Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I would start with the fact that neither the prosecution nor the court has accused Raffaele or Amanda of using any drugs besides cannabis on the evening of the murder.

Agreed. And as far as anyone can reasonably tell, the first time that the issue of alleged prior use of cocaine and LSD by Sollecito was ever even introduced into the first trial was by Mignini as a throwaway smear in his closing argument. Gotta love his style (and the court's style in allowing it)!

 

[TomCH]

When the police deliberately lie to suspects and the press during the investigation of a serious crime, what does that indicate?

Nothing whatsoever.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

incidence of false confessions

"No shortage of documented examples?"

from Leo:

"... only a small number of alleged false confessions contain the independent case evidence or circumstances that allow the confessor to prove his innocence beyond dispute. Nevertheless, researchers have documented approximately 300 proven false confessions in recent decades."

300 cases out of a universe of how many interrogations? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

Fuji,

In one study the Innocence Project found that false confessions played a role in 24% of the cases of wrongful convictions. The total number of cases was small, but I suspect that is because proof of innocence is often not available. Proof of innocence via DNA is only a possibility in cases involving DNA evidence, which is a small subset of all cases. Cell phones can sometimes provide proof of innocence, but again, not in every case. The question everyone should be asking is whether there are innocent people in prison on the basis of false confessions who are unable to provide proof of innocence. Putting it another way, the number of provably false confessions is surely smaller than the total number of false confessions.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

If Mr. Curatolo knew that the police had information implicating him in a crime, he would have a reason to be, shall we say, extra-cooperative in his dealings with them. In other words, Mr. Curatolo could be innocent (and should of course be presumed innocent) and yet still be giving testimony tainted by self-interest.

Oh, you and I (and most rational observers) can easily see "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" as a reasonable explanation for why the Perugia police/prosecutors seemingly decided to sit on hard evidence of (alleged) serious criminal activity by Curatolo for over seven years.

It's curious how some people haven't even contemplated joining the dots to this degree though, isn't it? After all, if it's correct that the police had surveillance photos of Curatolo dealing heroin*, yet they didn't bring a prosecution against Curatolo until now, this is highly suspicious in and of itself. Clearly this delay can't be for sheer procedural reasons - it can only be either because the case was somehow "lost" in the files of the police and prosecutors (and I don't believe that for a second), or because a conscious decision was made to hold back on bringing charges. And if the latter is true, then obviously one has to ask why that would happen. And there are very few legitimate reasons why it would happen. This could get very interesting indeed.

* at specific times, for specific prices, to a specific "customer" - who might well, incidentally, have been an undercover police officer (although that very real possibility also seems not to have dawned on some people yet...)

 

[LondonJohn]

Nothing whatsoever.

True - it's a legitimate police tactic.

But, on the other hand, coercing suspects into providing false confessions/accusations is definitely not a legitimate police tactic. And it's one of the (many) things that may well (in my opinion) cause this case to fall apart.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lying or misrepresenting information to the press

Nothing whatsoever.

TomCH,

Lying to suspects is one thing, but lying or misrepresenting the facts to the press is another. Both the stories of bleach receipts and the red bathroom photograph may have compromised the defendants' right to a fair trial, IMO. Even if they did not, they are absolutely indefensible.

 

[LondonJohn]

TomCH,

Lying to suspects is one thing, but lying or misrepresenting the facts to the press is another. Both the stories of bleach receipts and the red bathroom photograph may have compromised the defendants' right to a fair trial, IMO. Even if they did not, they are absolutely indefensible.

A very good point. It will be very interesting to see if anyone tries to defend the police/prosecution's behaviour in their dealings with the media - the "bleach receipts", Harry Potter deception and "lingerie store smear" are all particularly egregious specific examples, but I'd also add to that the whole air of "the crime is solved" exhibited from the 6th November onwards.

 

[Chris C]

Nothing whatsoever.

So without the interrogation tapes there is no proof she lied, its only speculation. Knox claims she was asked to imagine a scenario. In reality it was the police that lied about Patricks involvement in the crime, since they are the ones that wrote it down in a language Knox couldn't read at the time.

 

[Mary_H]

So without the interrogation tapes there is no proof she lied, its only speculation. Knox claims she was asked to imagine a scenario. In reality it was the police that lied about Patricks involvement in the crime, since they are the ones that wrote it down in a language Knox couldn't read at the time.

The situation with the interrogation tapes reminds me of the way drunk driving used to be looked upon in the United States. If a drunk driver caused an accident, penalties were modest. A drunk driver was held to be less responsible than a sober driver for the very fact that a drunk driver is impaired. It took generations to figure out the flaw in that logic.

The Perugians seem to think they should get a pass on the missing interrogation tapes because they forgot, as if the possibility of forgetting is out of their hands and there should be no consequences for it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

For most rational observers, deliberately lying to the police during the investigation of a murder is going to be taken as an indicator that the subject is more knowledgeable about said murder than they are explicitly stating to be the case, or might well be possibly involved in the commission of said murder.

OK, so you have grounds for suspicion, but suspicion is not proof.

 

[LondonJohn]

FYI:

Made-for-TV movie "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy" to air on Lifetime in February

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/amanda-knox-murder-on-trial-italy-to-air-february

 

[Alt+F4]

Made-for-TV movie "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy" to air on Lifetime in February

What the heck does "murder on trial" even mean? Sounds like they are doubting that a murder even took place.

 

[Justinian2]

For most rational observers, deliberately lying to the police during the investigation of a murder is going to be taken as an indicator that the subject is more knowledgeable about said murder than they are explicitly stating to be the case, or might well be possibly involved in the commission of said murder.

I would agree but for the letters 'ir'. I would replace the term 'rational observers' with 'irrational observers'.

The accused is an eye witness to what they did during the time period in question. The accused is the best witness, if not the ONLY witness, to what happened.

To be truthful, the police and prosecution can only present the data collected.
Presenting their theory as fact is a libel or a slander.

 

[Supernaut]

there is no evidence that Knox deliberately lied

Lies are ALWAYS deliberate.

Is this sophism or obtuseness?

A 'lie' is an attempt to deceive, and Chris C is saying that there is no evidence that knox was deliberately deceptive (edit - I mean deceitful). Which is true.

 

[snook1]

You think thats irrational, the perugian authorities spent 3 months of surveillance on a homeless guying selling Heroin. They spent 3 months of manned surveillance and tailing. There should have been all kinds of red flags about this guy.

1st: How does a homeless afford Heroin to sell.
2nd: If this guy can afford to deal Heroin, why doesn't he have a place to stay.
3rd: Why would they let this guy spend 3 months selling Heroin in public outside of the university.
4th: Someone posted the Demsey article at PMF, but the discussion on Saint Curatolo is complete silence. I figure soon they will be making excuses that he is framed or set up.

Of course, it's silent there. They're fed up with people providing evidence that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

 

[Supernaut]

More guilter stalking and harassment .....

I reiterate, please don't import arguments from other forums.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[tsig]

What is your larger point? Everyone agrees that Amanda's statements are factually untrue. Therefore, whether one considers these statements to be an internalized false confession or a calculated attempt to deceive, they do not prove anything in connection with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

It seems to me that if someone being questioned in a murder case makes a calculated attempt to deceive (some might call it lying) then it could be reasonably concluded that the person who made the calculated attempt to deceive had a reason to do so and might be implicated in the murder especially when this calculated attempt to deceive placed he at the murder scene.

 

[tsig]

When the police deliberately lie to suspects and the press during the investigation of a serious crime, what does that indicate?

They're doing their job.

 

[Chris C]

They're doing their job.

Their job is to lie? Yet most people don't see the dilema when the police lie to a suspect and wait for an answer.

If the suspect tells the truth and its not what the police want to hear, then the police accuse them of lying. Which in Knox's case is what happened. She told them the truth and they accused her of lying. Since the truth wouldn't get them to go away, whats left?

If the suspect lies to explain the lie the police have told them then you want to accuse the suspect of lying and say its the job of the police to lie. Yet the prosecution in the Knox case didn't stop with only lying to the suspects. They lied to the media, to the public, to the suspects, to the victims family, and to the court. Then they try to say, Knox/Sollecito have no credibility.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It seems to me that if someone being questioned in a murder case makes a calculated attempt to deceive (some might call it lying) then it could be reasonably concluded that the person who made the calculated attempt to deceive had a reason to do so and might be implicated in the murder especially when this calculated attempt to deceive placed he at the murder scene.

OK, it could be concluded that she might be implicated, but it's not proof.