Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'll bet the pre-tax annual salary of a teacher that the percentage of murderers among people that enjoy writing rape stories and/or that enjoy collecting and wearing flick knives between bouts of watch animal porn (to the point where their college activates a "monitoring" program in respect of them) is higher than the percentage of murderers among people that would never enjoy/ engage in such behaviors.

How much higher though?

If 0.001% of the general population commit murder and 0.0011% of the comic-book reading, knife collecting, one-off animal porn watching, rock and roll dancing, Grand Theft Auto playing population commit murder then it's not really much of an argument.

What do you think the ratio of the murdering rate amongst creepy, unemployed habitual liars who support themselves with a habit of breaking into buildings armed with knives and threatening law-abiding citizens when they are caught, to the murdering rate amongst law-abiding university students with no history of serious crime, hard drug use, violent behaviour or other real indicators of violently antisocial behaviour might be? Ten to one? One hundred to one? One thousand to one? Higher?

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

So what you're saying is, you don't have a link to the story about this "violent", "drugs-fuelled sex party"?

I'm just curious to see how well the Telegraph's reporting matches up to the original...

you can find the story here:
http://www.halfcute.com/2010/01/amanda-knox-semi-confessional-story.html

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The morning of 6 November

So how did I hit on the Jason Bourne series as the inspiration for the "flashbacks"? Perhaps it was this bit from Tough questions for US student in Italy sex-murder trial, Gina Doggett (AFP), Jun 11, 2009:

She [Amanda] added: "When I said 'Patrick' I actually started to imagine a kind of movie, images that could have explained the situation, Patrick's face, then Grimana Square, then my house" on the night of the murder.

I understand a psychologist was trotted in to opine that Amanda (unlike Matt Damon) had in fact been experiencing "false flashbacks."

I see that, when the court and the lawyers tried to pin Amanda down on just how many days her state of "confusion" lasted, she set off like a hare being chased by a hound.

The astute will have noticed that, in some of the interrogation scenarios being proposed, the "load of bs" Sollecito admits having told the police has mysteriously disappeared.

nopoirot,

Amanda wrote, "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but 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."

If she is faking confusion, then she is doing an exemplary job of it.

 

[loverofzion]

nopoirot,

Amanda wrote, "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but 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."

If she is faking confusion, then she is doing an exemplary job of it.

As for lying, saying I don't remember or I don't know those two dozen or so times makes for poor lying skills.

 

[nopoirot]

If it was indeed a 'false internalized confession', it would be very characteristic that her confusion lasted for some time after the initial statements. The length of time the person remains confused depends on the extent to which their memories are distorted by the tactics used in the interrogation. The confusion in Amanda's handwritten statement is therefore very consistent with this kind of false statement, and I'd also argue it's something that a person would be very unlikely to fake, unless for some reason they were familiar with false internalized confessions...

Personally I think the defence would've been better off bringing in an expert in false confessions to testify on Amanda's behalf, rather than citing 'Amélie'.

It has been suggested that these "false memories" were implanted when an officer related to Amanda a tale of having repressed memories of a painful injury, and invited her to reflect on whether she was similarly repressing memories of the crime. It seems obvious enough to me that this is but a ploy to allow Amanda to change her narrative while avoiding the embarrassment of admitting that she had been deliberately untruthful. I suppose her statements following the 1:45 statement (which could plausibly be attributed to hysteria) could be seen as an attempt to retract her initial accusations, in such a way as to avoid the admission that she had not been truthful. But then on top of this is positioned a convoluted rationalization for Sollecito's testimonial flip-flops. It's a house of cards, and with Sollecito refusing to take the stand . . .

 

[katy_did]

It has been suggested that these "false memories" were implanted when an officer related to Amanda a tale of having repressed memories of a painful injury, and invited her to reflect on whether she was similarly repressing memories of the crime. It seems obvious enough to me that this is but a ploy to allow Amanda to change her narrative while avoiding the embarrassment of admitting that she had been deliberately untruthful. I suppose her statements following the 1:45 statement (which could plausibly be attributed to hysteria) could be seen as an attempt to retract her initial accusations, in such a way as to avoid the admission that she had not been truthful.

IIRC, the translator (or 'mediator') didn't deny that she had related this story about breaking her leg, being 'traumatized' and subsequent amnesia to Amanda, but said that she was only trying to be sympathetic and never suggested that Amanda herself might have forgotten what happened due to being traumatized. After all, this incident Amanda describes the interpreter relating to her either happened or it didn't; the interpreter either had a "terrible accident" where she broke her leg and was traumatized, or she didn't. It would've been a nice little 'gotcha' from the prosecution if they'd been able to say 'this story has to be false, since the interpreter never had an accident like that'. Are you saying that Amanda might have made up the entire incident, but that the prosecution didn't pick up on it?

Incidentally, this is another aspect of Amanda's account of the interrogation which aligns closely with the risk factors for a coerced-internalized confession: the police tactic of telling the suspect they have hard evidence she was at the crime scene, and then providing her with a reason she might not remember being there. In this case, the reason suggested appears to have been trauma-induced amnesia, and again, this is something I would've thought a person would be very unlikely to fake unless they were already familiar with the characteristics of such a confession.

But then on top of this is positioned a convoluted rationalization for Sollecito's testimonial flip-flops. It's a house of cards, and with Sollecito refusing to take the stand . . .

All they had to get Sollecito to admit was that Amanda might have left the house at some point and that he didn't remember clearly, and then to tell him they had hard evidence she did leave the house (CCTV footage, etc). Even during his testimony in front of Matteini - where he first states categorically that he and Amanda were together all night - she still manages to get him to say subsequently he didn't remember clearly whether she left or not. To get him to say during an unrecorded interrogation that she might've left would've been a piece of cake, I would think.

 

[katy_did]

you can find the story here:
http://www.halfcute.com/2010/01/amanda-knox-semi-confessional-story.html

Thanks for that, Mrs. Columbo. I had actually seen that story, but thought I must have been looking at the wrong one, since it didn't seem to match with treehorn's description of a story about "a woman that allows another woman to be injured" at a ""violent", "drugs-fuelled sex party". Perhaps he can post the relevant quotes.

 

[nopoirot]

Steve Moore originally assumed AK and RS were probably guilty. After much research of the case he came to the conclusion that the trial was a travesty of justice. Many other experts have come to the same conclusion after studying the case. You however maintain your position in spite of the evidence. I commend you for holding on to your belief in regards to this case. However, I can't help but think that even if you know you are wrong, you would never admit it. It's the same thing Mignini and the Perugian justice system has done. They made a huge mistake and will do anything to avoid looking bad.

Look. Some of these guys, in a debate over the configuration of the earth, would prefer the challenge of advocating the "flat earth" position. They just might win, too.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for that, Mrs. Columbo. I had actually seen that story, but thought I must have been looking at the wrong one, since it didn't seem to match with treehorn's description of a story about "a woman that allows another woman to be injured" at a ""violent", "drugs-fuelled sex party". Perhaps he can post the relevant quotes.

Yeah, I'm struggling to find that part of the story too. Joel (or possibly Ethan) Coen: over to you................

 

[Dan O.]

I don't think we can say anything about that essay until the statement analysis guy tells us what it means.

 

[Justinian2]

Steve Moore has given reasonable people everywhere more than enough cause to seriously doubt every claim that he makes in respsect of his past work and the evidence in this case.

His credibility is, at this point, less than zero.

The topic of this thread is NOT Steve Moore. What Steve Moore wrote is applicable to the thread, but banter about his contributions is off topic. Perhaps if we discuss a particular contribution, then that IS on topic.

Even if a person is a complete dimwit, he can say things that have truth. To dismiss everything that a person says as having zero worth is ignorant (and that is the best word). I believe that Steve Moore has said a great deal of worth. It is the Closing Considerations of the Massei Report that has negative worth.

Steve Moore popularized the phrase "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence". This phrase is highly applicable to this case and every case where innocent people are accused of a crime. Why? Because the only proof of innocence is frequently "Absence of evidence".

 

[nopoirot]

IIRC, the translator (or 'mediator') didn't deny that she had related this story about breaking her leg, being 'traumatized' and subsequent amnesia to Amanda, but said that she was only trying to be sympathetic and never suggested that Amanda herself might have forgotten what happened due to being traumatized. After all, this incident Amanda describes the interpreter relating to her either happened or it didn't; the interpreter either had a "terrible accident" where she broke her leg and was traumatized, or she didn't. It would've been a nice little 'gotcha' from the prosecution if they'd been able to say 'this story has to be false, since the interpreter never had an accident like that'. Are you saying that Amanda might have made up the entire incident, but that the prosecution didn't pick up on it?

Incidentally, this is another aspect of Amanda's account of the interrogation which aligns closely with the risk factors for a coerced-internalized confession: the police tactic of telling the suspect they have hard evidence she was at the crime scene, and then providing her with a reason she might not remember being there. In this case, the reason suggested appears to have been trauma-induced amnesia, and again, this is something I would've thought a person would be very unlikely to fake unless they were already familiar with the characteristics of such a confession.



All they had to get Sollecito to admit was that Amanda might have left the house at some point and that he didn't remember clearly, and then to tell him they had hard evidence she did leave the house (CCTV footage, etc). Even during his testimony in front of Matteini - where he first states categorically that he and Amanda were together all night - she still manages to get him to say subsequently he didn't remember clearly whether she left or not. To get him to say during an unrecorded interrogation that she might've left would've been a piece of cake, I would think.

So Sollecito admits to having told the police a "load of bs," and the police say this took the form of a representation that Amanda had told him she was going to Le Chic to meet with friends that night. Amanda says she was "astonished" by the change in Raffaele's testimony, considering it tantamount to having "placed evidence" against her. There just comes a point at which the contention that everything the police have said about the interrogation is a malicious fabrication begins to wear a bit thin. But while we're on the subject, just what is Sollecito's present, in-court version of the facts here, and how, and on what basis, are his lawyers communicating this to the jury? What's this business about filing an application to the Supreme Court contesting Amanda's representation that he was with her all night?

 

[Justinian2]

How would two innocent people unrepresented by lawyers be expected to sound?

There is NOTHING about the case against Amanda and Raffaele that couldn't have been made about any other two innocent people living in proximity to a crime.

The only difference between two innocent people that are NOT prosecuted and two that are could be the quality of the police and prosecutors.

 

[Alt+F4]

Anthing else going on here except discussion that the folks at PMF are meanies? Is Justinian still in love with Amanda?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele and the Supremes; the thin blue line

There just comes a point at which the contention that everything the police have said about the interrogation is a malicious fabrication begins to wear a bit thin. But while we're on the subject, just what is Sollecito's present, in-court version of the facts here, and how, and on what basis, are his lawyers communicating this to the jury? What's this business about filing an application to the Supreme Court contesting Amanda's representation that he was with her all night?

nopoirot,

In front of Judge Matteini Raffaele backed Amanda's alibi up. In addition he said that "the police had interrogated him very forcefully, saying 'don't give us s***' and 'be careful what you say.' Later they'd written down he said 'sack of s***.' It had all been a nightmare." (Murder in Italy, p. 199). Thus his last words on the subject were that they were together. There is also a passage in Darkness Descending about the appearance before Judge Matteini, around p. 210. I have quoted from this previously.

In front of the Supreme Court Raffaele's lawyers argued that it was an unjustifiable assumption to use evidence that Amanda was away from his flat, as evidence that Raffaele was also away. His lawyers were making the case that assuming that the two were together is wrong, not that they were actually apart. Katy_did gave a good discussion of the translation issues about nine months ago.

I just watched “The Thin Blue Line” again recently. When it comes to malicious interrogations, the authorities in Perugia could learn a thing or two from those in Dallas.

 

[loverofzion]

How much higher though?

If 0.001% of the general population commit murder and 0.0011% of the comic-book reading, knife collecting, one-off animal porn watching, rock and roll dancing, Grand Theft Auto playing population commit murder then it's not really much of an argument.

What do you think the ratio of the murdering rate amongst creepy, unemployed habitual liars who support themselves with a habit of breaking into buildings armed with knives and threatening law-abiding citizens when they are caught, to the murdering rate amongst law-abiding university students with no history of serious crime, hard drug use, violent behaviour or other real indicators of violently antisocial behaviour might be? Ten to one? One hundred to one? One thousand to one? Higher?

You're ranting.
Assuming it is actually as low probablility as you say, that does not negate the fact that these three were convicted unanimously on the strength of the evidence.
Who cares how rare an occurrence this might be. Statisticians only, probably.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

juries and confessions

Anthing else going on here except discussion that the folks at PMF are meanies? Is Justinian still in love with Amanda?

Alt+F4,

You asked about the reason I quoted from the paper that dealt with how juries perceive confessions a week ago. It was the closest analogy I could think of to the case under consideration here. In the present case the jury was somehow supposed to consider Amanda’s statement in the civil case but ignore it in the criminal case (if I understand things correctly). Based on the article from which I quoted, I don’t think that any jury can reasonably be expected to do that.

 

[moodstream]

you can find the story here:
http://www.halfcute.com/2010/01/amanda-knox-semi-confessional-story.html

What is the back story on this? Why is it associated with Knox? What is it supposed to imply?

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

What is the back story on this? Why is it associated with Knox? What is it supposed to imply?

It is Amanda Knox's alleged prize-winning story - which she wrote in Capanne prison under the name of 'Marie Pace'

 

[nopoirot]

nopoirot,

In front of Judge Matteini Raffaele backed Amanda's alibi up. In addition he said that "the police had interrogated him very forcefully, saying 'don't give us s***' and 'be careful what you say.' Later they'd written down he said 'sack of s***.' It had all been a nightmare." (Murder in Italy, p. 199). Thus his last words on the subject were that they were together. There is also a passage in Darkness Descending about the appearance before Judge Matteini, around p. 210. I have quoted from this previously.

In front of the Supreme Court Raffaele's lawyers argued that it was an unjustifiable assumption to use evidence that Amanda was away from his flat, as evidence that Raffaele was also away. His lawyers were making the case that assuming that the two were together is wrong, not that they were actually apart. Katy_did gave a good discussion of the translation issues about nine months ago.

I just watched “The Thin Blue Line” again recently. When it comes to malicious interrogations, the authorities in Perugia could learn a thing or two from those in Dallas.

I don't like to make assumptions myself, and I am quite unable to divine from your comment whether you are conceding that Sollecito did in fact tell the police that Amanda had gone to Le Chic that night, as opposed to grudgingly admitting that, having failed to keep watch over her all night, he couldn't for fact certain deny that she might have slipped away for a few minutes. I will point out that, if all the jury has to go on is Judge Matteini's report, they will have in front of them her finding that Sollecito told the police Amanda had gone to Le Chic, not to return until 1:00 am or so. And Sollecito has no way, short of taking the stand, to air the theories proposed here (including 'internalized false memory') about how he was "coerced." Well, I take that back. He has gone on at some length about being relieved of his shoes.