive the cops.

In that case the only explanation must be a language problem mixed with stupidity. Some time prior to that November 5th interrogation Amanda must have said something to him which he mis-understood to mean "Tell the cops I left you to go to work." (Whether she said that in English or Italian doesn't matter because Amanda couldn't express herself clearly in Italian and Raffaele couldn't clearly understand English.) Now, a normal person, when told this by Amanda would have asked for a clarification, Right?, but Raffaele just accepted it, and behaved according to her instructions on the night November 5th,....until the cops pointed out the inconsistencies. Inconsistencies with what he's been saying just the previous day, ferchrisake!

He didn't retract the statement that Amanda left to go to work 'on seeing 'the inconsistencies' - he retracted the statement that she was with him all night due to police pointing out 'the inconsistencies'. So presumably they must have told him something similar to what they told Amanda, that they had hard evidence she left the flat, and perhaps pointed out that she had to work that night so she must have left. In his diary he says 'I remember it was Thursday and therefore Amanda had to work', deducing that she had to work based on what day it was rather than on his own memory of that night, which makes me think that was one of the 'inconsistencies' they honed in on.

 

[katy_did]

Well, I'd like to wish both sides here a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Safe Holiday. We may disagree on a great many things here, but the one thing we can all agree on, we all want justice done. Good Night......

Agreed, and well said.

 

[capealadin]

The cops called Amanda a stupid liar. It is their own arrogance and thinking they had already solved the question of whodunit that led them to arrest Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick; all three of whom had nothing to do with Meredith's murder. Amanda and Raffaele were stupid for not getting a lawyer early and believing the cop's lies.

Amanda is a stupid liar. That's why she was found guilty of calunnia.

The police *arrogance* as you call it, has been proved well founded, at this time. They did get three convictions. Yes, they should have retained lawyers earlier. however, that wouldn't change the forensics, and their lack of alibi.

 

[Mary_H]

Amanda is a stupid liar. That's why she was found guilty of calunnia.

Slow down. She hasn't been tried on that yet.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Slow down. She hasn't been tried on that yet.

from the Massei-Report -Sentence

AMANDA MARIE KNOX, in addition
(F)
to the criminal offense2 to which articles 81 cpv., 368 paragraph 2 and 61 section 2 of
the Criminal Code apply, because, with multiple actions executed under the same
criminal design, knowing him to be innocent, with a denunciation rendered to the
Flying Squad of Perugia on the date of November 6, 2007, falsely implicated DIYA
LUMUMBA, called ‚Patrick‛, in the murder of young MEREDITH KERCHER, with
the intention of gaining impunity for everybody, and in particular for RUDY
HERMANN GUEDE, who, like LUMUMBA, is also black.
[Fact occurring] In Perugia, on the night of November 5 and 6, 2007[/I]

 

[Justinian2]

How the guilters have been given false memories.

A little more on false memories, or rather planted memories, and why Amanda may have found it difficult to immediately reconcile her vague memory of that night.

http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030217woods0217p5.asp

Excellent article Malkmus!

Research has shown that it is possible to do more just than change a detail or two in a memory, Loftus said. Totally false memories of events that never occurred can be planted intentionally or unintentionally. The process involves, in part, making a person believe that an event could have happened, and suggesting that it could have happened to them even if they don't remember it.

My theory is that the guilters have been given false memories.

The tabloids have made the guilters believe that the 'sex orgy' and ritualistic killing of Meridith could have happened

The tabloids suggested that it could have happened with two knives and a staged breakin.

The police made a rush to judgement on footprints, DNA, theories, witnesses, and screams. This gave the guilters the details of their false memories that made them seem more real.

Web sites that won't let me and other Amanda supporters on, or will quickly purge us, have strengthened the perception that 'everybody' thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. Each day posting on thier sites the guilters reinforce their own false memories.

 

[Fine]

He didn't retract the statement that Amanda left to go to work 'on seeing 'the inconsistencies' - he retracted the statement that she was with him all night due to police pointing out 'the inconsistencies'. So presumably they must have told him something similar to what they told Amanda, that they had hard evidence she left the flat, and perhaps pointed out that she had to work that night so she must have left. In his diary he says 'I remember it was Thursday and therefore Amanda had to work', deducing that she had to work based on what day it was rather than on his own memory of that night, which makes me think that was one of the 'inconsistencies' they honed in on.

_______________________________
katy_did, I'm trying to find some innocent explanation for Raffaele's police interogation. You're not making this easy.

I admire your tenacity but your theory of Raffaele's police interrogation is also contradicted by the Matteini Report:

_________________________________________
"He [Raffaele] retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events." Matteini Report
________________________________________-


Before Judge Matteini ---and before the cops, too, as stated in his Diary--- he retracted his statement that Amanda had left him, and he blamed Amanda for "convincing" him to make the false statement. The false statement cannot be that she'd stayed with him all night.
But more to the point, don't you find it peculiar that Raffaele, hours after his hearing before Matteini, now sitting in prison, his arrest confirmed, would be wondering in his Diary "What's the problem?" He'd misled the cops, contradicted himself, and excused himself by blaming Amanda. I'm inclined to think that anyone who would then ask the question "What's the problem?" wouldn't understand the answer. The question "What's the problem?" is the problem, or a symptom of the problem.

If he wasn't trying to deceive the cops,... then he didn't understand Amanda's English (or Italian) and he didn't place much value on logical consistency. Both dangerous weaknesses, under the circumstances.

And his attorneys advised him not to testify for fear that Mignini---like the cops--- might lie to him in court?


///

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Excellent article Malkmus!



My theory is that the guilters have been given false memories.

The tabloids have made the guilters believe that the 'sex orgy' and ritualistic killing of Meridith could have happened

The tabloids suggested that it could have happened with two knives and a staged breakin. The police made a rush to judgement on footprints, DNA, theories, witnesses, and screams. This gave the guilters the details of their false memories that made them seem more real.

Web sites that won't let me and other Amanda supporters on, or will quickly purge us, have strengthened the perception that 'everybody' thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. Each day posting on thier sites the guilters reinforce their own false memories.

sorry,but
The reality has proved that it has happened with two knives and a staged breakin.