Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

I did. I'm the official OP. What's an OP???? What am I? What powers do I have?

LOL.

Your's is the first post on the new thread. Maybe it means Original Poster?

 

[Justinian2]

Would someone please explain to me why this subject is receiving soo much attention?

After being the victim of bad justice three times in my life, I decided to go on the warpath against all bad justice. After all, the best defense is a good offense.

Furthermore, you can't attack the system from a jail cell. Amanda, for example, can't even get on the internet, talk to her parents or tell the truth about the police.

Furthermore, when eight years old, I was very upset over the execution of a man that was thought to be innocent. (I must be genetically coded to hate bad justice)

Furthermore, I thought all my life about about why the Jewish people were killed during WWII, what the Jewish people could have done to escape, and what others could have done to have helped the Jewish people. I think the seeds for the persecution of the Jewish people are found in bad justice.

 

[moodstream]

Sure.
Just start at the beginning of her questioning that first night, then proceed through until the end of the trial.

This is a very important topic and I would like to stick to it. A (the) central theme of the pro guilt crowd is that Knox is a liar. Her true self is not how she appears.

Here we have a clear opportunity to test that theory. Did Knox lie in her testimony during the trial? A indicator of that could be is Knox evasive when answering questions during the trial?

I welcome any evidence you want to provide that shows that she did.

I would also like to reinforce the fact that everyone on this board, including you LoZ, Treehorn, and even TomM43, all now agree that the example given by Treehorn in post 24821 shows that Knox is answering clearly, directly, on the topic, and without evasion.

Isn't that so?

 

[katy_did]

Bureaucracies everywhere have a morbid fear of having their sins exposed. Look how long it took the Catholic Church to deal with pedophile priests. They moved the priests around, ran interference to keep the police from getting involved, paid hush money, did everything to protect their reputation while doing nothing to deal with the underlying problem. Only when it became a full-blown public scandal did they face the ugly truth... THEN all of a sudden, they swung into action and became oh-so-pious in their determination to rid the church of this terrible scourge.

That kind of cynical inertia is why criminal defendants are guaranteed a public trial. It's a fundamental right in civilized countries because the experience of history has shown that sometimes the public needs to get involved, make a stink, kick up a ruckus, impose demands. This is one of those times. And we're doing it.

Well, at least your reasoning is based on a suspicion of/disillusionment with bureaucracy in general, rather than with the Italian legal system in particular! What you say may be true to a certain extent, and in some cases, but generally I'm a bit less cynical. It seems to me that we should at least give the Appeals Court the opportunity to re-assess the case before condemning it outright. I think the more neutral press coverage this time round is significant, since it reduces the pressure on the Court to reach a particular verdict, and will make it easier for the jury to consider the evidence objectively.

 

[Dan O.]

Would someone please explain to me why this subject is receiving soo much attention?

Maybe you could explain why it isn't receiving more attention. What we have is an apparent rogue prosecution that dreamed up a story of ritual orgy and murder fueled by drugs and comic books that put two collage students in prison for a quarter century.

On one side we have the defenders of the students' innocence citing science. On the other side we have the defenders of the authority's ruling citing woo.

And then there is [403]!^*

 

[JREF2010]

I think it would be much more eye-opening to try to do an event and timeline based reconstruction, not a general and "conceptual" one.

Some example of the facts that it should deal with:

At 20:56 Meredith (?) attempts to call her ill Mother, as she used to do every day. The call didn't connect. There are no more attempts.

Unusual lack of activity of her phone for an hour.

At 21:58 and 22:00 there's strange activity on Meredith's phone. Voicemail is dialed and canceled before connecting. UK bank phone number is dialed without international code.

At 22:13 Meredith's phone connects to different cell then usual.

Meredith was still in her street clothes when murdered.

Washing machine was full of her wet clothes.

​

Your post lays out like a possible attack for money doesn't it?
The unexpected calls weren't to a taxi or family or friend....it was a bank.

Could she have been trying to appease her assailant with offers of more money? of course, we'll never know. If attacked alone, its easy to imagine a robber might ask "where's the money?" Maybe Meredith fought a little and Rudy was seen, he had to kill or be known.

Or was it a stalker rape attack, as nothing of electronics was stolen?

I removed all references to others, focusing on your Meredith. We also know Sophie stated Meredith mentioned being tired and going home to study, even borrowing a book that night. I don't think Rudys date alibi stands up too well.

I think Rudy showed up as he said around 7:30pm, he found no one home.
He even checked upstairs, attracted to any girl, his new found friends he could encroach upon.

No one answered, he realized it was a Holiday. Rudy knew how people lived in Perugia and their holidays with families.

Rudy left to get a kabob, to find a friend maybe, and to return after dark to the cottage.​

 

[babycondor]

The court realizes these issues are controversial, and wishes to preserve the appearance of fairness. The expert opinions which the lower court purported to follow will remain in the record.

Now put yourself in the position of a juror who is convinced that the defendants have, to borrow a pithy phrase from one of them, told the court a "load of bs." You are strapped into a procrustean bed bed which leaves you only the option of finding them guilty as charged or letting them waltz scot-free. I know what you, with your high regard for principles of law, would do, but I'm not so sure that this might not "stick in the craw" of most jurors (even those schooled in advanced probability theory.) Then there's the small matter of the pride of Italy in its institutions being put at risk.

I understand your points.

The reasoning that "their statements are inconsistent" means "they must be lying" means "they must have something to hide" means "they must be guilty of murder" is so full of logical fallacies it boggles the mind.

The resolution of the juror's procrustean bed dilemma is simple. Swallow your advanced probability theories and national pride; err on the side of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence; let them go.

 

[RoseMontague]

I understand your points.

The reasoning that "their statements are inconsistent" means "they must be lying" means "they must have something to hide" means "they must be guilty of murder" is so full of logical fallacies it boggles the mind.

The resolution of the juror's procrustean bed dilemma is simple. Swallow your advanced probability theories and national pride; err on the side of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence; let them go.

Well said. This is the real essence of the case against Raffaele and the Knox girl and it does not stand up as proof of murder.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Well, at least your reasoning is based on a suspicion of/disillusionment with bureaucracy in general, rather than with the Italian legal system in particular! What you say may be true to a certain extent, and in some cases, but generally I'm a bit less cynical. It seems to me that we should at least give the Appeals Court the opportunity to re-assess the case before condemning it outright. I think the more neutral press coverage this time round is significant, since it reduces the pressure on the Court to reach a particular verdict, and will make it easier for the jury to consider the evidence objectively.

I definitely do not see this as a problem unique to the Italian system. On the contrary, my skepticism is based on what I have seen in US cases.

By applying pressure, in a lawful manner, we can facilitate justice. We can make it possible - even necessary - for the court to resist a strong constituency inside the system, a constituency made up of people whose professional reputations are tied to the guilty verdict and the case against Amanda and Raffaele. But it's going to take a lot of effort.

My background is in marketing. I worked on competitive service proposals. I learned the danger of premature jubilation, of underestimating an adversary. I take nothing for granted.

 

[babycondor]

Would someone please explain to me why this subject is receiving soo much attention?

Possibly because the case is a potent mixture of highly charged themes:

1. Murder
2. Rape
3. Drugs
4. Youth
5. Courtroom drama
6. True crime
7. Injustice (depending on your viewpoint)
8. Corruption (depending on your viewpoint)
9. International/inter-racial protagonists
10. The availability, via the Internet, of a vast array of documents, photos, diaries, and videos that are subject to interpretation and provide virtually inexhaustible fuel for speculation.

Add in the deep-seated desire of nearly everyone, on both sides of the issue, to convince others of the truth of their position, and you have your answer.

 

[nopoirot]

I understand your points.

The reasoning that "their statements are inconsistent" means "they must be lying" means "they must have something to hide" means "they must be guilty of murder" is so full of logical fallacies it boggles the mind.

The resolution of the juror's procrustean bed dilemma is simple. Swallow your advanced probability theories and national pride; err on the side of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence; let them go.

Actually, I suspect even the first jury, in its heart of hearts, was not convinced that the defendants were "guilty of murder." They seem to have rejected the prosecution's theory of premeditation, and settled on the least punitive alternative available to them, short of allowing the defendants to profit from their untruthfulness.

I'm beginning to wonder how much "probability theory" owes to the ability to observe distinctions. I've never boggled anyone's mind with the notion that the defendants are "guilty of murder." Unlike some here, I've never believed that for an instant.

 

[Draca]

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/01/statement-analysis-of-amanda-knox.html

Try reading this piece, Rose.
You may learn about the construction and repetition of evasion and obfuscation - or muddying the waters- as part and parcel of Ms. Knox's way of communicating her version of the "best truth she can remember".

I prefer this statement analysis from expert Steve Moore:


Amanda did not give in to the brainwashing. But the police achieved enough with her to obtain a statement that let them do what they had intended to do all along: Arrest Patrick Lumumba.



But Amanda’s note the next day to police indicates that the techniques they used were effective nonetheless. The same CIA document described the techniques used to brainwash a person, as well as the desired results. If you compare Amanda’s note to the police just hours after her interrogation with the techniques and goals of brainwashing, the results speak for themselves. (The excerpts from Amanda’s note are in italics):



“The most important aspect of the brainwashing process is the interrogation. The other pressures are designed primarily to help the interrogator achieve his goals. The following states are created systematically within the individual . These may vary in order, but all are necessary to the brainwashing process:”



1. A feeling of helplessness in attempting to deal with the impersonal machinery of control.



“Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.”



“Honestly, I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain.”



“I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me.”



"In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.”



2. An initial reaction of "surprise."



“What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this.”[He hadn’t]



“My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true.” [He hadn’t]



3. A feeling of uncertainty about what is required of him.



“If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.”



“Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone.”



4. A developing feeling of dependence upon the interrogator.



“I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.”



“I'm doing the best I can, just like you are.”



5. A sense of doubt and loss of objectivity.



“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…”



“This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else.”



“I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.”



6. Feelings of guilt.



7. A questioning attitude toward his own value-system.



8. A feeling of potential "breakdown," i.e.,that he might go crazy.



“However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik (sic) in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.”



“I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can.”



"In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik (sic) as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known…”



9. A need to defend his acquired principles.


“I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.”


“Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.”



10. A final sense of "belonging" (identification).


What the inquisitors did not achieve however, speaks volumes of Amanda’s character and innocence. No matter how hard they tried, and how manipulative and coercive they were, Amanda repeatedly denied ANY involvement in the murder, and the police could develop no feelings of guilt in her. This is not sociopathy, this is innocence. Note that in her note, she expresses empathy for the officers who had just subjected her to this abomination.

Never once did she question her own innocence (value system). And never did she experience any sense of identification with the accusations of the police.


CONCLUSION

This is an innocent college girl subjected to the most aggressive and heinous interrogation techniques the police could utilize (yet not leave marks.) She became confused, she empathized with her captors, she doubted herself in some ways, but in the end her strength of character and her unshakable knowledge of her innocence carried her through. It’s time that the real criminals were prosecuted.



http://http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html

 

[nopoirot]

I wonder how the American Heartland would react were the Italian media to work itself into a lather about the "Guantanamo-style justice" inflicted on one of its own.

A passing thought about recording witness interviews: when dealing with cooperative or neutral witnesses, recorded statements provide a helpful record, and can be used to refresh the memory of the witness at a later date. When trying to coax the truth from a skittish or defensive witness, however, one will have far more success in putting the recording equipment aside, and maintaining a normal conversational tone. Tell the witness he is being recorded, and he will become much more cautious and guarded, and may even terminate the interview. That he may divulge something he later regrets is simply a function of balancing the legitimate interests of the witness and the interest of society in getting at the truth. And yes, I appreciate the distinction between "witnesses" and "suspects," and no, I don't believe society owes a duty to the former to warn them of the consequences of their answers before they are even uttered.

 

[Justinian2]

Amanda and Raffaele were fighting for their lives.

If they didn't get emotional and confused, I would have been suspicious.

 

[lionking]

That is incorrect. You don't think it, you only accepted what the authorities said. You have no independent observation from which to form your own opinion.

I formed my opinion after reading about it. How did you form yours? You were at the crime scene? You're a forensic pathologist?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

recording statements

I wonder how the American Heartland would react were the Italian media to work itself into a lather about the "Guantanamo-style justice" inflicted on one of its own.

A passing thought about recording witness interviews: when dealing with cooperative or neutral witnesses, recorded statements provide a helpful record, and can be used to refresh the memory of the witness at a later date. When trying to coax the truth from a skittish or defensive witness, however, one will have far more success in putting the recording equipment aside, and maintaining a normal conversational tone. Tell the witness he is being recorded, and he will become much more cautious and guarded, and may even terminate the interview. That he may divulge something he later regrets is simply a function of balancing the legitimate interests of the witness and the interest of society in getting at the truth. And yes, I appreciate the distinction between "witnesses" and "suspects," and no, I don't believe society owes a duty to the former to warn them of the consequences of their answers before they are even uttered.

nopoirot,

The Innocence Project wrote, "The electronic recording of interrogations, from the reading of Miranda rights onward, is the single best reform available to stem the tide of false confessions."

 

[treehorn]

Of course, since you could write a similar list of necessary conditions for any scenario going back to (and beyond) the birth of any hypothetical perpetrator, the only logical conclusion is to assume that the murder is too unlikely to have happened at all and thus Meredith Kercher is still alive and thus Knox is innocent! It's an open and shut case!

THIS post is an perfect example of what makes JREF interesting to me.

Nicely put, "quixotecoyote."

 

[Kaosium]

THIS post is an perfect example of what makes JREF interesting to me.

Nicely put, "quixotecoyote."

Why do you think they're guilty, Treehorn? What makes you so sure they participated in this crime?

 

[treehorn]

Would someone please explain to me why this subject is receiving soo much attention?

The family of one of the accused (Knox) hired an expensive Seattle PR firm that uses political campaign style "tactics" (their word) to 'muddy the waters' in respect of the inculpatory evidence.

 

[TomM43]

This is a very important topic and I would like to stick to it. A (the) central theme of the pro guilt crowd is that Knox is a liar. Her true self is not how she appears.

Here we have a clear opportunity to test that theory. Did Knox lie in her testimony during the trial? A indicator of that could be is Knox evasive when answering questions during the trial?

I welcome any evidence you want to provide that shows that she did.

I would also like to reinforce the fact that everyone on this board, including you LoZ, Treehorn, and even TomM43, all now agree that the example given by Treehorn in post 24821 shows that Knox is answering clearly, directly, on the topic, and without evasion.

Isn't that so?

I don't recall ever saying that, or anything like it. A direct answer to the question would be, "Yes." although her answer is an affirmation by inference. Her answer would be a clear and direct answer to two questions, "When did you...? and "How often...?"

I don't think Treehorn was trying to assert that every answer she gave was evasive. The marijuana questions are not particularly dangerous for her; it is not in her interests to deny it, since that would undercut her explanation for her confusion and lapses of memory.

It's a different matter when she gets on more dangerous ground. There is a lengthy segment of testimony on who and how Patrick came to be named. It it were put into the format and font of a typical testimony transcript, it would be 24 pages long.

It begins with her being asked why she had never mentioned Patrick before 1:45 on November 6:

"Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name to me."

It ends with her grudging concession, "No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know
who it is. You were with him, you met him."

Judge Massei would disagree with your assessment that she was "answering clearly, directly, on the topic, and without evasion." Here are some excerpts from points in between the "they suggested Patrick's name to me." and the "No. They didn't say it was him,..." in which the judge tries to get her to answer the question; you don't get judges saying things like this if the witness is providing clear, direct, relevant, non-evasive testimony, and it would not have taken 24 pages worth to get there if she weren't being evasive.

Judge Massei: Excuse me, excuse me, the pubblico ministero wants to hear
precise details about the suggestions about what to say, and also about the
cuffs, who gave them to you.

***
Judge Massei: Excuse me, okay, we understand that there was a continuous
crescendo.

AK: Yes.

Judge Massei: As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the
pubblico ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some
interruptions. If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as
continuously as possible...

AK: Okay, I'm sorry.

Judge Massei: So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who...
these suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me...
***
Judge Massei: All right. You were telling us that the interpreter was telling you about
something that had happened to her. But you need to get back to the questions asked by the
pubblico ministero. This isn't a spontaneous declaration now. This is an examination. That
means the pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and we
still haven't really heard the answer to it.

So, "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." and "No. They didn't say it was him," cannot both be true. Since she volunteered "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." and had admitted that the latter was true only after the persistent, patient questioning by the judge, I think "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." is a lie.