Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

_________________________

Kaosium,

Amanda's failure to recognize she'd had a concussion was just another symptom of her concussion...............

"Concussion may be under-diagnosed. The lack of the highly noticeable signs and symptoms that are frequently present in other forms of head injury could lead clinicians to miss the injury, and athletes may cover up their injuries to remain in the competition.[27] A retrospective survey in 2005 found that more than 88% of concussions go unrecognized." Concussion

///

As it notes, that's often because football players and other athletes are foolish enough not to report them because they don't want to look like little weenies.

In other words they know they had their bell rung, but they don't report it because they want to keep playing and not give the coach the impression they're not cut out for contact sports. That's why they often go unrecognized.

Like I said it's possible that she was concussed, however I tend to doubt it as other indications don't suggest it. For example, her handwriting on that note implies there was nothing whatsoever wrong with her fine motor control. I couldn't write that pretty on my best day!

 

[Chris C]

Errrr....Mary

May I suggest that what you state (without documentation):
1) as being "well known",
2) about "what Amanda has told her family"
3) about "what we may infer"

Is *all* absolutely diametrically opposite of what Amanda herself actually publicly stated to the world near the end of her trial.

She said:
At the time of her verdict last December, when many Americans were shouting about what they saw as an unfair conviction, Knox herself felt compelled to tell a member of Italian Parliament that she was actually treated fairly, ................... “I still have faith in the Italian justice system,” she told Walter Verini, a member of Italy’s center-left government.
“My rights were respected.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/15/how-amanda-knox-s-supporters-could-doom-her.html

PS:
1) Please spare another of the "I was there" redux type interpretation games
2) Please do not bother reading her mind to tell us 'what she meant'
3) Please lets not endlessly argue this obviously very weak and very inaccurate talking point from those favoring innocence.

So when she said her rights were protected, what is your interpretation of that comment?

 

[komponisto]

Slander and the 5:54 am statement

t's worth noting that the Supreme Court already ruled that Knox's 1.45am and 5.45am statements were both inadmissible for exactly the reasons given in this letter (although I believe the Supreme Court would be extremely interested in discussing how the judicial panel got to hear these statements anyhow, thanks to the concurrent Lumumba slander trial).

Incidentally, this -- like so many aspects of this case -- has been the subject of lazy reporting by the media. Many stories contained sentences like "Amanda's statement was ruled inadmissible, but by a quirk of Italian law, it was allowed in anyway". (To which any reader's reaction should be: what??) If you were lucky, they might have mentioned that this "quirk" had something to do with the fact that the Lumumba slander charge was being tried concurrently.

What they never told you -- either because they weren't curious enough to find out, or because they didn't think that you as the reader were capable of processing such a profound subtlety -- was that this supposed "quirk of Italian law" was nothing more than Massei's own highly questionable (and vigorously contested) interpretation of the Supreme Court's opinion throwing the statement out. In other words, after the Supreme Court said it was inadmissible, Massei was the one who -- in an act of judicial weaselliness -- said "well, you know, I think they only technically said it was inadmissible in the murder case, and we've also got this slander charge here so -- let's get it in that way!" To say that Italian law required such a thing is, one might very well argue, an act of slander against Italian law.

Within the very first pages of the appeal document, Amanda's lawyers make a strong argument -- citing other rulings by the Supreme Court -- that Italian jurisprudence supports the common-sense conclusion that Massei's interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling is entirely bogus.

 

[Antony]

Alt, do you at least agree that if Amanda had legal council from the beginning, that things would never have escalated to the point of arrest? Do you agree that the interrogation should have been recorded? It certainly would have cleared up many problems. Will you agree to reasonable doubt if the credibility of the DNA evidence is destroyed? Just wondering.

And while you're at it, Alt+F4, could you explain why your list of "evidence" (which another poster linked for me after you declined to answer my question directly) leads you to believe that the appeal court will uphold the convictions?

 

[Kaosium]

Here's a rather thorough paper on the concept of an internalized false confession, how they are produced, and what sort of conditions make subjects more vulnerable to them. What Amanda experienced was a rather mild form, some confess to murders and walk the interrogators through an imaginary sequence of events step-by-step of their own volition. She didn't do that, she simply believed for a while she must have been there, after all why would the cops lie about having 'hard evidence' of her at the scene, or Raffaele lie about her going out? Perhaps what she'd been told to imagine was real, and she actually did repress the memory like they said?

I wanted to come back to this as I posted this link in particular as I got the impression that Rolfe is dubious of the idea of an internalized false confession. I chose this one as it's a law enforcement link, these guys (at the time of its writing as the admit) don't even want to admit that the phenomena is real, which incidentally has since been proven, but they sure go out of their way to tell cops what not to do to avoid one, which if you'll note is exactly what ILE did! In fact, if you read the whole chapter, you'll find they broke every rule in the book! They could have produced a false confession on many different grounds. The section on corroboration is telling as well, they know just how important that is, just like Di Felice would say at his 'case closed' conference, yet another indication they were pressing her to accuse Patrick, and why the 'confession/accusation' was solely at their suggestion and insistence.

The give three main things to avoid producing a 'hypothetical' internalized false confession.

1. The crime has to be something the person could imagine themselves doing. In Amanda's case they didn't tell her they were planning to haul her away in chains and then without any evidence whatsoever to support it, tell the world she was holding down her friend when while Patrick and Raffaele raped her and then killed her. They told her they thought she was just at the scene, and she was covering for someone or had blocked it out of her mind due to the trauma to her psyche. In other words, little involvement except as a bystander when something awful happened.

2. There has to be an explanation for why she doesn't remember, in this case as above they said she'd blocked it and they wanted to 'recover' the memory. When she protested signing the papers they reiterated that 'it would come back to her.' They also started that night by confronting her on her use of hash the night of the murder, another factor that might cause memory loss.

3. They have to lay the groundwork for her to believe it. This they covered especially well, telling her they had 'hard evidence' of her being at the scene, that Raffaele said she went out that night, and that her text message indicated she was going to meet Patrick that night, which unfortunately due to her poor Italian at the time was literally true. As Amanda has no reason to think Raffaele or the cops would lie, as a frightened girl she's been hanging around them like a puppy since the murder, from a rational standpoint it becomes believable for a while. What else is she to think?

Also note what it says in there of how they'd said before but thought it bore repeating, how important it was to avoid trying to get a suspect to admit to something they didn't remember doing.

 

[Kaosium]

Incidentally, this -- like so many aspects of this case -- has been the subject of lazy reporting by the media. Many stories contained sentences like "Amanda's statement was ruled inadmissible, but by a quirk of Italian law, it was allowed in anyway". (To which any reader's reaction should be: what??) If you were lucky, they might have mentioned that this "quirk" had something to do with the fact that the Lumumba slander charge was being tried concurrently.

What they never told you -- either because they weren't curious enough to find out, or because they didn't think that you as the reader were capable of processing such a profound subtlety -- was that this supposed "quirk of Italian law" was nothing more than Massei's own highly questionable (and vigorously contested) interpretation of the Supreme Court's opinion throwing the statement out. In other words, after the Supreme Court said it was inadmissible, Massei was the one who -- in an act of judicial weaselliness -- said "well, you know, I think they only technically said it was inadmissible in the murder case, and we've also got this slander charge here so -- let's get it in that way!" To say that Italian law required such a thing is, one might very well argue, an act of slander against Italian law.

Within the very first pages of the appeal document, Amanda's lawyers make a strong argument -- citing other rulings by the Supreme Court -- that Italian jurisprudence supports the common-sense conclusion that Massei's interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling is entirely bogus.

Hi Komponisto! I'm glad you remembered us here, I'd missed your insights...and ability to read Italian!

Thank you for that reminder, I'd not heard about that in a while and I wasn't sure whether Mignini just pulled a sly one or if they outright cheated the law like you posted.

Incidentally, did you ever get a chance to read the Motivations report on Mignini's abuse of power charges? Some are trying to minimize his involvement and place blame solely on Giuttari, and Mignini is cast in a 'noble' role for refusing to turn on a friend.

Also, what's your take on the resolution of the calunnia charges, both Amanda's and her families as well as the one Amanda garnered from the 'accusation' of Patrick--is that even something she can appeal? How about the charges on the Sollecitos, are they doomed as well, or do they have a decent chance of fighting the charge, which as I recall was using 'undue influence' or somesuch to get that video on Telenorba?

 

[Kaosium]

Errrr....Mary

May I suggest that what you state (without documentation):
1) as being "well known",
2) about "what Amanda has told her family"
3) about "what we may infer"

Is *all* absolutely diametrically opposite of what Amanda herself actually publicly stated to the world near the end of her trial.

She said:
At the time of her verdict last December, when many Americans were shouting about what they saw as an unfair conviction, Knox herself felt compelled to tell a member of Italian Parliament that she was actually treated fairly, ................... “I still have faith in the Italian justice system,” she told Walter Verini, a member of Italy’s center-left government.
“My rights were respected.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/15/how-amanda-knox-s-supporters-could-doom-her.html

PS:
1) Please spare another of the "I was there" redux type interpretation games
2) Please do not bother reading her mind to tell us 'what she meant'
3) Please lets not endlessly argue this obviously very weak and very inaccurate talking point from those favoring innocence.

Gee, wouldn't you know that there's some that don't think Verini had the truth of the matter, in fact he might even have lied! Can you imagine a politician lying? What a scandalous thought!

You ought to read that site thoroughly, obviously you missed this page, perhaps your dedication to hanging her high would wane if you were exposed to more actual truth about the case. You know, I've read the sites you prefer extensively, in fact I suspect I know them better than you, Pilot....

 

[platonov]

Cartwheel's - on JREF ? Doesn't ring a bell.

Really? Exactly which arguments are founded on anything to do with cartwheels?

Exactly which ? - that's a rather large request for a cite

If you start here with the OP and work your way through the threads you will find them.

Note -The original thread was titled "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel". But your forgetting of this is understandable as this whole cartwheel idea has never gained traction or been mentioned elsewhere on JREF.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Exactly which ? - that's a rather large request for a cite

If you start here with the OP and work your way through the threads you will find them.

Note -The original thread was titled "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel". But your forgetting of this is understandable as this whole cartwheel idea has never gained traction or been mentioned elsewhere on JREF.

Perhaps I can help, Here's a few to start with. Which of these is founded on a "Cartwheel"?

- The Prosecution's TOC is out by several hours and should be between 9-10pm
- Meredith's DNA on the knife was "discovered" using incorrect techniques that can increase the chances of contamination
- The bra clip was in a "dirty" enviroment and had been moved and so could have been comtaminated, something shown by the other two unidentified profiles on it.
- Amanda's bloody footprints were not proven to be either blood or Amanda's
- The mixed DNA in the bathroom was from poorly gathered samples where large areas were swabbed increasing the chance of multiple profiles from people who used the bathroom regularly.
- The prosecution never re-enacted the "Staged" break in or showed how it was apparently staged.
- There was no evidence of Amanda or Raffaele in the murder room, yet plenty of evidence of Rudy.
- Mignini's claim that covering the body with a duvet shows that the killer was female is a load of bunkum.

 

[zeb]

Embassy

You're correct: the power of the embassy (or consulate) is indeed extremely limited. As I've said a few times already (and as is corroborated elsewhere here by links to US State Dept information), embassy/consular officials have the right to meet with any of their citizens who are in custody charged with criminal offences. They are not, however, permitted to intervene or even make complaint to the judicial authorities in the host country, even if they think that due process has not been followed properly.

However, if the citizen in custody has had his/her human rights abused, or if (s)he has been denied the right to appropriate legal representation, the consular officials will likely make representations to the host country, citing international law safeguarding human/legal rights. That's all. Unless the host country in question is one with whom the embassy country has serious overarching issues with its criminal justice system (e.g. the US might be far more active in intervening in Iran, China or the Congo). Not Italy.

Thank you for putting me right.
But I am sure that the Embassy staff, had the right to see Amanda on her first day in jail.
Also that would go to an Embassy lawyer, but it would have to be a American lawyer.
If the police had nothing to hide, why did they stop her legal rights for so long.

 

[Amazer]

Thank you for putting me right.
But I am sure that the Embassy staff, had the right to see Amanda on her first day in jail.
Also that would go to an Embassy lawyer, but it would have to be a American lawyer.
If the police had nothing to hide, why did they stop her legal rights for so long.

What good is an American lawyer in such a situation?

 

[RoseMontague]

Exactly which ? - that's a rather large request for a cite

If you start here with the OP and work your way through the threads you will find them.

Note -The original thread was titled "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel". But your forgetting of this is understandable as this whole cartwheel idea has never gained traction or been mentioned elsewhere on JREF.

Thanks, platonov. I have not read that page in quite some time. There is a link there and a quote from Mignini that I found interesting:

The murder, Il Tempo newspaper reported him telling the court, “was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Hallowe’en. A sexual and sacrificial rite ... In the intention of the organisers, the rite should have occurred 24 hours earlier” – on Hallowe’en itself – “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organised by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day. The presumed assassins contented themselves with the evening of 1 November to perform their do-it-yourself rite, when for some hours it would again be the night of All Saints.”

Mr Mignini saw the scene so clearly in his mind that he was able to describe it to the judge in detail: Meredith on her knees before the wardrobe, Rudy holding her immobile, Raffaele grasping one arm, Amanda in front of her, pricking her throat teasingly with the knife – until the blade in her hand struck home. “To prove it,” he told the judge triumphantly, “the only thing missing was a video camera in the room.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/masonic-theory-that-put-knox-in-the-dock-981759.html

Mignini denied this theory in his CNN talk and a poster on the side of guilt recently denied any connection to Mignini and such theories relating to the Kercher case. I did notice however that this poster mentioned Mignini never said the word "satanic". Mendacious weaselworming apparently. A "Masonic" theory?

Mr Kercher also brought this up as one of the 20 things indicative of guilt which I found surprising at the time his article came out.

Also nice to see Matthew Best on the first page of the cartwheel thread.

This Skeptic Ginger quote from the OP still has a ring of truth to me:

The reason I bring this up here is this trial was based on a criminal (as in he's a criminal) prosecutor and involved cultural face saving rather evidence of guilt. I heard an interview of a reporter who understood the issues and he said they would find her guilty despite the fact there is no evidence, because once the prosecutor stuck his neck out he had to continue to "save face".

My personal opinion of the cartwheel issue is that it is just another thing the cops asked Amanda to do that she complied with that got her in trouble. Imagine that.

 

[platonov]

Thanks, platonov. I have not read that page in quite some time. There is a link there and a quote from Mignini that I found interesting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/masonic-theory-that-put-knox-in-the-dock-981759.html

Mignini denied this theory in his CNN talk and a poster on the side of guilt recently denied any connection to Mignini and such theories relating to the Kercher case. I did notice however that this poster mentioned Mignini never said the word "satanic". Mendacious weaselworming apparently. A "Masonic" theory?

Mr Kercher also brought this up as one of the 20 things indicative of guilt which I found surprising at the time his article came out.
Also nice to see Matthew Best on the first page of the cartwheel thread.
This Skeptic Ginger quote from the OP still has a ring of truth to me:

Back to the first page

Excellent.

The groundhog has mutated into a serpent and is devouring its own tail.
I knew this would happen [How you don't ask - by the application of Bayes Theorem obviously]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

My personal opinion of the cartwheel issue is that it is just another thing the cops asked Amanda to do that she complied with that got her in trouble. Imagine that.

If you are going to channel halides1 I shall do likewise

Amanda herself reported that she did not do any cartwheels. Please take note.

 

[RoseMontague]

Back to the first page

Excellent.

The groundhog has mutated into a serpent and is devouring its own tail.
I knew this would happen [How you don't ask - by the application of Bayes Theorem obviously]

If you are going to channel halides1 I shall do likewise

Thanks platonov, I do need to get back to that post I was working on for Groundhog Day, is there any restriction in the MA as to length of a post?

There are posters on both sides that I admire and I consider halides1 one of those. I can't say I always agree with posters even on my own team but it is nice to be compared to a poster whose opinion I appreciate even when we don't necessarily agree.

I like your analogy and I will make that a flying serpent in my case. Unlike who I can't go forward but I can revisit. Regarding this particular quote from Mignini a rewrite of history is not even required. The comparison to the recent Oggi quote is interesting and I have to wonder what the quote will be 6 months from now. I can't wait.

 

[zeb]

What good is an American lawyer in such a situation?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Rolfe]

I do find the fact that those arguing for guilt almost exclusively confine themselves to personal sniping and procedural wrangling to be quite frustrating. But telling, too I suppose.

Rolfe.

 

[Danceme]

Alt, do you at least agree that if Amanda had legal council from the beginning, that things would never have escalated to the point of arrest? Do you agree that the interrogation should have been recorded? It certainly would have cleared up many problems. Will you agree to reasonable doubt if the credibility of the DNA evidence is destroyed? Just wondering.

I agree with this.

_________________________

Kaosium,

Amanda's failure to recognize she'd had a concussion was just another symptom of her concussion...............

///

I think this is a stretch. There's no evidence she was hit any harder than she herself said she was, a couple of cuffs to the back of the head. She even demonstrated it in court. It takes a little more than that to cause concussion.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I didn't say I thought there was reasonable doubt (you are new and my thoughts on the case are complicated), I said what I believe doesn't matter at all.

Something we can agree on.

 

[Rhea]

I didn't say I thought there was reasonable doubt (you are new and my thoughts on the case are complicated), I said what I believe doesn't matter at all.

It matters to the discussion, even though you don't have to tell but I would be interested if you think there is reasonable doubt …

A phenomenon that Charlie Wilkes described is how in miscarriages of justice the more a case falls apart the more convinced the prosecution gets that the defendant is guilty.

To me it seems something similar is happening on the guilt side, (maybe that sentiment is wrong though), there were times you could read many of them conceding a small chance of innocence … I don't read that anymore; they're guilty, no possible other way …

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So now we've gone from cuffed, to a possbile concussion to "recognition that she had a concussion". Amazing...it's this type of spin that makes me sure that in August, September, October or maybe in early 2012 AK and RS will have their convictions upheld. There is no way to see so many lies tossed about if folks really believed they were innocent and there was no evidence against them at all, as I'm constantly being told.

There is no evidence to show that Amanda suffered a concussion. I see no need to speculate on it. Amanda said she was hit on the back of her head.

How hard do you honestly think you need to hit a young woman on the back of the head during an interrogation in order to scare the hell out of her?

Amanda was in a helpless situation not knowing what was coming next. It would be reasonable to say that Amanda had fear that the physical contact would become more aggressive.