Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[TomCH]

TomCH,

In the past you mentioned Guantanamo, and now you claim that the U.S. being a police state. I note that Michael at PMF has again very recently claimed that Amanda’s defenders are racists. I think it is time to answer all such arguments and be done with it, lest we veer off topic too far.

Those of us who blog or comment regularly have electronic trails of where we stand on certain issues, and I can also release letters I wrote to back up any claims I make about my positions. I have defended the large group of black men and women wrongfully convicted of drug dealing in Tulia, Texas, and I have tried to show how indigent people are generally at a disadvantage in our CJ system. I criticized our government’s detainee policies in letters to news organizations, and I wrote a letter to Senator Elizabeth Dole on this issue. Indeed, some of what I learned about habeas corpus informed my opinions on the precautionary detentions in this case. RoseMontague defended the false accuser in the Duke lacrosse case, because when it became clear that no rape occurred, some of the commentary against her crossed the line. The false accuser is poor, black, and possibly mentally ill. More generally, those who believe that Knox and Sollecito are innocent cover broad regions political and religious beliefs. Charges of racism in this case are just plain silly. Claims about which country is closer to being a police state are too broad to be helpful in understanding this case, IMO.

I don't think that the US is any more (nor less) of a police state than Italy, i.e. neither is.

However, I do get perturbed when individuals with no direct knowledge of the place slag it off.

So please tell them to stuff their inane rhetoric, and I will be more than pleased to do the same.

Thank you!

 

[RoseMontague]

It is not the first time I have seen accusations of racism towards a group of Amanda supporters nor will it be the last. In my opinion it shows that the person making this accusation wants to show their dislike for this group so much that they don't care if the argument makes them look silly. The overwhelming vast majority of those that believe Rudy is guilty do so because the evidence of Rudy's guilt is clear rather than the fact that Rudy is black.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass View Post
Hi, Fine it's nice to see you leaning on the innocence side

According to your theory Raffaele is innocent because he wasn't there and Amanda is innocent because she was with a married man and she'd rather spend 3 years in prison then give his personals to the police. Do I understand it correctly?
___________________________________-

Well, what if that other man was married to Monica Napoleoni, Rita Ficarra, or any other gal in Perugia who owned a gun?

What in the world makes you think Amanda was involved with a married man, or with anyone except Raffaele?

And, without wishing to sound cruel, having sex with Raffaele three or four times a day---if true--- may have been exactly what drove Amanda into the arms of another man.///

How do you figure that?

 

[Justinian2]

In one direction: if the staged break-in theory is true, then the pair are almost certainly guilty of murder. I wouldn't endorse the converse (if they are guilty, they staged a break-in) with anything like the same confidence.

It's worth clarifying that this is Massei and Cristiani speaking, not me.

If the breakin was true, then:
The conspiracy theory falls away and, since a person can't be murdered twice, Guede was 100% guilty.

If the staging was true, then:
They were afraid that they would be caught. They were afraid either because they knew they could be framed for the crime or prosecuted for the crime. However, if they were so afraid of being caught, why did they do the crime in the first place?

Furthermore, in the USA this could have been considered manslaughter in which case they could have already served their time.

 

[LondonJohn]

If the breakin was true, then:
The conspiracy theory falls away and, since a person can't be murdered twice, Guede was 100% guilty.

If the staging was true, then:
They were afraid that they would be caught. They were afraid either because they knew they could be framed for the crime or prosecuted for the crime. However, if they were so afraid of being caught, why did they do the crime in the first place?

Furthermore, in the USA this could have been considered manslaughter in which case they could have already served their time.

It could never have been considered as manslaughter (except on grounds of diminished responsibility): stabbing someone through the neck repeatedly - and/or being part of a joint enterprise in which someone is stabbed through the neck repeatedly - cannot be anything other than murder (or attempted murder if the person survives) in any jurisdiction.

And I don't really buy your theory that if they were afraid of being caught, why would they have committed the crime in the first place? Even if the murder were premeditated, then it's still logical to think that Knox and Sollecito (if they were involved) would take retrospective steps to avoid being caught. And of course if the murder was not premeditated, there's even more reason why a post-crime misdirection might be both logical and of benefit.

HOWEVER, this second point is of course moot if Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder, and/or if the break-in was real and not staged....

 

[Justinian2]

Hey Justinan2,
I can totally see your point, gosh, it is so much easier to convey what you mean in person instead of by these letters on my computer keyboard.
I noticed that I too was being lambasted elswhere on the web for posting some of my life's experiences that have given me a bit more input about this tragic case we discuss. You know what, NOT everyone grew up the same way, thank goodness!

Heck, I have even had someone write that I am a parasitic pervert here on JREF...
All I gotta say is that it ain't my DNA that was left inside Meredith Kercher as she lay dying. And it never would have been!

Esh, this same person says that I even photographed 4 people havin' consensual fun, NOT!
I simply was a slight voyeur, as a few others were too that evening. No narcotics were used either, as these person mistakenly states, just some people drinking and smokin' some good kronic. Funny though, none of the people involved are of the violent, murderous type whatsoever, though they might have played a prank or two before, such as drawing all over a passed-out-from-too-much-to-drink buddy using permanent markers, hahaha!
But the scenerio I saw that night, with the dynamics of movement in the room between 4 individuals in a state of undress and consensual intimacy helped give me knowledge that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were not even in Meredith Kercher's bedroom that night. And they did not do any "Magical Mr.Mistoffelees" cleanup either...

I guess some pro-guilt community members also got mad at me, the parasitic pervert, because a woman friend I know showed me a coupla video clips that amused her. These were of the same type that Raffaele Sollecito had apparently viewed before. Funny thing is though, she too is not a violent, murderous type...

It seems like some even got their chonies in a wad and split the scene, so to say because I guess, Mary H suggested that some of the personal stories I write of that have helped guide me to my current opinion of Raffaele and Amanda's innocence of any involvement whatsoever in this bloody murder we discuss outta be in compiled into a book, ala 'Bukowski,' Notes of a Dirty old Man, I suppose...

Speaking of books, I noticed that InJustice in Perugia is coming out on Jan. 20,
written by fellow JREF member Mr. Bruce Fisher!
I dig the cover, it is a beauty! Have a look:
http://injusticeinperugia.com/Injusticebook.html
I for one can not wait to read this, I am sure it will give the real deal on what went down in Perugia, Italy...

But I wonder why Michael and the pro-guilt community at PMF do not write an updated book also?
Take it easy, Justinian2!
Peace to the rest of you, on both sides...
RWVBWL

After I won some money gambling at a resort, two beautiful young women and their dog came into my room to give me a show. That's another story for another forum. The point is that -- I forgot what the point is. Maybe that is the point.

Eyewitness accounts are not only facts, but the most interesting facts.

Part of the reason this story of Amanda is so fascinating is that Amanda said so much and became a very interesting person with an interesting story.

 

[Justinian2]

Justinian2,

I am not sure whether you should be relieved or annoyed, but the writer of that passage (Michael?) should get his or her facts straight. Candace Dempsey quoted Zach Nowak about Rudi's behavior on pages 224-225 of Murder in Italy. The witness thrown out by Judge Micheli was someone else. The anonymous commenter should read the book and learn something.

Thank you. I looked it up twice previously a couple of times and would have again for a quality poster on this thread.

Candace Dempsey is reliable. What she has written is based on verifiable fact so often, that it is really up to the attacker to verify his attack. It's strange that the pro guilt set quotes their idol - Massei - less than the pro innocent set.

 

[Fuji]

Really?

I would expect a liar to concoct a story that at least hung together. "I was at my house, but I don't remember how I got there, then there was a murder but I didn't see it, and then I was home and I don't remember how I got home" is a dreamlike, illogical story.

I agree that her story is dreamlike and illogical, but I would counter that it is in fact its very "dreaminess" which allows it to "hang together". At our current state of neurological knowledge, a claim of selective amnesia is an unfalsifiable one. It may be viewed by many rational observers as being highly implausible (as indeed is the case with regard to Knox's statements), but it cannot be completely disproved.

Compare it to Rudy's painstaking, step-by-step fairy story intended to explain all of the evidence he thought he left at the murder house for an immediately relevant contrast.

Guede's post-arrest behavior (and to a lesser extent, Sollecito's as well) has been more rationally self-serving than Knox's. This has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether or not her statements are either deliberately or unintentionally deceptive.

Liars have to be concerned with plausibility. Amanda's statement is nonsensical, and reflects her own deep confusion as to whether her own memory can be trusted any more. I think you'd only come up with it if you were honestly reporting a highly disordered mental state.

Or if some variation of "I can't remember" is the best account you can come up with on short notice.

No. "Either Amanda Knox knew a lot about internalised false confessions, or she did not" is not a false dilemma.

This is a disingenuous distortion of your original statement, which said in part:

"...she's not only far more knowledgeable about how police interrogations can go wrong than the vast majority of the public, but she's also a complete idiot..."

In essence, what you actually said was "Amanda Knox knew a lot about internalised false confessions, and she did not", which can indeed be fairly described as an attempt at creating a false dilemma.

The vast majority of the population knows nothing about the phenomenon, and you need to know a fair bit about it to accurately fake the kind of confession produced under such circumstances.

I'd wager that even most of the people vaguely aware that the Norfolk Four made false confessions, for example, couldn't fake the kind of false confession you would have expected them to make.

This is complete nonsense. The only requisite elements are: 1) a willingness to claim selective amnesia, and 2) an active imagination. Knox has evinced both of these characteristics on multiple occasions.

The candidate third alternative you are proposing to attempt to break the dilemma is just the one I mocked earlier as "Amanda decided to lie and then just by an amazing coincidence produced something that looks exactly like an internalised false confession". If it's a coincidence it's one heck of a coincidence.

The apparent certainty with which you proclaim that Knox's statements are actual false confessions as opposed to deliberate lies is not supported from what I have read in the academic literature regarding false confessions.

From "False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications" by Richard A. Leo, PhD, JD in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 2009:

"Although other researchers have also documented and analyzed numerous false confessions in recent years, we do not know how frequently they occur. A scientifically meaningful incidence rate cannot be determined for several reasons. First, researchers cannot identify (and thus cannot randomly sample) the universe of false confessions, because no governmental or private organization keeps track of this information. Second, even if one could identify a set of possibly false confessions, it is not usually possible as a practical matter to obtain the primary case materials (e.g., police reports, pretrial and trial transcripts, and electronic recordings of the interrogations) necessary to evaluate the unreliability of these confessions. Finally, even in disputed confession cases in which researchers are able to obtain primary case materials, it may still be difficult to determine unequivocally the ground truth (i.e., what really happened) with sufficient certainty to prove the confession false. In most alleged false-confession cases, it is therefore impossible to remove completely any possible doubts about the confessor's innocence."

Even allowing for an inability to establish a priori any likelihood of a given statement being a false confession, the kind of false confession which you have attributed to Knox is in fact the least likely of the three types (Voluntary, Compliant, and Persuaded) to be observed:

(Leo)

"Persuaded false confessions appear to occur far less often than compliant false confessions."

Moreover, despite your assertions to the contrary, Knox and her statements do not in fact satisfy many of the criteria researchers tend to observe in false confessions, particularly of the Persuaded variety:

(Leo)

"All other things being equal, those who are highly suggestible or compliant are more likely to confess falsely. Individuals who are highly suggestible tend to have poor memories, high levels of anxiety, low self-esteem, and low assertiveness, personality factors that also make them more vulnerable to the pressures of interrogation and thus more likely to confess falsely."

"Highly suggestible or compliant individuals are not the only ones who are unusually vulnerable to the pressures of police interrogation. So are the developmentally disabled or cognitively impaired, juveniles, and the mentally ill."

"They also tend to occur primarily in high-profile murder cases and to be the product of unusually lengthy and psychologically intense interrogations... ordinary police interrogation is not strong enough to produce a permanent change in the suspect's beliefs."

Most significantly, there is one essential element of a true Persuaded False Confession which in Knox's case is highly distinctive:

(Leo)

"To convince the suspect that it is plausible, and likely, that he committed the crime, the interrogators must supply him with a reason that satisfactorily explains how he could have done it without remembering it. This is the second step in the psychological process that leads to a persuaded false confession. Typically, the interrogator suggests one version or another of a "repressed" memory theory. He or she may suggest, for example, that the suspect experienced an alcohol- or drug-induced blackout, a "dry" blackout, a multiple personality disorder, a momentary lapse in consciousness, or posttraumatic stress disorder, or, perhaps most commonly, that the suspect simply repressed his memory of committing the crime because it was a traumatic experience for him.

The suspect can only be persuaded to accept responsibility for the crime if he regards one of the interrogators’ explanations for his alleged amnesia as plausible."

Knox did not in fact claim drug or alcohol use as the source of her amnesia - rather, she accepted the interrogators' attribution that this was due to being traumatized by the crime itself:

(from KNOX STATEMENT TO THE COURT IN PRE-TRIAL, JUDGE MICHELI PRESIDING, OCT 18, 2008)

"Then they started pushing on me the idea that I must have seen something, and forgotten about it. They said that I was traumatized."

Of course, Knox's initial statement went far beyond being that of being merely a witness to some aspect of Ms. Kercher's murder, as the interrogators' at first seemed to believe was the case. Rather, her statement, which placed her at scene of the murder during its commission while she did nothing to avert it, naturally made her a suspect.

In other words, in the absence of any of her other testimony which indicated that she was a witness to the murder, her own self-admitted rationale for providing a false confession was that she was traumatized by the commission of the murder itself.

If I were a Knox supporter, I would find it to be a far more fruitful line of argumentation to argue that she was simply lying, rather than providing an actual false confession.

So what's your evidence that an innocent Amanda would not have "cracked" in exactly the same way under exactly the same treatment?

See above.

 

[Justinian2]

It could never have been considered as manslaughter (except on grounds of diminished responsibility): stabbing someone through the neck repeatedly - and/or being part of a joint enterprise in which someone is stabbed through the neck repeatedly - cannot be anything other than murder (or attempted murder if the person survives) in any jurisdiction.

And I don't really buy your theory that if they were afraid of being caught, why would they have committed the crime in the first place? Even if the murder were premeditated, then it's still logical to think that Knox and Sollecito (if they were involved) would take retrospective steps to avoid being caught. And of course if the murder was not premeditated, there's even more reason why a post-crime misdirection might be both logical and of benefit.

HOWEVER, this second point is of course moot if Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder, and/or if the break-in was real and not staged....

I believe it could have been called manslaughter. My precident is the following case (from Wikipedia):

Thomas Junta of Reading, Massachusetts was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2002 after he beat up Michael Costin which led to Costin's death. Costin was the informal referee of a pick-up hockey game involving the men's sons.[1] The fight was witnessed by about a dozen children, including Junta's son and Costin's three sons.[2]

Junta was charged with voluntary manslaughter. The jury which tried his case opted instead to convict him of the lesser crime of involuntary manslaughter. Judge Charles Grabau sentenced Junta to 6–10 years, which was twice Massachusetts' suggested sentence for involuntary manslaughter per the egregiousness of the crime.

In April 2008, Junta was denied parole for the second time. In denying his request, the Massachusetts Parole Board said that Junta had failed to fully accept responsibility for his actions.[3]

Junta was eventually released on August 27, 2010.[4]

Junta repeatedly stuck Michael Costin in the neck with his fists until a blood vessel ruptured. Then Junta bragged about his conquest. Because he had so little remorse, he served almost his full ten year sentence.

A knife is a different weapon than a fist, but the fist worked more quickly.

 

[Danceme]

Agree totally.
This thread has deteriorated into a forum for absurd, twisted ways of thinking up how the lovebirds were coerced; how they forgot what they wre actually doing that night; how all DNA and witness evidence against the two is deemed "contaminated" or alternately, the result of a broad conspiracy involving police, interpreters, prosecutors and juries.

Good luck with all this mental masturbating!

See below for another example.

I've addressed this point previously. I certainly don't think that it's illogical for Guede to have staged a break-in (not that I think this is what happened). My reasoning is this: if Guede had been let into the cottage by Meredith, and after killing her he'd left by the front door (i.e. leaving no signs of a forced entry), then the police would be able to deduce with some certainty that Meredith had been killed by someone she know (or at least by someone she felt comfortable opening the door to, when she was home alone at night).

Now, the universe of people whom Meredith might have opened the door to, who were also in Perugia that night and who didn't have an alibi, is pretty small. And it wouldn't be all that difficult for Guede to figure this out. In other words, his thinking might go along the lines of: "There might be only, say, 5-10 people who were known to Meredith and who have no alibi, and I'm one of them".
Therefore, it's not at all illogical for Guede to think that he might at least dilute possible police focus on him by making it look like Meredith was killed by somebody unknown to her who entered the cottage by breaking in. Even though he had previous form as a burglar, it wouldn't be hard for him to realise that the potential universe of people who might have broken into the cottage might be considerably greater than the universe of people who were known the Meredith (and who were in Perugia that night with no alibi). After all, this potential universe for a break-in would include not only known burglars, but also most known sex-offenders, and in fact could not exclude pretty much any male between the ages of 16 and 50 who was in Perugia that night and who had no alibi.

However, as I said before, I don't think Guede staged the burglary. I merely point out that it's not in fact correct to assume that it's illogical that he might have done so. I personally don't think the break-in was staged by anyone; I think that it was a real break-in, performed by Guede at around 8.40-8.50pm on 1st November 2007.

This kind of thinking is so convoluted. It's completely illogical to think Guede staged the break-in. How come you never think of the simple solution, such as he waylaid her at the front door as she was opening it, forced his way in with her, and would not be afterward thinking of how many people in Perugia did or didn't have an alibi for that night? Even the police, who supposedly had CCTV footage of her arriving home, would likely try on the theory she was accosted as she tried to get in the house.

There is no reason to jump through hoops.

 

[Dan O.]

This is a disingenuous distortion of your original statement, which said in part:

"...she's not only far more knowledgeable about how police interrogations can go wrong than the vast majority of the public, but she's also a complete idiot..."​

Disingenuous seems to be an understatement on your part. Do you really not understand what a conditional statement is?

Kevin's complete statement which you quoted earlier was:

If she was deliberately lying and she deliberately produced a statement that had all the characteristics we would expect to see in an internalised false confession then she's not only far more knowledgeable about how police interrogations can go wrong than the vast majority of the public, but she's also a complete idiot because anyone who knows about the phenomenon of internalised false confessions knows that lots of people have spent a very long time in jail as a result of them.​

Notice the form of the statement:

If (hypothesis) then (conclusion)​

A statement of this form is false only when the hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false. By dropping the hypothesis and claiming that the conclusion alone was stated, you are being disingenuous.

 

[Justinian2]

Hey Justinan2,

[...]

Speaking of books, I noticed that InJustice in Perugia is coming out on Jan. 20,
written by fellow JREF member Mr. Bruce Fisher!
I dig the cover, it is a beauty! Have a look:
http://injusticeinperugia.com/Injusticebook.html
I for one can not wait to read this, I am sure it will give the real deal on what went down in Perugia, Italy...

But I wonder why Michael and the pro-guilt community at PMF do not write an updated book also?
Take it easy, Justinian2!
Peace to the rest of you, on both sides...
RWVBWL

Have to load it on my Ebook! That way I can do searches...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I agree that her story is dreamlike and illogical, but I would counter that it is in fact its very "dreaminess" which allows it to "hang together". At our current state of neurological knowledge, a claim of selective amnesia is an unfalsifiable one. It may be viewed by many rational observers as being highly implausible (as indeed is the case with regard to Knox's statements), but it cannot be completely disproved.

Guede's post-arrest behavior (and to a lesser extent, Sollecito's as well) has been more rationally self-serving than Knox's. This has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether or not her statements are either deliberately or unintentionally deceptive.

Actually it's perfectly feasible to falsify claims of temporary amnesia. People's reaction times are different when they are dealing with things they are familiar with, and this is reliably detectable. This is how we know that people with "multiple personality disorder" who claim not to remember what their "alternate personalities" did are bunging it on.

That said, you still haven't addressed the core problem: Either Amanda Knox knew an extraordinary amount about internalised false statements, her statement was an internalised false statement, or she was making stuff up and just by sheer random chance she happened to come up with something which walks and quacks exactly like an internalised false statement. The first and third options are very low probability events. The second is perfectly plausible given the conditions and tactics used in her interrogation.

This is a disingenuous distortion of your original statement, which said in part:

"...she's not only far more knowledgeable about how police interrogations can go wrong than the vast majority of the public, but she's also a complete idiot..."

In essence, what you actually said was "Amanda Knox knew a lot about internalised false confessions, and she did not", which can indeed be fairly described as an attempt at creating a false dilemma.

The problem here is not that I am being disingenuous, whatever you may perceive, it's that you are using terms you don't understand. A false dilemma is not a contradiction. It's the argument that either A or B must be the case, when in fact there are valid alternatives other than A and B.

The argument you are trying to criticise, that a person would have to be a complete idiot to know about internalised false confessions well enough to fake one, and still fake one, still stands by the way. It's not a dilemma, false or otherwise, either. It's pointing out that the assumption that Knox somehow was an expert on internalised false confessions is self-defeating and hence of extremely low probability indeed.

This is complete nonsense. The only requisite elements are: 1) a willingness to claim selective amnesia, and 2) an active imagination. Knox has evinced both of these characteristics on multiple occasions.

You appear to be trying to argue that rather than it being an amazing coincidence that Amanda Knox's statement matches perfectly the characteristics of an internalised false confession, it is in fact what we should expect if she cracked and started trying to lie her way out of trouble.

However this is not what the psychological literature tells us. Internalised false confessions are quite distinct.

The apparent certainty with which you proclaim that Knox's statements are actual false confessions as opposed to deliberate lies is not supported from what I have read in the academic literature regarding false confessions.

Oddly enough your citations do not appear to show what you want them to.

Even allowing for an inability to establish a priori any likelihood of a given statement being a false confession, the kind of false confession which you have attributed to Knox is in fact the least likely of the three types (Voluntary, Compliant, and Persuaded) to be observed:

So what? If the orange-headed duck is the least likely of the three kinds of duck at my local pond to see, and I see a duck with a big orange head, then it's still an orange-headed duck.

The fact that these confessions do not happen every day is neither here nor there if it walks and quacks like the relevant kind of duck.

Moreover, despite your assertions to the contrary, Knox and her statements do not in fact satisfy many of the criteria researchers tend to observe in false confessions, particularly of the Persuaded variety:

We've been over this several times already. These moles are flat.

Firstly you are selectively quoting the earlier literature about the types of people likely to make internalised false statements. As you should (and probably do) know the later literature makes it quite clear that young, impressionable students who trust authority are in fact likely subjects for such internalised statements, and further people who do not fit that profile (such as the Norfolk Four) while less likely to make an internalised false statement can still be pressured into doing so.

Secondly while you claim that you have evidence that Knox's statement does not fit the profile of an internalised false statement, it turns out you don't. Thats because it does indeed fit the profile of an internalised false statement.

Now this next attempt at an argument is really bizarre...

Most significantly, there is one essential element of a true Persuaded False Confession which in Knox's case is highly distinctive:

(Leo)

"To convince the suspect that it is plausible, and likely, that he committed the crime, the interrogators must supply him with a reason that satisfactorily explains how he could have done it without remembering it. This is the second step in the psychological process that leads to a persuaded false confession. Typically, the interrogator suggests one version or another of a "repressed" memory theory. He or she may suggest, for example, that the suspect experienced an alcohol- or drug-induced blackout, a "dry" blackout, a multiple personality disorder, a momentary lapse in consciousness, or posttraumatic stress disorder, or, perhaps most commonly, that the suspect simply repressed his memory of committing the crime because it was a traumatic experience for him.

The suspect can only be persuaded to accept responsibility for the crime if he regards one of the interrogators’ explanations for his alleged amnesia as plausible."

...okay, so it only works if Amanda accepted as plausible the interrogator's claim that she had repressed the memories of the events at her house. Fine so far.

Knox did not in fact claim drug or alcohol use as the source of her amnesia - rather, she accepted the interrogators' attribution that this was due to being traumatized by the crime itself:

Yes, with you still...

Of course, Knox's initial statement went far beyond being that of being merely a witness to some aspect of Ms. Kercher's murder, as the interrogators' at first seemed to believe was the case. Rather, her statement, which placed her at scene of the murder during its commission while she did nothing to avert it, naturally made her a suspect.

In other words, in the absence of any of her other testimony which indicated that she was a witness to the murder, her own self-admitted rationale for providing a false confession was that she was traumatized by the commission of the murder itself.

Yes... so? Was this leading somewhere? Was the italicised text supposed to be the devastating conclusion, or what?

Amanda accepted the police's claim that she had been present at the murder but that she had repressed those memories. She never said that she was traumatised by committing the murder, nor did the police suggest this to her at the time.

So what was the point of all this again? Are you seriously trying to assert that a person could only accept the police story that they had amnesia from witnessing the murder, if they in fact committed the murder?

I recognise that you don't want Amanda Knox's statement to be explainable as anything other than a deliberate lie. However if the facts turn out differently that's just too bad. If you want to think of yourself as a rational human being it's your job to let go of a cherished belief when the universe beats you over the head with the unwelcome news that you are wrong.

Knox's statement isn't evidence of anything except that internalised false confessions happen when you interrogate people long enough, tell them you have proof they did it, tell them that they have repressed the memories and encourage them to fantasise about it. It's not proof she's innocent, it's not proof she's guilty, it's just proof that the Perugia police force were incompetent or out to fit her up.

 

[RoseMontague]

"Then they started pushing on me the idea that I must have seen something, and forgotten about it. They said that I was traumatized."

Of course, Knox's initial statement went far beyond being that of being merely a witness to some aspect of Ms. Kercher's murder, as the interrogators' at first seemed to believe was the case. Rather, her statement, which placed her at scene of the murder during its commission while she did nothing to avert it, naturally made her a suspect.

In other words, in the absence of any of her other testimony which indicated that she was a witness to the murder, her own self-admitted rationale for providing a false confession was that she was traumatized by the commission of the murder itself.

If I were a Knox supporter, I would find it to be a far more fruitful line of argumentation to argue that she was simply lying, rather than providing an actual false confession.

I believe her argument here (at this point in time) is that the police convinced her that she had been traumatized by the murder and persuaded her to make a false accusation, the real trauma was coming from the cops and she buckled under the pressure from the cops not the trauma of having been in the kitchen during a murder. Whether she actually believed it or not when the false accusation statement was made is a matter of opinion. Regardless, we know the accusation was false so her being in the kitchen during Patrick's murder of Meredith is also false. I believe it is clear the cops knew they had a very weak statement that needed more proof and more verification but they proceeded anyway.

The arguments I have seen that Amanda accused Patrick to throw the cops off track makes no sense as she was just giving the cops the track the cops were pushing for. She made herself an accessory and also dropped Raffaele's alibi confirmation by doing so so it was an especially dumb way to throw the cops off track if that was her intention.

 

[babycondor]

See below for another example.

(Quotes LondonJohn's theory of why Rudi might have staged a breakin.)

This kind of thinking is so convoluted. It's completely illogical to think Guede staged the break-in. How come you never think of the simple solution, such as he waylaid her at the front door as she was opening it, forced his way in with her, and would not be afterward thinking of how many people in Perugia did or didn't have an alibi for that night? Even the police, who supposedly had CCTV footage of her arriving home, would likely try on the theory she was accosted as she tried to get in the house.

There is no reason to jump through hoops.

I agree, it is illogical to think he staged the break-in. But your theory doesn't account for the evidence of a break-in.The simplest explanation that accounts for the evidence of a break-in is that Guede broke the window and climbed in to gain access to the cottage, where he murdered and raped Meredith. The break-in was not staged. Imagining a staged break-in and then trying to explain it violates Occam's Razor.

 

[Kaosium]

Moreover, despite your assertions to the contrary, Knox and her statements do not in fact satisfy many of the criteria researchers tend to observe in false confessions, particularly of the Persuaded variety:

(Leo)

"All other things being equal, those who are highly suggestible or compliant are more likely to confess falsely. Individuals who are highly suggestible tend to have poor memories, high levels of anxiety, low self-esteem, and low assertiveness, personality factors that also make them more vulnerable to the pressures of interrogation and thus more likely to confess falsely."

Poor memories: Did hash that night, police messing with what she does remember.
High Levels of anxiety: Being threatened by police in an aggressive interrogation.
Low Self Esteem: Being accused of lying and worse by intimidating police.
Low Assertiveness: suggested by several facets of her character, including the tendency to run off and write notes when involved in confrontations.

All those symptoms are situational and are apparent in the case of Amanda Knox in that backroom in the police station in Perugia.

"Highly suggestible or compliant individuals are not the only ones who are unusually vulnerable to the pressures of police interrogation. So are the developmentally disabled or cognitively impaired, juveniles, and the mentally ill."

"They also tend to occur primarily in high-profile murder cases and to be the product of unusually lengthy and psychologically intense interrogations... ordinary police interrogation is not strong enough to produce a permanent change in the suspect's beliefs."[/i]

Thanks to Treehorn, I just recently reviewed the testimony on the interrogation, and Amanda says she wasn't there very long, 'on the first page of homework' or somesuch before they led her into that backroom. As they had Raffaele's statement at 9:40, I'd guess they'd have little miss cartwheels in that room by 9:45. Thus just that night alone, after a night of interrogation the night before that had caused her to write that rambling e-mail, she underwent the last four hours of interrogation of fourteen or so in four days.

Being as they're telling her that they have 'hard evidence' placing her at the scene of the murder, that Raffaele is now saying she went out, and they want her 'repressed memories' of the night of the murder, I'd say it fits the bill perfectly as "unusually lengthy and psychologically intense interrogations."

Most significantly, there is one essential element of a true Persuaded False Confession which in Knox's case is highly distinctive:

(Leo)

"To convince the suspect that it is plausible, and likely, that he committed the crime, the interrogators must supply him with a reason that satisfactorily explains how he could have done it without remembering it. This is the second step in the psychological process that leads to a persuaded false confession. Typically, the interrogator suggests one version or another of a "repressed" memory theory. He or she may suggest, for example, that the suspect experienced an alcohol- or drug-induced blackout, a "dry" blackout, a multiple personality disorder, a momentary lapse in consciousness, or posttraumatic stress disorder, or, perhaps most commonly, that the suspect simply repressed his memory of committing the crime because it was a traumatic experience for him.

The suspect can only be persuaded to accept responsibility for the crime if he regards one of the interrogators’ explanations for his alleged amnesia as plausible."

Knox did not in fact claim drug or alcohol use as the source of her amnesia - rather, she accepted the interrogators' attribution that this was due to being traumatized by the crime itself:

Actually in her original statement she mentions her memories being confused by hash as well, having smoked some with 'Patrick' and not being very used to it.

I'd guess the police, having revealed that at some point in the interrogation, used it to try to convince Amanda her memories were faulty. I think they were probably working both angles.

(from KNOX STATEMENT TO THE COURT IN PRE-TRIAL, JUDGE MICHELI PRESIDING, OCT 18, 2008)

"Then they started pushing on me the idea that I must have seen something, and forgotten about it. They said that I was traumatized."

Of course, Knox's initial statement went far beyond being that of being merely a witness to some aspect of Ms. Kercher's murder, as the interrogators' at first seemed to believe was the case. Rather, her statement, which placed her at scene of the murder during its commission while she did nothing to avert it, naturally made her a suspect.

In other words, in the absence of any of her other testimony which indicated that she was a witness to the murder, her own self-admitted rationale for providing a false confession was that she was traumatized by the commission of the murder itself.

Not, exactly, that's what the police were telling her. Eventually after being yelled at, lied to and threatened they got her to believe it for a little while, some four hours into an all-night interrogation.

If I were a Knox supporter, I would find it to be a far more fruitful line of argumentation to argue that she was simply lying, rather than providing an actual false confession.

But it was a false 'confession.' Obviously Patrick didn't murder Meredith while Amanda cowered and covered her ears. How it becomes anything else is the real mystery to me.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I agree, it is illogical to think he staged the break-in. But your theory doesn't account for the evidence of a break-in.The simplest explanation that accounts for the evidence of a break-in is that Guede broke the window and climbed in to gain access to the cottage, where he murdered and raped Meredith. The break-in was not staged. Imagining a staged break-in and then trying to explain it violates Occam's Razor.

I think the way to visualise the argumentative structure is this:

1. There is no proper evidence to support the theory that there was a staged break-in, just the unsupported word of a police force that was demonstrably both unethical and incompetent, hence a rational person should not believe there was a staged break-in.
1a. If a rational person did for some reason think there was a staged break-in, they should not immediately conclude that Amanda and/or Raffaele staged it as opposed to Rudy Guede staging it.

My view is that a rational person would never get to 1a, but that's my view. I don't find it very plausible that Rudy Guede would stage a break-in in his own distinctive M.O. to try to confuse the police, seeing as he left evidence all over the murder house. I also don't find it very plausible that Amanda and Raffaele would know Rudy Guede's distinctive M.O. so as to be able to stage a break-in consistent with it even if they wanted to.

The only person with a knowledge of Rudy's M.O. and a motivation to break in was Rudy. In this case too if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck we should want to see extraordinary evidence before we believe it's not a duck.

 

[Justinian2]

If the break-in was true, then the conspiracy theory falls away. Since a person can't be murdered twice, Amanda and Raffaele are a hundred percent innocent regardless of what the kitchen knife and bra clasp DNA findings show.

If the knife or bra clasp DNA evidence is disproved, then Amanda and Raffaele are a hundred percent innocent because there is no other direct evidence that puts them at the scene.

If the alibi is established beyond a reasonable doubt, then Amanda and Raffaele are a hundred percent innocent since people can’t be in two places at the same time.

I, however, already believe that the break-in was real, the knife and bra clasp findings were invalid, and the alibi is established. Furthermore, since they already have found the killer (Guede), any other guilty verdicts should be required to be much more convincing than merely beyond a reasonable doubt.

People at PMF don’t understand that a bloody palm print near Meredith’s body means that Guede was there after Meredith started bleeding and Guede is therefore guilty to beyond a reasonable doubt. Some desperadoes at PMF even have the audacity to label as racist any belief that Guede has more evidence of guilt than either Amanda or Raffaele! (At times they add the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele together to sound plausible.)

 

[Kaosium]

See below for another example.



This kind of thinking is so convoluted. It's completely illogical to think Guede staged the break-in. How come you never think of the simple solution, such as he waylaid her at the front door as she was opening it, forced his way in with her, and would not be afterward thinking of how many people in Perugia did or didn't have an alibi for that night? Even the police, who supposedly had CCTV footage of her arriving home, would likely try on the theory she was accosted as she tried to get in the house.

There is no reason to jump through hoops.

What's convoluted is having Guede involved in the murder and theory still be the break-in was 'staged.' Why would anyone look at a murder involving a break in and a cat burglar and still come to the conclusion the break-in had to be 'staged?'

 

[Chris_Halkides]

criminal justice in Italy

I don't think that the US is any more (nor less) of a police state than Italy, i.e. neither is.

However, I do get perturbed when individuals with no direct knowledge of the place slag it off.

So please tell them to stuff their inane rhetoric, and I will be more than pleased to do the same.

Thank you!

TomCH,

I don't believe Italy is a police state, and I suspect that ChrisC does not either, Prime Minister Berlusconi's words to the contrary notwithstanding. My own comments about the police stem from the Amnesty International reports from which I quoted. These comments should not be misconstrued to mean that I hold all of the Italian criminal justice system in low regard: On the contrary, their rule that a suspect cannot waive legal representation is one I would gladly emulate in my own country (and that is just one example). My concern extends only to a small subset of Italian CJ personnel whom I believe have acted unprofessionally. If there are broader lessons from this case, I am happy to let the Italian body politic enact any reforms it sees fit.