Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[treehorn]

To all,

Derek Tice, one of the Norfolk Four, had an IQ that was greater than 148, according to the book, The Wrong Guys. The notion that only mentally retarded people falsely confess does not appear to be true.

What is Joe Dick's IQ?

Is Derek Tice "extroverted"?





PS Derek may be a fit for the 'extreme introvert' category based on this:

"...Derek, who served as a Boy Scout for several years and played in the high school band, is a caring, shy, respectful, generous, and compassionate person. Everyone who knows Derek says that he would help anyone in need and “give you the shirt off his back.”

See: http://www.norfolkfour.com/index.php?/norfolk/people_page/derek_elliot_tice/

 

[Kaosium]

If Raffaele Sollecito had met Amanda Knox at say, a Suicidal Tendencies concert,
filled with the type of people with a certain attitude that you generally do not wanna **** with,
I would have been a lot more convinced that a small chance in **** actually existed that they might have played a part in the brutal, bloody stabbing death of Miss Meredith Kercher.

One way of putting this might be: you'd take better care not to spill your beer on someone at a concert like this. It has a higher chance of ending very badly for you. (!)

For it was the manner in which Miss Kercher died that is,
in my humble opinion, the actions of a person(s) filled with rage and anger.
Who is going to take a knife and then actually shove it into a friends throat? Pull it out and then do it again?
A stoned Beatles music luver? 1 whom had met her new boyfriend while listening to classical music while out on the town at a concert? Come on!

They might not even notice you spilled your beer. 'Dude...it's raining...man...whoa.'

The person(s) who killed Meredith Kercher obviously listened to some type of music in their recent life before commiting this tragically brutal, horribly bloody act. I bet it wasn't classical music such as Vivaldi's "Four Seasons", nor even Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries"!

You know, a surfer mentioning the latter song brings this to mind, suggesting not all Wagner fans are vegetarian types.

And I bet that this person(s) who did indeed shove a knife into Meredith Kercher's neck was neither Raffaele Sollecito or Amanda Knox, who just a short time earlier had met for the 1st time while attending a concert featuring classical music...

On the whole though, spilling the beer might get you a snotty look and a lawsuit at worst.

But hey, that's just my opinion regarding the not-oft discussed 1st date between Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
And you know what Chris C? It's cool if you disagree!
Peace, RWVBWL


PS-Oh, by the way, I'm friends with some the the Venice ST boyz,
seen 'em many times, on stage, back stage, and in the pit. I have never murdered anyone, but I've been in a few good fist fights. I bet Raffaele Sollecito, from what I have read, hardly ever got in fist fights, much less a knife fight. Too mellow of a dude...
L8, RW

Yeah, reading Raffaele's description of his assumed persona in his diary brought back memories of Black Sabbath T-shirts and parachute pants. Pretty self-aware dude I got the impression, more so than I--though I was younger during that period. I carried a knife around too, in those days we would carry them to school even. Never stabbed anyone, you'd get in trouble for that! It would make a big mess too.

Nowadays it sounds like they call the riot police if they think your fingernail clippers are too sharp.

 

[treehorn]

I'm getting tired of trying to explain this kind of reasoning, since it's so consistently and creatively misunderstood by the-community-formerly-known-as-guilters. Possibly this is because it's a difficult idea for laypeople and they don't make the effort to try to understand it, and possibly it's because if they understood logic and probability they wouldn't be members of the-community-formerly-known-as-guilters in the first place.

One last time then.

If Ted is guilty if and only if A and B are true, then to convict Ted you need to have proof beyond reasonable doubt of A and B.

If Ted is guilty if and only if A or B are true, then to convict Ted you need to have proof beyond reasonable doubt that (A or B) is true.

You know what's tiring for a lawyer?

Having to explain the notion of corroboration to anyone over the age of 10.

Surely we're not struggling with the idea that probative value of Evidence A (indicative of guilt but not conclusive) is strengthened by the existence of independent Evidence B (also indicative of guilt)?

I'll put the process of applying the RD standard to the 'totality' of the evidence in layman's terms for you: It's 'connect the dots', Kevin, not 'whack a mole'; and it's done on the basis of common sense, not formal rules of logic.

... a rational person needs to see proof beyond reasonably doubt of each of these propositions before they can even conceivably conclude that the probability of them being guilty rises to the level of proof beyond reasonable doubt..

Application of the RD standard is not an exercise in statistics.

Further, the triers of fact do NOT evaluate a given piece of evidence by isolating it/ divorcing it from the larger context in which it occurs while 'pretending' that the remainder of the evidence has magically vanished.

Each piece of evidence is evaluated with respect to all of the other pieces of evidence.

Surely the constructs of 'corroboration' and 'totality of the evidence' are not beyond the grasp of an 'expert thinker'.

 

[treehorn]

When lawyers make a straightforward factual claim about something recorded in ones and zeroes on a backed up hard drive, I think it is highly likely that their claim is correct. It is not 100% certain, but it is highly likely.

Imagine a judge's dilemma, then, when s/he has to decide between TWO lawyers making diametrically-opposed, "straightforward factual claims about something recorded in ones and zeros"...

Not that judges ever have to do that

 

[Mary_H]

...Like most law students, I studied a number of wrongful conviction cases in 1L Crim - I even went so far as to take an upper year/ optional course on the subject in 2L. However, our casebooks and related lectures didn't devote much attention to the matter of 'false confessions' in particular.

Anything I've read on 'internalized false confessions' indicated that they occurred primarily in 2 kinds/classes of subjects: 1) the mentally defective; & 2) extreme introverts.

Anything you've read? When you have presented this argument in the past, you have referred to this information as having come from one source (not that you've ever cited the source).

On the other hand, many citations have been presented in this thread showing that "internalized false confessions" can happen to anyone, under the right circumstances.

 

[Mary_H]

But not as opposed to telling the truth about what you can remember.

(Unless the lawyer in question is looking to get disbarred for assisting his/her client to perpetrate a fraud upon the court.)

You have got to be kidding. What jurisdiction do you work in -- Mayberry, RFD?

 

[treehorn]

You have got to be kidding. What jurisdiction do you work in -- Mayberry, RFD?

Yes, Mary, lawyers do not instruct clients to lie on the stand.

That comes as a shock to you?!

 

[Mary_H]

...To my mind, both Dalla Vedova and Bongiorno should have recused themselves from representing Knox and Sollecito respectively - they had neither the requisite experience nor (in Bongiorno's case) the requisite time to do justice to their positions. They should have done a quick search of the Rome legal community, and recommended two lawyers who had good reputations in defending murder cases. But I suspect that hubris and pride might have got in the way of that happening.

I think the essential danger of the three-trial system is that there is not the sense of urgency and commitment of the one-trial system. If something goes wrong in the three-trial system, it can always be fixed later. Why work fast when you can work slow, and get paid three times as much? For the prisoners, the jails are comfortable, it's Italy -- what's not to like?

 

[treehorn]

I think the essential danger of the three-trial system is that there is not the sense of urgency and commitment of the one-trial system. If something goes wrong in the three-trial system, it can always be fixed later. Why work fast when you can work slow, and get paid three times as much? For the prisoners, the jails are comfortable, it's Italy -- what's not to like?

It's not a trial.

It's an appeal.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, Mary, lawyers do not instruct clients to lie on the stand.

That comes as a shock to you?!

Then perhaps there is a tacit agreement in the legal community that the phrases, "I don't remember" and "I can't recall" are not lies. Here is an example of a client (who coincidentally is also a lawyer) "not lying:"

"In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one."

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6

(Here is the link for the rest of the list: http://prorev.com/legacy.htm)

I've also noticed that lots of M.D.'s and Ph.D.'s who had sharp enough memories to earn several graduate degrees suddenly find themselves suffering from dementia when they get on the witness stand in malpractice trials.

 

[Kaosium]

Hope you're all enjoying the Holiday Season - I used a little of my time off to check out the PBS Frontline piece on the 'Norfolk Four' (per Halides' suggestion).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/interviews/

I was amazed. Astounded.

Truly.

I've been giving it a lot of thought ever since.

What are the 'relevant differences' w/r/t the Kercher case?

What are the 'relevant similarities' w/r/t the Kercher case?

Like most law students, I studied a number of wrongful conviction cases in 1L Crim - I even went so far as to take an upper year/ optional course on the subject in 2L. However, our casebooks and related lectures didn't devote much attention to the matter of 'false confessions' in particular.

Anything I've read on 'internalized false confessions' indicated that they occurred primarily in 2 kinds/classes of subjects: 1) the mentally defective; & 2) extreme introverts.

Alas, terms of this kind were just words on a page - we were not able to watch, say, video recordings of the subjects in question - so I've never been precisely clear on what level of functioning would meet the test for defective/deficient/disabled.

I'm now trying to assess whether the Navy men in question can be reasonably assigned to either of the two categories/ classes.

In particular, I'm inclined to suspect that Joe Dick (whose confessions arguably did the most damage) may be a fit for the mentally defective category. Indeed, he has been described as follows:

"... although he was not specifically diagnosed, Joe struggled with learning and developmental disabilities that hampered his intellectual and social development..."


See:
http://www.norfolkfour.com/index.php?/norfolk/people_page/joseph_jesse_dick_jr/

I'm also inclined to suspect that Joe may be a fit for the 'extreme introvert' category as well.

Nevertheless, Joe did not, IMHO, seem to be functioning at a level so low that he would easily confess to a crime he did not commit.

All of this has me wondering how broadly defined the categories/classes ought to be, and whether Knox or Sollecito can be said to fall within those classes.

I think there's more to take into account than the two factors of introversion and mental handicap, here's a short paper that might provide other 'relevant similarities' between these two cases. I am fully aware that you can fire links back at me backing your assumption of those two being most prominent, however I've found that sometimes knowledge goes trundling along despite what some think has already been determined. I think you might find that's an interesting piece, namely in regard to do with interrogation techniques involving false evidence, and if you read it through to the end, a rebuttal of sorts that notes just why those techniques are used.

Two things we do know regarding the Amanda Knox case is they claimed to have 'hard evidence' of her at the scene that it turned out didn't actually exist, and the 'confession' that was gleaned from this technique was definitely false in every respect, much like what happened to those four sailors. Instead of cowering in a corner covering her ears while Patrick Lumumba raped and murdered Meredith, the prosecution eventually stripped her naked and had her wielding a butcher knife whacking away at Meredith like a frenzied Red Sonja while her boytoys Rudy and Raffaele danced attendance.

Regarding your question of whether any of the sailors were mentally defective, at one time I know it was necessary to score in the top half of takers of the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) to gain entrance into the USN. There were waivers available, but generally not widespread in the Navy due to the nature of the Army and it needing to fill 70% of all recruitment billets every month.

One thing I was unable to find in my cursory examination of the careers of those men, was what their 'rates' were, which is a fancy way of saying with two letters what their duties entailed, often accompanied by a number for men of those age to determine their paygrade. Thus BM-3, which might just suggest a mental handicap that required a waiver, or ET-1 which would eliminate that possibility. Or just a damn picture of them in their dress uniforms showing the rating badge on their left shoulder would reveal it to me if posted.

 

[treehorn]

Then perhaps there is a tacit agreement in the legal community that the phrases, "I don't remember" and "I can't recall" are not lies. Here is an example of a client (who coincidentally is also a lawyer) "not lying:"

"In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times..

Yes, Mary, that's all there is to it. Bill went to what is arguably the finest law school in the world, but you can save yourself the stress, expense and sweat by memorizing 3 simple words: "I don't recall." Now you can tell everyone you're a graduate of YLS.

 

[Bob001]

Then perhaps there is a tacit agreement in the legal community that the phrases, "I don't remember" and "I can't recall" are not lies...

I suspect that the reason people are inclined -- and encouraged by their lawyers -- to say "I don't remember" at trials and depositions is that the tiniest innocent conflict or discrepancy can be used to impugn anything they say about anything. Most of us don't have a photographic memory, and we particularly don't remember details of our lives that seem trivial at the moment, like what time you played a computer game before you went to bed. Imagine: "What did you have for lunch on Monday, Dec. 3? Do you always have a tuna sandwich for lunch? Why would you remember having a tuna sandwich on that particular day? And what time did you go to lunch? 12:30? But in your previous testimony you said around noon. Which is it, noon or 12:30? Or do you think noon and 12:30 mean the same thing? Maybe you didn't even eat lunch that day! And by the way, please refer to this calendar: What day of the week was December 3? It was Friday, wasn't it? So Dec. 3 wasn't even a Monday, was it? So we can't be sure when you went to lunch, or even if you went to lunch at all, or what day you went to lunch, or when you ate a tuna sandwich, isn't that right? Can you produce a receipt to prove you bought one single tuna sandwich at any time in your life? Yeah, I didn't think so. You're just telling a story here, aren't you? You'll say anything if you think it might help you, isn't that right? In fact there was no tuna sandwich, there was no lunch, and no one knows where you were between noon and 1 p.m. on Dec. 3, isn't that correct?"

It's just easier, and probably more truthful, to just say "I don't remember" or "I don't know." Even if you report your honest recollection, if someone can raise a doubt about your factual accuracy it will discredit almost anything else you say.

 

[treehorn]

Alt+F4,

In the first place, I have heard that he did have one previous girlfriend (I believe that this information comes from his friends, but I do not have a citation). In the second, I think that the word "freak" is not a respectful way to refer to Mr. Sollecito, regardless.

"Mister" Sollectio is it? Well, then, there, now.

You need to start reading the Court's judgment at page 61:

"...Taciturn, shy, introverted…watched many films…SEX WITH ANIMALS…ACTIVATED A MONITORING ON THE BOY…HABIT OF CARRYING IN HIS POCKET A PEN-KNIFE…FOUND IN POSSESSSION OF 2.67 GRAMS…"

And check out A. Vogt on the Closing Arument:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412504_knox20.html

"Mignini …also mentioned Sollecito's alleged past use of cocaine and LSD..."


(You can't mention it in your closing if it wasn't adduced at trial - I'm looking forward to learning the details in this regard.)


PS Had you read the Court's judgment [p 61-62] you'd also see that he had, in October 2007 (right before he met Amanda), a "brief affair with a girl from Brindisi" that was of "very short duration, few days."

So what we've got here is a 24 year old virgin/ quiet loner who's collecting - and wearing - knives, watching animal porn & using a range of street drugs.

He's so "normal" that his college residence had to actively "monitor" him and his dad had to pitch in by calling him several times a day despite the fact he's a 24 year old man.

Yeah. Zero defects there. "Mister" Sollecito is fit as a fiddle.

PPS Did any of the "Norfolk Four" come even CLOSE to Sollecito's illustrious record of extracurricular activities?

 

[Kaosium]

"Mister" Sollectio is it? Well, then, there, now.

You need to start reading the Court's judgment at page 61:

"...Taciturn, shy, introverted…watched many films…SEX WITH ANIMALS…ACTIVATED A MONITORING ON THE BOY…HABIT OF CARRYING IN HIS POCKET A PEN-KNIFE…FOUND IN POSSESSSION OF 2.67 GRAMS…"

And check out A. Vogt on the Closing Arument:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412504_knox20.html

"Mignini …also mentioned Sollecito's alleged past use of cocaine and LSD..."


(You can't mention it in your closing if it wasn't adduced at trial - I'm looking forward to learning the details in this regard.)


PS Had you read the Court's judgment [p 61-62] you'd also see that he had, in October 2007 (right before he met Amanda), a "brief affair with a girl from Brindisi" that was of "very short duration, few days."

So what we've got here is a 24 year old virgin/ quiet loner who's collecting - and wearing - knives, watching animal porn & using a range of street drugs.

He's so "normal" that his college residence had to actively "monitor" him and his dad had to pitch in by calling him several times a day despite the fact he's a 24 year old man.

Yeah. Zero defects there. "Mister" Sollecito is fit as a fiddle.

PPS Did any of the "Norfolk Four" come even CLOSE to Sollecito's illustrious record of extracurricular activities?

Would you say three years in jail is enough punishment for those 'crimes?'

 

[TomCH]

Who is going to take a knife and then actually shove it into a friends throat? Pull it out and then do it again?
A stoned Beatles music luver?

I guess you're too young to recall who originally wrote and performed "Helter Skelter"?

 

[treehorn]

Would you say three years in jail is enough punishment for those 'crimes?'

Those "crimes" are, by any objective standard, a clear indication that "Mister" Sollecito is far from an unlikely candidate for a depraved act.

 

[Kaosium]

I guess you're two young to recall who originally wrote and performed "Helter Skelter"?

And here I thought that was a song about sex and only real weirdos thought there were hidden meanings in it about anything else.

Is there anything you should be telling us about regarding your fascination with the theories of Charles Manson?

 

[Kaosium]

Those "crimes" are, by any objective standard, a clear indication that "Mister" Sollecito is far from an unlikely candidate for a depraved act.

I bet you'd be no fun at a party.

I better not tell you the sorts of things that went on when the U.S.S. Midway (haze grey and underway, homeport Neverdoc Japan!) pulled into Subic Bay. You'd be scandalized to know the rules of the game 'Smile.' Or what a 'cherry boy' got.

Lots of things mommy never finds out about. The world is a far naughtier place than you could ever imagine...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You know what's tiring for a lawyer?

Having to explain the notion of corroboration to anyone over the age of 10.

Surely we're not struggling with the idea that probative value of Evidence A (indicative of guilt but not conclusive) is strengthened by the existence of independent Evidence B (also indicative of guilt)?

I'll put the process of applying the RD standard to the 'totality' of the evidence in layman's terms for you: It's 'connect the dots', Kevin, not 'whack a mole'; and it's done on the basis of common sense, not formal rules of logic.

These are the methods of rational inquiry, Treehorn. If courts ignore them that reflects poorly on courts, not on rationality.

Rational people look at the most decisive evidence first. We fix our hypotheses and then we search for data that will for practical purposes falsify them or confirm them. If that's impossible then we settle for data that merely corroborates one theory or another but it's very much a poor second.

Rational people are capable of applying formal logic and probability to a problem. It's what makes us different from irrational people who are bad at doing so, in fact.

Rational people do not see a room full of manure and conclude that with all that manure there has to be a pony in there somewhere. That's the joke, in fact. The kid who thinks there is a pony in there is so foolish that we laugh at them.

Application of the RD standard is not an exercise in statistics.

Further, the triers of fact do NOT evaluate a given piece of evidence by isolating it/ divorcing it from the larger context in which it occurs while 'pretending' that the remainder of the evidence has magically vanished.

Each piece of evidence is evaluated with respect to all of the other pieces of evidence.

Surely the constructs of 'corroboration' and 'totality of the evidence' are not beyond the grasp of an 'expert thinker'.

I think you'll find that rather than failing to grasp the untrained, intuitive and regrettably fallible methods you refer to as "common sense", expert thinkers understand them very well, know their flaws and have moved past them to better ways of understanding this universe we live in.

You might not have learned about them in second year law, but then again there are lots of things about science, logic and reason they don't have room to squeeze into the undergraduate law curriculum.