Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

more on Billy Wayne Cope

This link makes for worthwhile reading on the subjects of false confessions and of trying two individuals separately for one crime. The prosecution alleged an absurd conspiracy between Billy Wayne Cope and James Sanders.

 

[babycondor]

Kaosium originally found this link to the article, “Police deception during interrogation and its surprising influence on jurors' perceptions of confession evidence," by Krista D. Forrest and William Douglas Woody. I posted the quote below before, but I think it bears on the question of whether or not Massei should have let the two trials run concurrently.

"According to Kassin and Neumann (1997), jurors relied on confession evidence more than other forms of evidence (italics added). Of greater concern is the finding that even if jurors rated a confession as less voluntary and believed that the confession did not affect their decisions, these jurors were still more likely to convict than jurors who did not read confession evidence (Kassin & Sukel, 1997)… In Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mistaken admission of a coerced confession into the trial could comprise a harmless error that does not increase the risk of a mistaken conviction and is therefore subject to a harmless error analysis. This ruling rests on the assumption that jurors can recognize and reject a coerced confession, even though empirical findings contradict this assumtion (Kassin & Sukel, 1997)." highlighting mine.

Does Amanda's appeal mention her improperly obtained statements that were inadmissible in the first trial (but were admitted through the back door of the calunnia trial anyway)?

Since her statements are considered inculpatory by some, and they are public knowledge, it would seem that her defense in the appeal should devote energy to introducing them and casting doubt on them. Or would this open up a can of worms wormhole? Can someone comment from a legal/strategy angle?

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium originally found this link to the article, “Police deception during interrogation and its surprising influence on jurors' perceptions of confession evidence," by Krista D. Forrest and William Douglas Woody. I posted the quote below before, but I think it bears on the question of whether or not Massei should have let the two trials run concurrently.

"According to Kassin and Neumann (1997), jurors relied on confession evidence more than other forms of evidence (italics added). Of greater concern is the finding that even if jurors rated a confession as less voluntary and believed that the confession did not affect their decisions, these jurors were still more likely to convict than jurors who did not read confession evidence (Kassin & Sukel, 1997)… In Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mistaken admission of a coerced confession into the trial could comprise a harmless error that does not increase the risk of a mistaken conviction and is therefore subject to a harmless error analysis. This ruling rests on the assumption that jurors can recognize and reject a coerced confession, even though empirical findings contradict this assumption (Kassin & Sukel, 1997)." highlighting mine.

I suspect Massei was influenced by the sounding board of the media around him with their 'Foxy Knoxy' or in the case of the Italians the 'Evil She-Wolf' version. Also, I think when in his element Mignini is probably a very persuasive and commanding presence. It appears he had both Douglas Preston and Frank Sfarzo fooled, even after they'd seen evidence of his dark side. Thus why would Massei want to in any way impede Mignini in his 'glorious quest' to punish these two decadent evildoers?

It doesn't surprise me that many just don't quite comprehend what happens in an interrogation, and figure than anyone who confesses must be guilty as they can't imagine themselves ever admitting to something they didn't do. As long as there's no actual torture involved they might figure all they have to do is say no. I think perhaps a good way to put it is that someone with that kind of authority knows just what it takes to paint a picture that the best solution to everything is to agree to what the interrogator wants, imagine the best car salesmen they ever met juxtaposed with the scariest person they've ever run into, one who might put you in prison for life if you don't make him happy...

 

[Mary_H]

The "Confession" is certainly one thing that doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me. Even reading all three, the two "confessions" and the "gift", anyone that says that the police should have not only accepted them as real events, but actually acted on them really are kidding themselves.

The second major issue with it for me is that there is absolutely no reason for Amanda to accuse Patrick, and a lot of reason not to. She knew that he was at the bar and so would have an alibi, and anyone claiming that she was trying to protect Rudy then has to explain why she had already sold him out by taking the cops directly to his DNA in the toilet instead of flushing it. In fact if the piloce are to be believed, she and Raffaele spent a lot of time removing their traces and leaving Rudy's all over the place in what could only be a plan to place the blame on him, and then with the perfect opportunity to do just that and knowing that all the forensics is going to come back to him, Amanda coldly and rationally goes out of her way to not do it? That makes zero sense.

Great post, PhantomWolf. What Amanda intended and what the police acted on have been points of controversy since the beginning of the debate. It is essentially illogical to say that Amanda had power over the police yet ended up locked in a prison cell.

Your second paragraph brings up several points of logic and argument that have been raised in the past, too. These are exactly the kinds of questions that usually precipitate the exit of one guilter or another.

 

[RoseMontague]

At any rate it could also have been that they scared the piss out of her and then didn't let her go to the bathroom. I can just see it now: 'Yep-Patrick-did-it-hash-BB court-sex-murder-covered ears-I dunno 'bout Raffaele-shaking head...now will you lemme go potty please?!

Quoting Diocletian

So what do you make of Amanda screaming while under police interrogation? Was it because:

a. She was getting smacked upside the head
b. She was being mentally abused
c. She had to go to the bathroom really, really bad
d. Just a rebel yell
e. The police were treating her so well that she was having an orgasm

As far as the rest of your response, I am still not convinced. I consider it a legitimate theory, unproven at this point. I do think you are making an assumption that the cops were both competent and intelligent. My guess is they were actually just your run of the mill bullies. Dumb ones at that. I don't doubt that Amanda's type of confession probably holds up in court very well, in Perugia.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Does Amanda's appeal mention her improperly obtained statements that were inadmissible in the first trial (but were admitted through the back door of the calunnia trial anyway)?

Since her statements are considered inculpatory by some, and they are public knowledge, it would seem that her defense in the appeal should devote energy to introducing them and casting doubt on them. Or would this open up a can of worms wormhole? Can someone comment from a legal/strategy angle?

babycondor,

I think that this is one of those cases where the normal lawyers' playbook might need to be ignored. If I were on the defense team, I would attack the false statement with expert testimony on the subject. The summary of Amanda's appeal does at least mention the coercive nature of the interrogation.

 

[babycondor]

babycondor,

I think that this is one of those cases where the normal lawyers' playbook might need to be ignored. If I were on the defense team, I would attack the false statement with expert testimony on the subject. The summary of Amanda's appeal does at least mention the coercive nature of the interrogation.

Thank you for that link...I'd not seen it before.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Thought this was interesting. While some people seem to believe that the defence isn't concerned about the ToD information, this is from Raffaele's appeal documents.

Time of Death

The defense argues that the time of death was improperly calculated. Due too errors early on, the time of death cannot be accurately estimated. The prosecution stated the time of death to be close to midnight. The defense argues that the time of death was between 9:30 and 10:00pm. Times were estimated using body weight, temperature and digestion. Dr. Lalli estimated the body weight at just 50 kg upon first viewing the body at the cottage. Dr. Lalli later stated after doing the autopsy that the weight was closer to 55 kg based on his best guess. Dr. Lalli never officially weighed the body. Defense experts stated that the body weighed between 55.4 and 60 kg. When looking at the correct weight along with normal digestion, the defense argues the time of death was between 9:30 and 10:00pm. The ideal weight formulas show her weight to be from 55.4 to 60 kg, with the average at 57 kg. Using this formula produces a more accurate time of death at around 9:30pm.

The court has indicated wrongly that Professor Ronchi testified that it can take 4 to 5 hours for stomach contents to empty, when his actual testimony on October 19, 2009, stated that it takes 3 to 4 hours. The court also concluded incorrectly that there was a failure to allow ligation of the duodenum, that there was slippage after traveling 5 meters in the small intestine so the court found it unreliable that Dr. Lalli found the duodenum empty. However, the court watched the actual autopsy on November 11, 2009, by Dr. Lalli who did correctly close the duodenum to prevent any slippage from the stomach down. The court talks about her eating food and drinking back at the cottage in one section but later says she had no alcohol. The prosecution assumes a mushroom was eaten after she returned home. Based upon experts and medico-legal criterion, Meredith died at 2-3 or 3-4 hours after her last meal which was completed around 6:30pm to 7:00pm. This places the death using 3 hours at 9:30pm to 10:00pm. The only food found in her stomach was consistent with what her friends indicated she ate for dinner that night. The food had not emptied into the duodenum and failed to initiate gastric emptying, which was properly closed by ligation as seen on the video footage. An item of food found in the 3rd distal esophagus was kept in a container but never tested to determine what is was, which likely was an apple from the apple pie desert she ate after dinner and not a mushroom from her home. The defense requests that this sample be tested to confirm what it is. If the sample is apple as the defense believes, the time of death would be closer to the range that the defense suggests, 9:30pm to 10:00pm.

The time of death is extremely important. The court goes to great lengths to push the time of death to a later time. In order for the court to come to this conclusion, it must ignore expert testimony and video regarding the autopsy. The court also must ignore the testimony regarding the stalled vehicle in front of the cottage. The defense argues, based on the evidence, the murder occurred between 9:30 and 10:00pm. This is supported by the evidence provided during the autopsy and is also supported by the witness testimony dealing with the stalled vehicle. The court chooses to ignore all of this evidence. Why? Raffaele’s computer activity would make it completely impossible for him to be involved in this crime if the murder occurred at 9:30 to 10:00pm. Raffaele was active on his computer in his apartment at 9:10pm as noted by the court. The defense also argues that Raffaele was active on his computer at 9:26pm. The court’s suggested time of death is also in conflict with the phone activity on Meredith’s phones.

Seems to me that they think it is "extremely important."

 

[billyryan]

Thought this was interesting. While some people seem to believe that the defence isn't concerned about the ToD information, this is from Raffaele's appeal documents.



Seems to me that they think it is "extremely important."

Meredith Kercher died very soon after arriving home at nine o clock approximately,she was definitely dead by 10 o clock and most probably by 9-30 that the court accepted a time of death of close to midnight despite the evidence to the contrary proves to me anyway beyond any reasonable doubt that it was a kangaroo court

 

[PhantomWolf]

Meredith Kercher died very soon after arriving home at nine o clock approximately,she was definitely dead by 10 o clock and most probably by 9-30 that the court accepted a time of death of close to midnight despite the evidence to the contrary proves to me anyway beyond any reasonable doubt that it was a kangaroo court

I agree, and think that even allowing for 10pm the defence is being very nice to the prosecution. It was more for certain posters who were earlier claiming that the defence wasn't arguing ToD based on the stomach contents and that even if they did, it can't have been seen as important since they didn't lead with it. The Appeal documents prove them wrong on both counts, not that it will change their minds.

 

[platonov]

ToD ... pfft - not relevant old boy

I agree, and think that even allowing for 10pm the defence is being very nice to the prosecution. It was more for certain posters who were earlier claiming that the defence wasn't arguing ToD based on the stomach contents and that even if they did, it can't have been seen as important since they didn't lead with it. The Appeal documents prove them wrong on both counts, not that it will change their minds.

That's a very unusual approach for the defence to take in a murder trial.

It ties in with London John's earlier arguments that they didn't realise the importance of the ToD issue in the trial.

If true then AK & RS have no chance in the appeal either. Perhaps the CT theory that the defence are in on the conspiracy has some merit.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The "Confession" is certainly one thing that doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me. Even reading all three, the two "confessions" and the "gift", anyone that says that the police should have not only accepted them as real events, but actually acted on them really are kidding themselves.

The second major issue with it for me is that there is absolutely no reason for Amanda to accuse Patrick, and a lot of reason not to. She knew that he was at the bar and so would have an alibi, and anyone claiming that she was trying to protect Rudy then has to explain why she had already sold him out by taking the cops directly to his DNA in the toilet instead of flushing it. In fact if the piloce are to be believed, she and Raffaele spent a lot of time removing their traces and leaving Rudy's all over the place in what could only be a plan to place the blame on him, and then with the perfect opportunity to do just that and knowing that all the forensics is going to come back to him, Amanda coldly and rationally goes out of her way to not do it? That makes zero sense.

It would probally make more sense if instead of thinking that she was trying to protect Rudy, she was indeed doing the exact opposite, she feared Rudy, and why not, she saw first hand what he is capable of, she had no idea where he was at this time, which is likely why she had no problem going with Raff to the police station without being asked - I'ld be willing to bet also, she had no idea that saying what she did that she would have to stay in jail also.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That's a very unusual approach for the defence to take in a murder trial.

I agree in some ways, in others I can understand it. They can say 9:30-10pm in the appeal to open the door, further expert testimony and covering the witness testimony can narrow and bring that back further. The evidence presented in the Massei Report certainly points closer to 9pm (witnesses saying the meal was around started around 6pm, and 2 of three experts saying that it would leave the stomach in 2-3 hours, which is consistent with independant documents) but I suspect that the defence use the 4 hours from the third expert to make sure that all their bases are covered. If they tossed their own original expert under the bus, Hellmann might not be so willing to consider new expert testimony on the point.

It ties in with London John's earlier arguments that they didn't realise the importance of the ToD issue in the trial.

I don't think it was important until the prosecution moved it later to try and account for their witness testimony in closing arguments and Massei moved it even later in his summary (I find it hard to call it a Motive Report since he never reported any motive.) With the subsequent finding on the computer, and with the defence trying to push it as late as possible to show that R & A could actually have been there, establishing the ToD became important, but it was too late for the first trial.

If true then AK & RS have no chance in the appeal either.

I disagree, the apeal is a whole new trial, Hellmann will consider the ToD arguments on their merit and with a stronger argument from the defence (especially if Hellmann sees fit to allow new expert testimony on that point to reinforce the experts that already have stated that death could have been no more than 4 hours after the start of the meal) then this will prove a serious issue for the Prosecution. They are going to have to start claiming that R & A managed to get to the basketball court, convince a near total stranger to aid them in a killing, go to the cottage and kill Meredith in what amouts to about 35 mins at the most. If they can narrow back the time even further, the prosecution is in dire trouble.

Perhaps the CT theory that the defence are in on the conspiracy has some merit.

Even assuming that they did actually mess up the first time by getting caught out by the prosecution's moving the ToD in closing, none of them had ever tried a major murder case previously. There is little need to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It would probally make more sense if instead of thinking that she was trying to protect Rudy, she was indeed doing the exact opposite, she feared Rudy, and why not, she saw first hand what he is capable of, she had no idea where he was at this time, which is likely why she had no problem going with Raff to the police station without being asked - I'ld be willing to bet also, she had no idea that saying what she did that she would have to stay in jail also.

That doesn't make sense either. If she feared Rudy, why leave all the incriminating evidence and point it out to the police, but then not tell them who he was? How is telling the police who he was via the forensics any different to telling them who he was verbally?

It also ignores the idea that if she told then he'd be in jail and she either wouldn't be, and could go home, thus being safe from him, or if she was in jail too, then they'd be in different jails.

Finally it doesn't explain why she simply didn't change her story from Patrick to Rudy once the police had him, and claimed that she was scared of him while he was free and so had to keep up the pretence until she knew she was safe.

It makes no sense at all.

 

[RandyN]

The Confessions are ruled inadmissable. The "Gift" stays in. Although even that seems like more of a dream to me and was made under duress and severe lack of sleep and a few slaps from Rita the chestnut haired gal.

 

[Kaosium]

Quoting Diocletian



As far as the rest of your response, I am still not convinced. I consider it a legitimate theory, unproven at this point. I do think you are making an assumption that the cops were both competent and intelligent. My guess is they were actually just your run of the mill bullies. Dumb ones at that. I don't doubt that Amanda's type of confession probably holds up in court very well, in Perugia.

Bullies still want every last dime of your lunch money, and if they're going to go through the trouble of giving you a facebath in the yellow snow they'll not be put off unless they're convinced you're not holding out on them.

I think other elements also suggest that both the cops wanted more, and Amanda actually did have false memories introduced by the interrogators in her vulnerable state that eventually faded. You can see that in the bugged conversation with her mother, and then again with both parents the genesis of the 'I was there' legend. I think all those taken into account suggest that Amanda was indeed confused about her memories for a while, and considering some of the mindgames played such as the HIV 'positive' and the the report I dug up recently of them gloating over the CCTV video they were still claiming showed Amanda, suggest they did indeed want a real confession from her.

As suggested in that bugged 'I was there' tape, apparently the lawyer told the parents the knife was just a mindgame too, which as I think on it makes more and more sense. It would take a level of incompetence that defies belief for a chief of homicide to actually think that knife was involved in the murder, however I could easily see how they might think it would eventually force a real confession, and since Mignini might well have no idea himself, or being just as devious, might well present it as evidence. Being as it's his call, it becomes a 'murder weapon' in the eyes of the court, and the world.

I figure it's akin to the bully getting his victim to submit and empty their pockets, but who totally forget they had more money for a field trip in their folder. The bully senses compliance and goes away, but had the poor victim remembered the other money they would have handed it over too, and had they not, the bully would have sensed that as well. In this case Amanda gave them all she 'knew,' that is those 'flashes' and sketching out a bare-bones 'story' to go around it, as the police walked her through what they thought they 'knew.'

They were under a time limit with Amanda and for a number of reasons figured she was involved with Patrick, and due to the language difficulties and Amanda actually not being involved it looks to me like they didn't get very far, very fast but wouldn't let up. They may well have actually believed Amanda had indeed 'repressed' the memories, and they would in fact come back to her, but at that moment what mattered was getting her signature on that paper. Once they had her in their dirty little hands they probably figured they'd get the rest, or they'd get more from Patrick in his interrogation, and I suspect they were more willing to use harsher methods on him. When they didn't they still probably figured the forensics would bear them out, because I do think the information suggests they actually believed they had the right people, whether any of them really bought Mignini's ridiculous theory or not.

In my mind it is much easier to explain the statements, words and actions of both the police and Amanda in my mental timeline if she did in fact have 'flashes' of imagination that they did indeed convince her had to have been real for a period of time, but not so much that she'd 'fill in the blanks' with more imagination, that was their doing as they walked her through it. Had she just made up a story without that having happened to her, I think the statements would have reflected a far more cogent tale as the police would have been happier with that than what they got, they just had to 'settle' for what Amanda would give them.

At any rate, that's my theory. It changes as I incorporate new information, and at the moment I can't just make sense of things if all she did in there was try to talk and act her way out of that room, and then produce the note to keep her options open. Those statements were open enough to begin with, and in fact would be thrown out, and the note itself become even more damning to her in court. Of course she couldn't have known the intricacies of that byzantine system and foreseen that, nor was she probably entirely certain what she was signing, however she must have known there was more on that note of substance than anything she signed. I do in fact believe it was written to clear things up and try to help, as well as organize her own thoughts.


However I'm not Statement Analysis Dude, so I couldn't tell you for sure and I realize other interpretations are of value as well.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fog

Kaosium,

I seem to recall a nun telling Amanda that God would remove her confusion in the fullness of time. Could that incident be in Amanda's diary? I surmise the fog lifted slowly and gradually over a few days.
EDT
My comment has nothing to do with anything theological or religious, in case anyone is wondering. It is strictly about Amanda's state of mind.

 

[PhantomWolf]

because I do think the information suggests they actually believed they had the right people, whether any of them really bought Mignini's ridiculous theory or not.

QFE. This is the important part to my mind. I think they believed it so much that in their eyes anything they did to get the conviction was justified.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

I seem to recall a nun telling Amanda that God would remove her confusion in the fullness of time. Could that incident be in Amanda's diary? I surmise the fog lifted slowly and gradually over a few days.
EDT
My comment has nothing to do with anything theological or religious, in case anyone is wondering. It is strictly about Amanda's state of mind.

That nun might well have dealt with others who came out of those little rooms all confused...

 

[christianahannah]

Kaosium,

I seem to recall a nun telling Amanda that God would remove her confusion in the fullness of time. Could that incident be in Amanda's diary? I surmise the fog lifted slowly and gradually over a few days.
EDT
My comment has nothing to do with anything theological or religious, in case anyone is wondering. It is strictly about Amanda's state of mind.

Yes, the sister visiting Amanda in her cell was from Amanda's diary. The sister told Amanda that God knew everything and would help her to remember the answer. Except the fog lifted almost immediately after the sister had left and Amanda proceeded to write down her remembrances "one detail after another."

I am not sure I understand your edit. Do you mean that Amanda imagined the sister's visit and words spoken to her?