Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

I'll note that my offer to discuss the case (in a manner free of insults, rhetoric, or distracting issues) with SomeAlibi in another venue remains in effect.

For the record, I think it unlikely that Amanda was subjected to any significant risk of serious physical injury during her interrogation.

 

[Agatha]

AK's testimony doesn't support the "cuffs" being rabbit-punches as you describe them, CDH.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cuff links

I'll note that my offer to discuss the case (in a manner free of insults, rhetoric, or distracting issues) with SomeAlibi in another venue remains in effect.

For the record, I think it unlikely that Amanda was subjected to any significant risk of serious physical injury during her interrogation.

komponisto,

I agree, but the physical risk is only a small part of this event. Barbie Nadeau was asked about the cuffs to the head, and she seemed to think that there was a good chance that they happened (and she is no friend of Ms. Knox). That both Knox and her parents have been charged on the basis of what Ms. Knox said about the incident is, as another commenter has pointed out, quite something, especially given the number of years of additional time in prison that Ms. Knox faces. Nor is this a one-off incident. See my earlier comments about and links to Amnesty International for additional discussion.

 

[CDHost]

torture

I'll note that my offer to discuss the case (in a manner free of insults, rhetoric, or distracting issues) with SomeAlibi in another venue remains in effect.

For the record, I think it unlikely that Amanda was subjected to any significant risk of serious physical injury during her interrogation.

I do too. Generally torture is a method of gaining compliance or extracting information. So they tend to pick methods that cause high degrees of distress and low degrees of danger. This particular method is mid degree of distress and high degree of danger.

But... if you have to avoid leaving marks then your ultimate method is:
distress = high
danger = low
marks = none

rabbit punching
distress = mid
danger = high
marks = little

still not great but that's why it does get used. And you have to add in the garbled nonsense she spouts for several days. There are a lot of possibilities:

a) She's lying
b) She's taken too many drugs
c) She was stressed out by the murder
d) She was mentally exhausted by intense interrogation

But one of the least incriminating possibilities is:
e) She has a concussion from the interrogation getting a bit rough

She does attribute Patrick and the vision to the hit. I think most likely it is the fear of being hit. But we'll never really know what happened because Mignini decided to file new charges both her and her parents.

I'd say 65% she was hit; 85% it was just a light smack, 15% something more intense. My point is that if it was more intense they were really being reckless. This isn't your normal police beating, or even something like tearing out fingernails where the degree of permanent damage is limited.

 

[Draca]

Perhaps the outside shutters had been opened. It seems somebody should have made a note of the fact that they opened them. I don't see how the curtains could have been opened as there appear to be no curtains, no curtain rod and no hardware for a curtain rod to attach to. The only possibility would be a curtain on a spring rod but this would interfere with opening the windows and I have seen no sign of the curtain or spring rod in and photos from around the house.

The quite dark room however may be a relative term. It was mid day, Meredith's window faces North so wouldn't have direct sunlight. The patio door would have direct sunlight filling the hall and the adjacent bath would be well lit through the skylight. The difference going from bright sunlight to an indirectly lit room would account for the room appearing dark.

Another thing is Amanda tried to see into the room from the patio balcony. There would be no need for this if the shutters were closed. MK could have thumb tacked something up, this has never been mentioned however.

IF it seemed dark, I like your explanation that it was by comparison to the hall way. The photo of the room showing the window makes it appear that there was plenty of natural light coming into the room to me.

 

[katy_did]

IF it seemed dark, I like your explanation that it was by comparison to the hall way. The photo of the room showing the window makes it appear that there was plenty of natural light coming into the room to me.

I don't think that the photo you linked to is shot in natural light, but is artificially lit; for example, the near side of the chest of drawers is very bright, where it should be in shadow. Possibly with flash but most likely with proper lighting, I would guess, since this was after the ILE cards had been placed. So I think it's difficult to judge the effect of the natural light on the basis of the photo.

ETA: Looking at the photo again, it's obviously brightly lit from behind, because the shadow from the wire hanging over the desk appears behind it (i.e. further away from the light and the camera) as does the shadow from the ILE card. Without the artificial lighting I think there would be plenty of shadowy areas in the room, and certainly enough to make a lamp useful if you wanted to examine the scene.

 

[komponisto]

komponisto,

I agree, but the physical risk is only a small part of this event. Barbie Nadeau was asked about the cuffs to the head, and she seemed to think that there was a good chance that they happened (and she is no friend of Ms. Knox). That both Knox and her parents have been charged on the basis of what Ms. Knox said about the incident is, as another commenter has pointed out, quite something, especially given the number of years of additional time in prison that Ms. Knox faces. Nor is this a one-off incident. See my earlier comments about and links to Amnesty International for additional discussion.

I completely agree, and by no means should my comment be taken as downplaying the coercive nature of Knox's interrogation.

 

[Chris C]

komponisto,

I agree, but the physical risk is only a small part of this event. Barbie Nadeau was asked about the cuffs to the head, and she seemed to think that there was a good chance that they happened (and she is no friend of Ms. Knox). That both Knox and her parents have been charged on the basis of what Ms. Knox said about the incident is, as another commenter has pointed out, quite something, especially given the number of years of additional time in prison that Ms. Knox faces. Nor is this a one-off incident. See my earlier comments about and links to Amnesty International for additional discussion.

The thing that bugs me most about the slander part is this. If Knox is exonerated of Meredith's murder she still could have to sit in prison because of the slander portion. Where as nothing was done to the interrogators for the other violations of Knox's rights. So basicly the court system gets to say, she can't prove the interrogators assaulted her and eventhough we in fact did violate her other rights nothing is going to happen to the interrogators for those violations and we are going to sentence her for saying she was hit in the back of the head.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Another thing is Amanda tried to see into the room from the patio balcony. There would be no need for this if the shutters were closed. MK could have thumb tacked something up, this has never been mentioned however.

IF it seemed dark, I like your explanation that it was by comparison to the hall way. The photo of the room showing the window makes it appear that there was plenty of natural light coming into the room to me.

The room was entered after 13:00. It was November, not a particularly sunny day. I guess in 2 - 3 hours the need for some additional light was substantial. The lamp could have been brought in at some moment then.
I wonder what is the earliest photo showing it on the floor?

 

[Chris C]

The room was entered after 13:00. It was November, not a particularly sunny day. I guess in 2 - 3 hours the need for some additional light was substantial. The lamp could have been brought in at some moment then.
I wonder what is the earliest photo showing it on the floor?

The earliest I know is the spheron. Maybe someone has a copy of the video recording of the scientifica team taking evidence. Though to be honest that lamp was fingerprinted and left on the desk. If it was part of the crime shouldn't it have been bagged/boxed and locked up as evidence.

Its also possible the lamp was brought into the room not to add extra light, but to add the only light. They might not have wanted to turn on the light switch until fingerprinted. If you look at the spheron photo of that room. The only light on is the wall light. Nothing has been fingerprinted or touched. Lamp could have easily been knocked over while bringing in the spheron equipment.

 

[LondonJohn]

The earliest I know is the spheron. Maybe someone has a copy of the video recording of the scientifica team taking evidence. Though to be honest that lamp was fingerprinted and left on the desk. If it was part of the crime shouldn't it have been bagged/boxed and locked up as evidence.

Its also possible the lamp was brought into the room not to add extra light, but to add the only light. They might not have wanted to turn on the light switch until fingerprinted. If you look at the spheron photo of that room. The only light on is the wall light. Nothing has been fingerprinted or touched. Lamp could have easily been knocked over while bringing in the spheron equipment.

I'd have thought that a half-decent scene-of-crime analysis team would have brought their own professional lighting in as a matter of course.

Oh, wait..........................

 

[LondonJohn]

I do too. Generally torture is a method of gaining compliance or extracting information. So they tend to pick methods that cause high degrees of distress and low degrees of danger. This particular method is mid degree of distress and high degree of danger.

But... if you have to avoid leaving marks then your ultimate method is:
distress = high
danger = low
marks = none

rabbit punching
distress = mid
danger = high
marks = little

still not great but that's why it does get used. And you have to add in the garbled nonsense she spouts for several days. There are a lot of possibilities:

a) She's lying
b) She's taken too many drugs
c) She was stressed out by the murder
d) She was mentally exhausted by intense interrogation

But one of the least incriminating possibilities is:
e) She has a concussion from the interrogation getting a bit rough

She does attribute Patrick and the vision to the hit. I think most likely it is the fear of being hit. But we'll never really know what happened because Mignini decided to file new charges both her and her parents.

I'd say 65% she was hit; 85% it was just a light smack, 15% something more intense. My point is that if it was more intense they were really being reckless. This isn't your normal police beating, or even something like tearing out fingernails where the degree of permanent damage is limited.

You could be right, but I think it's equally likely that it was more like what we'd call a "clip round the ear" - a mild physical assault meant to gain the attention of the victim, and to reinforce to him/her the hierarchy of authority in the room.

PS: You'd imagine that "critical thinkers" would be intelligent enough to prevent their computers from picking up malware/spyware/adware, wouldn't you.....

 

[Agatha]

Not everyone is technical-savvy; it's not necessarily a deficit of intelligence but of education. Snide remarks should have no place in this discussion, nor in discussions elsewhere. This interboard feud is getting really tiresome.

 

[katy_did]

Its also possible the lamp was brought into the room not to add extra light, but to add the only light. They might not have wanted to turn on the light switch until fingerprinted. If you look at the spheron photo of that room. The only light on is the wall light. Nothing has been fingerprinted or touched. Lamp could have easily been knocked over while bringing in the spheron equipment.

It's this that makes me think it's somewhat more likely that the police used the lamp (perhaps one of the postal police, or the first Carabinieri to arrive) than that any of the other four did (i.e. Meredith, Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele). The police were the only ones to have a strong motive not to use one of the other two lights in the room, while the others had no reason not to do so. The issue of just how dark the room was seems a bit of a red herring to an extent, because it's not as if the room needed to be in total darkness for the police to think a light might have been useful. Maybe they just wanted to examine the scene better, thought the room was a bit dim and grabbed the lamp from next door. As I think Katody said, it would only be like them using the wrapping paper to, um, wrap up the mop (only a bit more logical, maybe!).

I like your point about the spheron equipment possibly knocking the lamp over.

I'd have thought that a half-decent scene-of-crime analysis team would have brought their own professional lighting in as a matter of course.

Oh, wait..........................

LOL.

To be fair to them, I think they did, but the first police to turn up (not expecting to discover a murder) probably wouldn't have.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not everyone is technical-savvy; it's not necessarily a deficit of intelligence but of education. Snide remarks should have no place in this discussion, nor in discussions elsewhere. This interboard feud is getting really tiresome.

What do you have to say about the case? Or are you simply here to comment on the nature of other people's posts?

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL.

To be fair to them, I think they did, but the first police to turn up (not expecting to discover a murder) probably wouldn't have.

But the postal police officers testified that they simply looked in through the door, saw Meredith's foot sticking out from the edge of the duvet, lifted the edge of the duvet to see that she was dead, then left the room immediately.

Surely, SURELY, you're not suggesting that the postal police actually did far more than this, and spent some time inside Meredith's room, bringing the additional lamp in for extra lighting? Because that would not only mean that they were lying about what they did at the scene, it would also mean that they physically compromised the heart of the crime scene. Surely this couldn't have happened in a police force as professional as Perugia's could it?!

 

[komponisto]

Sloppy reporting on UPI site

In an earlier comment, halides1 linked to a news report on the site of United Press International (UPI). Reading that story and clicking around to a few other stories on the case provides a convenient, resounding demonstration of the general rule that journalists are not to be trusted. They simply don't do proper research, either out of laziness or because it's over their heads.

Exhibit 1, from the story linked to by halides1:

The libel suit was filed on behalf of five police officers who were present at Knox's interrogation. The five say the parents defamed them in a June 2008 interview in which they said their daughter told them she had been threatened and hit during her questioning. Amanda went on to contradict her parents' statements at her trial.

The highlighted sentence is at the very least grotesquely misleading (if it turns out there's some minor detail that Amanda and her parents differed on), but actually, as far as I know, completely made up. As we all know, Amanda's trial testimony is famous for her account of being struck by police!

Exhibit 2, the headline of a story about Rocco Girlanda's protest to the Interior Minister:

MP wants Amanda Knox mug shot removed

The photo is not a mug shot. It is a well-known picture of Amanda talking to investigators outside the cottage long before her arrest. (The journalist could have just written "picture", but instead went ahead and assumed it was a mug shot, without bothering to find out. Ever wonder how we end up with so many false news reports? This is how.)

Exhibit 3, a more serious example of the above:

American wins appeal in Italian slaying

As is already apparent in the headline, in this story, the journalist completely bypasses any research into how the Italian legal system works, choosing to simply take for granted that it works like the American system (or British, or wherever the journalist is from). Specifically, he or she displays complete ignorance of:
(1) the fact that appeals in Italy are automatic, and do not have to be "won" or "granted";
(2) the fact that Knox's appeal proceedings were already in progress, and that the development being reported occurred at the third hearing;
(3) the fact that the expert review of the DNA evidence is only one aspect of the appeal, and that other aspects may be subjected to oral argument, even if no expert consultation is sought.

Similar ignorance is demonstrated more subtly every time a news story treats Knox's guilt as a settled legal finding, despite the fact that under Italian rules she is still legally presumed innocent at the current stage.

The impression one gets is that the journalist doesn't care, and doesn't think readers will care, because these are (one presumes) "niceties", or "legal technicalities". Or, it never occurred to them that legal systems of different countries might differ about matters like this.

Anyone with expertise in a topic will see exactly this kind of careless inaccuracy all the time in media reports.

Someone in another thread wondered why media haven't been trumpeting the pro-innocence case more strongly, if it's really so solid. The answer is that they either don't understand how solid it is because it's over their heads, or they can't be bothered to find out.

Finally, a more trivial example, but still telling, from this story:

Sollecito got a 26-year term and is also appealing the verdict.

It just wouldn't have been that hard to get this right. But still they didn't bother.

 

[RoseMontague]

From what I understood from a previous Italian poster is that the head cuffing is almost a cultural thing primarily between Mom's and their kids. Evidently this carries over to some other perceived misbehaviors by others who are not children in some cases. I had quoted a travel article where the author noted this behavior between a Mom and her son and they seemed to feel that it would lead to making the kid violent in some fashion down the road. True or not it would not have surprised this particular poster if this had happened. Other Italians may consider this type of cuffing behavior completely different from the way Amanda took it. This particular theory seems to me to be a reasonable one, in my opinion.

 

[Agatha]

What do you have to say about the case? Or are you simply here to comment on the nature of other people's posts?

I am reading and learning about the case; I don't have anything to say at this time.

I am sure I'm not alone in finding the snide remarks and broadbrush insults on both sides to be beyond annoying, I am making a public plea for them to stop.

 

[LondonJohn]

In an earlier comment, halides1 linked to a news report on the site of United Press International (UPI). Reading that story and clicking around to a few other stories on the case provides a convenient, resounding demonstration of the general rule that journalists are not to be trusted. They simply don't do proper research, either out of laziness or because it's over their head.

Exhibit 1, from the story linked to by halides1:



The highlighted sentence is at the very least grotesquely misleading (if it turns out there's some minor detail that Amanda and her parents differed on), but actually, as far as I know, completely made up. As we all know, Amanda's trial testimony is famous for her account of being struck by police!

Exhibit 2, the headline of a story about Rocco Girlanda's protest to the Interior Minister:



The photo is not a mug shot. It is a well-known picture of Amanda talking to investigators outside the cottage long before her arrest. (The journalist could have just written "picture", but instead went ahead and assumed it was a mug shot, without bothering to find out. Ever wonder how we end up with so many false news reports? This is how.)

Exhibit 3, a more serious example of the above:



As is already apparent in the headline, in this story, the journalist completely bypasses any research into how the Italian legal system works, choosing to simply take for granted that it works like the American system (or British, or wherever the journalist is from). Specifically, he or she displays complete ignorance of:
(1) the fact that appeals in Italy are automatic, and do not have to be "won" or "granted";
(2) the fact that Knox's appeal proceedings were already in progress, and that the development being reported occurred at the third hearing;
(3) the fact that the expert review of the DNA evidence is only one aspect of the appeal, and that other aspects may be subjected to oral argument, even if no expert consultation is sought.

Similar ignorance is demonstrated more subtly every time a news story treats Knox's guilt as a settled legal finding, despite the fact that under Italian rules she is still legally presumed innocent at the current stage.

The impression one gets is that the journalist doesn't care, and doesn't think readers will care, because these are (one presumes) "niceties", or "legal technicalities". Or, it never occurred to them that legal systems of different countries might differ about matters like this.

Anyone with expertise in a topic will see exactly this kind of careless inaccuracy all the time in media reports.

Someone in another thread wondered why media haven't been trumpeting the pro-innocence case more strongly, if it's really so solid. The answer is that they either don't understand how solid it is because it's over their heads, or they can't be bothered to find out.

Finally, a more trivial example, but still telling, from this story:



It just wouldn't have been that hard to get this right. But still they didn't bother.

There are very few journalists who really understand what they are writing about, even in the most sober areas of finance or politics. They rely on press releases, lobby briefings and/or informed contacts (on a couple of occasions, I've briefed national TV and printed media City (finance) editors on stories and industry dynamics, and they were pretty clueless in their understanding).

In a case like this, there's the added element of true crime. The very mention of this little phrase seems to give the media a carte blanche to add in salacious details to grab the audience's attention. Throw into the mix that crime correspondents come to rely on sources for stories - and the police are far and away the most important and most widely-used source - and it's not hard to see how misleading "versions" of the truth can find their way into print and TV reports.

The last important element of all this is this: when incorrect reporting has few (or no) negative repercussions for the media outlets which print or broadcast them, then incorrect reporting will almost always occur. If a political correspondent gets the Government's policy on the health service wrong, that reporter might very well find him/herself denied access to Government press briefings. Therefore, political correspondents make damn sure that they get factual details correct. But who cares if the Italy correspondent gets some details wrong about the Kercher case, particularly if the reports help to sell a few extra papers........