Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

I seem to be having two conversation. One with Chris C. about lying and the impression people should get from Amanda. And one with Kaosium where he/she seemed to also be be denying that some people get, or should get, a negative impression from her statements [post 14612]:

I must confess by this point, having had the discussion run over night, I became confused by the two similar arguments. It seems to me though that by putting the negative impression down to the tabloids Kaosium is denying that people react negatively based on her words/behaviors/actions/etc....

I see. Well, I would definitely agree with you that some people read Amanda's words/hear her speak and come away with the sincere impression that she isn't being truthful. I think Kaosium probably agrees with both of us, but I'll let him say so.

The fact is, except for Amanda's family and friends, we all get our impressions of Amanda from the same sources.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Kaosium,

Are you really going to argue that some people don't read Amanda's words/hear her speak and come away with the sincere impression that she isn't being truthful?

I'm not sure which of AK's works you mean, but if it was the police interviews, apparently the police did, and Mignini still does, though for the life of me I can't figure out why, I have seen babbling by 5-year olds that are more coherent and detailed.

 

[shuttlt]

The fact is, except for Amanda's family and friends, we all get our impressions of Amanda from the same sources.

Certainly. Two people examine the same data and see different things. The case is full of this. The language barrier only makes is worse.

Some people, like the Kerchers, have presumably had more exposure to Amanda than we have.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm not sure which of AK's works you mean, but if it was the police interviews, apparently the police did, and Mignini still does, though for the life of me I can't figure out why, I have seen babbling by 5-year olds that are more coherent and detailed.

Take you pick. Since they are less contended, how about the "gift" and her statements in court.

 

[Mary_H]

Certainly. Two people examine the same data and see different things. The case is full of this. The language barrier only makes is worse.

Some people, like the Kerchers, have presumably had more exposure to Amanda than we have.

I was intrigued by what you wrote yesterday in Post 14607: "What I do with that impression though is that I look about me, and acknowledge that some other people have a different impression. I find that interesting."

I think most of us find it interesting that there are people whose impressions of the case and the players differ from our own. We carry our interest into making observations about the different types of people who hold certain impressions, eventually leading to ad hominem analyses. Is there any alternative method of understanding why the differences exist?

 

[LondonJohn]

I was intrigued by what you wrote yesterday in Post 14607: "What I do with that impression though is that I look about me, and acknowledge that some other people have a different impression. I find that interesting."

I think most of us find it interesting that there are people whose impressions of the case and the players differ from our own. We carry our interest into making observations about the different types of people who hold certain impressions, eventually leading to ad hominem analyses. Is there any alternative method of understanding why the differences exist?

But ad hominem attacks are not what you're describing here. Ad hominem attacks are those that seek to invalidate a person's argument by attacking the person rather than the argument itself*. If a person arguing about this case makes arguments relating to the case which (s)he cannot defend and which contain logical/reasoning errors, then I think it's perfectly valid to call into question that person's overall credibility when it comes to debating this case. For example, one might argue (incorrectly) that any accusation of confirmation bias could be described as an ad hominem attack. But if there's a demonstrable pattern of thinking that indicates confirmation bias, it's a totally valid and reasonable attack to make.

By the way, Happy 4th July to you and all other merkins


* For example, this example from the wikipedia entry: "You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."

 

[LondonJohn]

Take you pick. Since they are less contended, how about the "gift" and her statements in court.

The gift (a.k.a. "memoriale") comes across to me as a confused and confusing statement, in which Knox is seeking to explain that she doesn't stand by her earlier statements. The only clear thing in the memoriale (to me) is that she is trying to convey that her "recovered memory" of Lumumba being in the cottage (and Knox being in the kitchen covering her ears against the screams) is most likely not the truth. She goes on to state that her original memory of the events of that night - that she was with Sollecito in his apartment - is accurate.

Incidentally, that brings up another potentially interesting point (although it's not one that could ever have any real probative value). Most often, when people break down under police questioning and confess to participation in a crime (assuming that they did participate in the crime), they exhibit clear signs of relief at having come clean. And it's usually only once they have had discussions with their lawyers that they decide to challenge or refute that confession. In this case, Knox was challenging the "confession/accusation" within hours of making it. That, to me, is interesting and instructive in itself.

 

[LondonJohn]

You might be thinking of the one in which Claudia Matteini was asked to recuse herself and refused. I don't know which case that is -- maybe Amanda's calunnia trial?

I understand that Barbie Nadeau tweeted, "As expected judge in slander case against #amandaknox parents takes himself off case b/c he was involved in kercher prelim trial." (bolding mine)

Of course, a side question is this: why the heck was Micheli ever assigned to the Knox parents' slander trial in the first place?

 

[shuttlt]

I was intrigued by what you wrote yesterday in Post 14607: "What I do with that impression though is that I look about me, and acknowledge that some other people have a different impression. I find that interesting."

I think most of us find it interesting that there are people whose impressions of the case and the players differ from our own. We carry our interest into making observations about the different types of people who hold certain impressions, eventually leading to ad hominem analyses. Is there any alternative method of understanding why the differences exist?

I guess there are two possibilities. Either many of the documents, statements, and so on can genuinely support multiple readings - or one or other side are pathological. Readings of Knox's words as dishonest came quite early in the original thread and seemed to be fairly generally accepted by a good percentage of posters. I don't recall them as beginning as entrenched positions, or being wholely driven by the tabloids.

Periodically there are posts here that seem to me to be claiming that posters on PMF cannot be convinced of guilt, and I'm pretty sure there have been posts going the other way from PMF. This seems to me like a failure of imagination and empathy.

It seem impossible for me to say that the impression I get from reading Amanda's words is that she is evasive and not wholly honest without getting told off. I'm not sure how it's possible to have an argument about what my impression of her is.

 

[RoseMontague]

You might be thinking of the one in which Claudia Matteini was asked to recuse herself and refused. I don't know which case that is -- maybe Amanda's calunnia trial?

I understand that Barbie Nadeau tweeted, "As expected judge in slander case against #amandaknox parents takes himself off case b/c he was involved in kercher prelim trial." (bolding mine)

Yes, that was it, thank you Mary_H. Matteini refused to recuse and I wonder if she now regrets that decision. It seems some of the other VW's are scattering now that the light of truth has been turned on.

I wonder if Stefanoni will scatter before she is thrown under the VW bus? Who could have predicted in advance the scapegoats of this appeal would turn out to be Curatolo and now likely Stefanoni?

 

[shuttlt]

The gift (a.k.a. "memoriale") comes across to me as a confused and confusing statement, in which Knox is seeking to explain that she doesn't stand by her earlier statements. The only clear thing in the memoriale (to me) is that she is trying to convey that her "recovered memory" of Lumumba being in the cottage (and Knox being in the kitchen covering her ears against the screams) is most likely not the truth. She goes on to state that her original memory of the events of that night - that she was with Sollecito in his apartment - is accurate.

This is one view. There are others. The whole thing has been talked to death. Is there any more to be said about what people find suspicious about particular sentences?

Incidentally, that brings up another potentially interesting point (although it's not one that could ever have any real probative value). Most often, when people break down under police questioning and confess to participation in a crime (assuming that they did participate in the crime), they exhibit clear signs of relief at having come clean. And it's usually only once they have had discussions with their lawyers that they decide to challenge or refute that confession. In this case, Knox was challenging the "confession/accusation" within hours of making it. That, to me, is interesting and instructive in itself.

My impression is that she is evasive and not wholly honest. If studies have been dug up
showing the relative frequencies of confessions being retracted within a few hours being genuine/false I've forgotten them. Perhaps its significant that Knox might not have expected to have been in so much trouble post "confession" since she pinned the murder on someone else. Whether innocent or guilty that may account for her later statements.

 

[RoseMontague]

I guess there are two possibilities. Either many of the documents, statements, and so on can genuinely support multiple readings - or one or other side are pathological. Readings of Knox's words as dishonest came quite early in the original thread and seemed to be fairly generally accepted by a good percentage of posters. I don't recall them as beginning as entrenched positions, or being wholely driven by the tabloids.

Periodically there are posts here that seem to me to be claiming that posters on PMF cannot be convinced of guilt, and I'm pretty sure there have been posts going the other way from PMF. This seems to me like a failure of imagination and empathy.

It seem impossible for me to say that the impression I get from reading Amanda's words is that she is evasive and not wholly honest without getting told off. I'm not sure how it's possible to have an argument about what my impression of her is.

I have made it clear that I believe Amanda lied as did Raffaele. I think they lied because they were in a situation facing the possibility of 30 years and were put under pressure to say something the cops wanted them to say and/or were struggling to come up with a counter to the cops lies. They were dumb kids and the biggest dumb thing they didn't do was get a lawyer. Both sets of parents failed them by not insisting they get representation.

Posters even on the side of innocence have different impressions of Amanda and Raffaele and the statements they have made. I believe they are innocent of the charges against them. The biggest thing they are guilty of is being dumb. The evidence that they both told the same story for days is certain, the cops finally broke them to the point that they agreed to a version that the cops wanted to hear and this version was one both Raffaele and Amanda felt would put them in the clear.

The cops played their feelings for each other against them, telling them that the other had betrayed them. The cops, of course, are allowed to lie. It is SOP. Anybody with kids should tell them about police tactics.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Take you pick. Since they are less contended, how about the "gift" and her statements in court.

I cannot see anything evasive there. She honestly describes her confusion and doubts in her Nov 6 note.
Her answers in court are clear and straightforward, contrary to the way prosecution interrupts her, seeds falsehoods and confusion.

 

[shuttlt]

I have made it clear that I believe Amanda lied as did Raffaele. I think they lied because they were in a situation facing the possibility of 30 years and were put under pressure to say something the cops wanted them to say and/or were struggling to come up with a counter to the cops lies. They were dumb kids and the biggest dumb thing they didn't do was get a lawyer. Both sets of parents failed them by not insisting they get representation.

I don't think we are very far from agreeing here. Your explanation seems plausible enough to me pretty much regardless of how innocent/guilty they may be.

Posters even on the side of innocence have different impressions of Amanda and Raffaele and the statements they have made. I believe they are innocent of the charges against them. The biggest thing they are guilty of is being dumb. The evidence that they both told the same story for days is certain, the cops finally broke them to the point that they agreed to a version that the cops wanted to hear and this version was one both Raffaele and Amanda felt would put them in the clear.

I'm not going to quibble and I particularly agree with the bolded part. Innocent or guilt they did some dumb things without which they wouldn't be where they are.

 

[shuttlt]

I cannot see anything evasive there. She honestly describes her confusion and doubts in her Nov 6 note.
Her answers in court are clear and straightforward, contrary to the way prosecution interrupts her, seeds falsehoods and confusion.

There must be a thousand posts in these threads where people explain what they find suspicious about them. For me she seems to be evasive. It could well be at least partly because the truth is as RoseMontague believes and she doesn't feel able to say this quite so explicitly.

 

[Katody Matrass]

An example - during the courtroom testimony Mignini plays a trick, asking Amanda why did she switched off the phone:

MIGNINI: Yesterday if I'm not mistaken, you said that you did it to stay with Raffaele.
AK: Yes.
MIGNINI: On page 40 (I don't know if it corresponds) of the minutes of your interrogation of December 17, you said, I'll read it, that: "I turned off my phone to save my battery." Do you remember that?
AK: Well, if it's written there, it must be okay.
MIGNINI: Today you're saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another.

The trick is Mignini knows very well AK stated in her Dec 17 interrogation that she switched off the phone both to save battery and not get another call from her boss.

And so on, etc.

 

[Katody Matrass]

There must be a thousand posts in these threads where people explain what they find suspicious about them. For me she seems to be evasive. It could well be at least partly because the truth is as RoseMontague believes and she doesn't feel able to say this quite so explicitly.

Well, I don't dispute the non-veracity of the overnight interrogation results.
OTOH, there was a lot of talking about how she was evasive in the courtroom, but in reality I've yet to see a single question that she had evaded there.

 

[shuttlt]

An example - during the courtroom testimony Mignini plays a trick, asking Amanda why did she switched off the phone:

MIGNINI: Yesterday if I'm not mistaken, you said that you did it to stay with Raffaele.
AK: Yes.
MIGNINI: On page 40 (I don't know if it corresponds) of the minutes of your interrogation of December 17, you said, I'll read it, that: "I turned off my phone to save my battery." Do you remember that?
AK: Well, if it's written there, it must be okay.
MIGNINI: Today you're saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another.

The trick is Mignini knows very well AK stated in her Dec 17 interrogation that she switched off the phone both to save battery and not get another call from her boss.

And so on, etc.

All this has been argued before. I'm not sure that there is any point at this stage in my trying to convince you that there are evasive things in what she says, or your trying to convince me that there aren't. I don't think I've got anything new to say that won't already have failed to convince you before.

 

[Katody Matrass]

All this has been argued before. I'm not sure that there is any point at this stage in my trying to convince you that there are evasive things in what she says, or your trying to convince me that there aren't. I don't think I've got anything new to say that won't already have failed to convince you before.

Just tell me which questions did she evade in the courtroom and I'll reconsider my position.

 

[shuttlt]

Well, I don't dispute the non-veracity of the overnight interrogation results.
OTOH, there was a lot of talking about how she was evasive in the courtroom, but in reality I've yet to see a single question that she had evaded there.

I'd have to reread the testimony to argue with you properly. I suspect that if you read it with the view that her various statements about witnessing the murder weren't the best truth she could remember then some of her statements in court will seem to be untruthful as well.