Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

What is wrong with that?

If his book is factually correct then why shouldn't he try and recoup some of his money.

You will not know that of course until he publishes his book.

Where did I say that there was anything wrong in it?

Indeed, I'd argue that if Knox and Sollecito were to be ultimately convicted of Meredith's murder by the Supreme Court, it would then be entirely proper for Mr Kercher to express anger and hurt towards them in a book.

But you've seemingly misinterpreted my underlying points: firstly, I was demonstrating that there were indeed rumours that John Kercher was planning to write a book about the case (contrary to another poster's "gotcha"); and secondly, I (like Komponisto) was arguing that it's inappropriate and undignified for Mr Kercher to be making character assassinations of Knox or Sollecito when the legal process against them is still in full flow.

Personally, I think that Knox and Sollecito would be fair game if they were ultimately convicted (even if I thought the convictions were unsafe). But I would also stand by my view that a book about the case written by the victim's father stands little hope of being objective or disinterested. However, I have absolutely no truck with Mr Kercher writing a book once the judicial process has run its course. Not sure I'd buy it though.......

 

[Skwinty]

Where did I say that there was anything wrong in it?

Poor choice of words, my bad.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I imagine that he would have been advised by his lawyer (and probably also by any publisher) to wait until the trial processes were all concluded before publishing such a book.

Perhaps his recent articles in UK newspapers might be evidence that he was indeed given such advice, but that maybe he can't help himself from piling onto Knox and Sollecito in other ways (i.e. newspaper articles). Or maybe Mr Kercher decided, on reflection, not to write a book about the case. Or maybe the rumours were all wrong, and Mr Kercher had never had any plans to write such a book. But in the context of the discussion that was taking place here, it's irrelevant: the fact is that there were rumours that Mr Kercher was writing a book about the case - contrary to certain posters' assertions.

Okay so that would be No John Kercher has not written a book nor do you any citations to support that he is planning to other than a 2 year old article written in a local paper.

You have quite an imagination.

 

[Antony]

No, I think it is only you who mentions the word naive.

This looks like turning into one of those maddening exchanges where someone responds to a point I haven't made, and ignores a more pertinent question. I would say Komponisto's reply, at least, indicates that he doesn't share your confidence. Let's return to what you said:

However, I feel confident that my daughters would not fall into the same traps that Knox and Sollecito fell into.

What were these "same traps that Knox and Sollecito fell into", in terms of your post? Was it that they won't trust the police to treat them fairly if they try to help them with a murder enquiry? Amanda's mother apparently recognised the danger her daughter was in, going back to the police repeatedly without getting a lawyer. Are you saying your daughters would know not to do that, relying simply on not having done anything wrong?

Then you don't attempt to answer the 2nd part of my earlier post, which was:

how would you feel if one of your daughters was murdered, and the police bungled the investigation, wrongly accused one of her friends and got them convicted of the crime?

Any thoughts - especially since this is the situation John Kercher is in (even though he doesn't recognise it)?

 

[LondonJohn]

I suppose it is human nature to read a book by it's cover, suffer from confirmation bias and all the other human weaknesses.

If Knox and Sollecito are acquitted because there is no reasonable doubt, then justice will have been served. Even if they were really guilty.

If there is reasonable doubt and the accused stay in prison then justice will have been served. Even if they were really innocent.

I know that the system is not perfect but it is more right than wrong.

Hopefully the youth of today will bear Knox and Sollecito in mind when they do the stupid things they are wont to do.

I always say that wisdom is wasted on old people and youth is wasted on young people. It should be the other way around.

1) I think you're mixing up "reasonable doubt" and "no reasonable doubt". "Reasonable doubt" means "doubt based in reason": if such doubt exists, there should be acquittal.

2) If Knox and Sollecito were not culpable of the crime (I would far prefer to use the term "culpable" rather than "guilty" here, to separate factual concepts from legal concepts), then by definition there should not be a position where their guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think about this for a moment, you'll see how this has to be the case.

3) I fully agree that the justice system in most industrialised countries (including Italy) has lots more positive points than negative points, and usually works as intended. But one of the facets of a well-functioning justice system is the ability to identify and correct its own problems. And that's what I think is going to happen in this particular case.

4) Whilst I would fully agree that Knox and Sollecito - if indeed they were not culpable of the murder - behaved in ways that were (shall we say) sub-optimal to their best interests, I truly struggle to think what any other people of their age would have done better/different under the circumstances. I think that most 20-year-olds who had never before been questioned in a police station - let alone one in a foreign country where they only had rudimentary command of the language, and little understanding of the culture - would have had serious trouble resisting an emotionally-forceful police interrogation: especially if it was one in which the police said they had firm physical evidence placing the person at the murder scene, and where the police (and interpreter) convinced the person that his/her memory of that evening was false, and that traumatic memory loss was preventing the person from remembering "what really happened". When you add in the factor that the police might tell that person that by "remembering" being at the scene (but not actually participating in the murder), (s)he would be helping the police (and the victim's family) bring the real perpetrator to justice, you have a situation in which I believe that most people of that age would have done pretty much exactly what Knox did that night. And I think most of the other behaviour of Knox and Sollecito between 3nd-5th November can be analysed in a similar way. It's easy to look back with the benefit of hindsight and criticise, but I don't think it's relevant or appropriate to look at things in that way.

 

[lane99]

They work about as well as a guess would

...He allegedly failed a...polygraph test....BTW, anyone want to give odds on whether or not Mr. Esposito really failed the polygraph test? Mine are 3-to-1 he passed but was told otherwise.

I'm a bit surprised by the way you've put this. As it might imply you believe polygraphs actually can reliably distinguish between truth and lies.

They can't. They are a pseudo-scientific ruse used by law enforcement to trick suspects into confessing. And it not infrequently works. Regrettably, sometimes it works on innocent people. Resulting, in such instances, in a false confession.

I'm supposing polygraphs have been discussed elsewhere on JREF. If they haven't, they oughta be. They are an ideal subject for a skeptic's forum.

 

[lane99]

This looks like turning into one of those maddening exchanges where someone responds to a point I haven't made, and ignores a more pertinent question...

Indeed.

But I'm sure that's the best that some can do.

 

[Skwinty]

This looks like turning into one of those maddening exchanges where someone responds to a point I haven't made,

So you did not say this: "I think others have said enough to show that this is a rather naive view."

It is the first time the word naive (in reference to my comments about my confidence in my daughters) has cropped up.

What were these "same traps that Knox and Sollecito fell into",

The ones that got her in this predicament.

Any thoughts - especially since this is the situation John Kercher is in (even though he doesn't recognise it)?

Well, I certainly will not speak for Mr Kercher as some are wont to do, I can only speak for myself.

If you were reading my posts you would have seen the answer to your question about how I would have felt if it was my daughter instead of Meredith.

 

[LondonJohn]

Okay so that would be No John Kercher has not written a book nor do you any citations to support that he is planning to other than a 2 year old article written in a local paper.

You have quite an imagination.

Ermmmm....... what??

I don't know if Mr Kercher has actually written a book about this case, and neither (presumably) do you. Of course we all know that he hasn't published such a book, but that's not the issue. How do you know that he hasn't written a complete manuscript, but is waiting until the judicial process is complete before publishing? This, after all, would be an entirely logical (and correct) thing to do, and in fact it's exactly what investigative journalist John Follain is doing. Similarly, neither you nor I knows whether John Kercher hasn't actually written a manuscript yet, but that he harbours a desire to do so in the near future.

My initial post on this subject was to show that there were indeed rumours that Mr Kercher was writing a book on the murder and its aftermath. This was in direct response to bucketoftea's post where that poster had attacked komponisto for mentioning rumours of John Kercher writing a case-related book. Bucketoftea's attack essentially stated that all rumours about a book by Mr Kercher were only concerning a children's book unrelated to the case. Through my post, I showed that this simply was not the case. And those rumours about a case-related book were not only reported in Mr Kercher's local paper (and were not, incidentally, reported as rumours, but as fact), but they have been sporadically repeated in other areas, including on PMF and TJMK.

Finally, I'm not quite sure where your closing sentence came from, but can I assume that you have some issues in relation to my posts?

 

[Skwinty]

Indeed.

But I'm sure that's the best that some can do.

Indeed, just like this post.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Ermmmm....... what??

I don't know if Mr Kercher has actually written a book about this case, and neither (presumably) do you. Of course we all know that he hasn't published such a book, but that's not the issue. How do you know that he hasn't written a complete manuscript, but is waiting until the judicial process is complete before publishing? This, after all, would be an entirely logical (and correct) thing to do, and in fact it's exactly what investigative journalist John Follain is doing. Similarly, neither you nor I knows whether John Kercher hasn't actually written a manuscript yet, but that he harbours a desire to do so in the near future.

My initial post on this subject was to show that there were indeed rumours that Mr Kercher was writing a book on the murder and its aftermath. This was in direct response to bucketoftea's post where that poster had attacked komponisto for mentioning rumours of John Kercher writing a case-related book. Bucketoftea's attack essentially stated that all rumours about a book by Mr Kercher were only concerning a children's book unrelated to the case. Through my post, I showed that this simply was not the case. And those rumours about a case-related book were not only reported in Mr Kercher's local paper (and were not, incidentally, reported as rumours, but as fact), but they have been sporadically repeated in other areas, including on PMF and TJMK.

Finally, I'm not quite sure where your closing sentence came from, but can I assume that you have some issues in relation to my posts?

Sorry forget to include your original post:

I imagine that he would have been advised by his lawyer (and probably also by any publisher) to wait until the trial processes were all concluded before publishing such a book.

Hope you understand my reference to your imagination now? I have no issue with you.

 

[Antony]

So you did not say this: "I think others have said enough to show that this is a rather naive view."

It is the first time the word naive (in reference to my comments about my confidence in my daughters) has cropped up.

That is of course true, but my comment does not mean that another poster had used the word "naive", which appears to be what you took it to mean.

The ones that got her in this predicament.

Just so that we're talking about the same thing, AFAIAC the "trap" that AK and RS fell into was to continue talking to the police without consulting a lawyer, believing that since they didn't have anything to hide then they would be treated fairly. Is this what you are referring to when you mention "traps"? If not, then can you please be specific about what you did mean - otherwise your post has little meaning.

Well, I certainly will not speak for Mr Kercher as some are wont to do, I can only speak for myself.

If you were reading my posts you would have seen the answer to your question about how I would have felt if it was my daughter instead of Meredith.

Actually, I now see that that's true on this point:

I have 2 daughters in their early 20's and if one of them was murdered, well, I know for sure I would not care at all for the accused.

To me, that means that if your daughter was murdered then you wouldn't care whether the accused was guilty or not - presumably no matter how much the police bungled the investigation.

 

[LondonJohn]

In case you're unaware of this new thread, LJ -- you're rather a star.

Having now had a gander at that thread, I can thoroughly recommend it as required reading for anyone who's interested in the JREF Knox threads (although you have to be a JREF member to be able to access it). It offers a fascinating insight into the motivations, priorities and intentions of some of the personalities who are (increasingly peripherally) involved in the debate. There was I thinking that anyone visiting or posting on this thread was primarily here because they were interested in the trials of Knox and Sollecito - either to gain information about the case or to participate in the debate. How wrong i was!

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry forget to include your original post:



Hope you understand my reference to your imagination now? I have no issue with you.

No. What happened is that you posted the following:

Okay so in the past 2 years since the article was written has Mr Kercher written a book about the events surrounding his daughters murder?

Now, we all know that Mr Kercher has not published any such book. So your post clearly conveyed your impression that - rumour or no rumour - John Kercher has not written (and has no plans to write) a book about the case.

I then responded to your post by writing:

I imagine that he would have been advised by his lawyer (and probably also by any publisher) to wait until the trial processes were all concluded before publishing such a book.

Perhaps his recent articles in UK newspapers might be evidence that he was indeed given such advice, but that maybe he can't help himself from piling onto Knox and Sollecito in other ways (i.e. newspaper articles). Or maybe Mr Kercher decided, on reflection, not to write a book about the case. Or maybe the rumours were all wrong, and Mr Kercher had never had any plans to write such a book. But in the context of the discussion that was taking place here, it's irrelevant: the fact is that there were rumours that Mr Kercher was writing a book about the case - contrary to certain posters' assertions.

This post, read in its entirely, clearly conveys my opinion that Mr Kercher may or may not have written a book, and that it's entirely possible (in my view) that he has written a book but has decided to wait until the judicial process is over before publishing. In other words, your question of "So has he written a book or not" is not only both moot and unanswerable, but there's every possibility that Mr Kercher has indeed written a book which he is holding back on publishing.

Your response to this post was as follows:

Okay so that would be No John Kercher has not written a book nor do you any citations to support that he is planning to other than a 2 year old article written in a local paper.

You have quite an imagination.

Now, I don't think I'm being paranoid or playing the victim when I suggest that there was more than a little hostility contained within this post. You are clearly implying your belief that Mr Kercher has not written a book about the case - seemingly based solely on the fact that no such book has yet been published. This is despite the mention in Mr Kercher's local paper (which is reported as fact, not rumour), and the very real possibility that publication is being delayed until Knox's/Sollecito's trial process is over.

You finished by subverting my use of the phrase "I imagine that..." - which in this context is widely accepted to be synonymous with "I suggest that..." or "My guess is that..." - and made a misleading reference to my having "quite an imagination".

 

[Chris_Halkides]

polygraph tests

I'm a bit surprised by the way you've put this. As it might imply you believe polygraphs actually can reliably distinguish between truth and lies.

They can't. They are a pseudo-scientific ruse used by law enforcement to trick suspects into confessing. And it not infrequently works. Regrettably, sometimes it works on innocent people. Resulting, in such instances, in a false confession.

I'm supposing polygraphs have been discussed elsewhere on JREF. If they haven't, they oughta be. They are an ideal subject for a skeptic's forum.

lane99,

I don't have a high opinion of them. However, I seem to recall one or more cases in which a suspect was told he had failed a polygraph when he had not. The supposed failure was one of the things that led to a false confession. I don't have a cite handy at the moment, however.
ETA
Peter Reilly may be one example.

 

[LondonJohn]

lane99,

I don't have a high opinion of them. However, I seem to recall one or more cases in which a suspect was told he had failed a polygraph when he had not. The supposed failure was one of the things that led to a false confession. I don't have a cite handy at the moment, however.
ETA
Peter Reilly may be one example.

This is a far-from-uncommon police tactic - and a legitimate one. But it's also worth noting that many innocent people fail polygraph tests, and a fair few culpable people pass polygraph tests. They have been widely discredited over the past decade as an accurate investigative tool: at best, they are a blunt instrument of investigation, which can be used to help guide police in certain directions. But they most certainly cannot be used as any form of evidence of guilt or non-guilt.

ETA There is an associated police practice that has often resulted in unjust outcomes. Police know that they can put pressure on a suspect to take a polygraph test, by using the following false logic: "If you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide by doing the test, and you'll pass it. But by contrast, if you refuse to take the test, you'll make us (and the courts) think that you have something to hide." If suspects are faced with such a dichotomy, they usually opt to take the test regardless of their culpability - especially if they are not taking legal advice at the time. And even if they are innocent, it's entirely possible that they will fail the test (due to nerves and stress), or that they will pass the test and the police will subsequently tell them that they have failed. And because so many people incorrectly think that polygraph tests are inviolably accurate, either such outcome can often break the will of even a totally innocent person.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

No. What happened is that you posted the following:




Now, we all know that Mr Kercher has not published any such book. So your post clearly conveyed your impression that - rumour or no rumour - John Kercher has not written (and has no plans to write) a book about the case.

I then responded to your post by writing:




This post, read in its entirely, clearly conveys my opinion that Mr Kercher may or may not have written a book, and that it's entirely possible (in my view) that he has written a book but has decided to wait until the judicial process is over before publishing. In other words, your question of "So has he written a book or not" is not only both moot and unanswerable, but there's every possibility that Mr Kercher has indeed written a book which he is holding back on publishing.

Your response to this post was as follows:




Now, I don't think I'm being paranoid or playing the victim when I suggest that there was more than a little hostility contained within this post. You are clearly implying your belief that Mr Kercher has not written a book about the case - seemingly based solely on the fact that no such book has yet been published. This is despite the mention in Mr Kercher's local paper (which is reported as fact, not rumour), and the very real possibility that publication is being delayed until Knox's/Sollecito's trial process is over.

You finished by subverting my use of the phrase "I imagine that..." - which in this context is widely accepted to be synonymous with "I suggest that..." or "My guess is that..." - and made a misleading reference to my having "quite an imagination".

Sorry mate you are being paranoid, which I find really surprising.

 

[Diocletus]

My opinion is a simple one, until the verdict of this appeal has been rendered all of the families connected with Meredith’s murder have every right to speak to media about their respective views, I doubt that any of their opinions will have any impact on the verdict.

You don't think that John Kercher's opinions had an impact on the prior proceeding in which he was a represented party? I think he probably did impact dimwit Massei's "thought" process. As to the current appeal, I tend to agree with you, but not for want of trying on the part of Kercher.

The point is, if your opinion is or may be having an effect on a judicial proceeding in which people could be locked up for years and years, it's bad and hurtful to be wrong. John Kercher is wrong. And he has aided and abetted to the wrongful prosecution/incarceration of two innocent people.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You don't think that John Kercher's opinions had an impact on the prior proceeding in which he was a represented party? I think he probably did impact dimwit Massei's "thought" process. As to the current appeal, I tend to agree with you, but not for want of trying on the part of Kercher.

The point is, if your opinion is or may be having an effect on a judicial proceeding in which people could be locked up for years and years, it's bad and hurtful to be wrong. John Kercher is wrong. And he has aided and abetted to the wrongful prosecution/incarceration of two innocent people.

I do not believe that John Kercher or any of the parents connected to Meredith’s murder had any impact on the first trial, although I acknowledge that some people believe that the appeal can be won or lost in the court of public opinion.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is a risibly inept, unscientific, confirmation-biased new piece of "statement analysis" up on TJMK, this time dealing with Knox's "gift" statement from November 6th:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...tatement_6_november_2007_points_eve/#comments

I note that in the comments section, stilicho makes reference to a previously-issued "open challenge to Knox supporters to explain the vast difference in tone and content" between this 6th November "gift" and Knox's email to friends from 4th November ("04 NOV 2007"). Now, while I don't remember this challenge having been issued, I'm more than happy to pick up the gauntlet.

Before I start, here are links to the 4th November email:

http://equinox-ecliptic.blogspot.com/2011/02/amanda-knox-letter-home-nov-4th-2007.html

and the 6th November "gift" statement (this site incorrectly gives the date as 7th November):

http://equinox-ecliptic.blogspot.com/2011/02/amanda-knox-gift-to-police-nov-7th-2007.html

Firstly, there is necessarily a difference in the tone and content of these two communications. In the 4th November email, Knox is attempting to explain what she knows to her friends back in the US. She only fleetingly deals with the events of the 1st November after she last saw Meredith - since, as far as she's concerned, her own experience of that evening/night is irrelevant. The bulk of the email is taken up explaining what happened on the morning of the 2nd November onwards, from Knox's perspective, and the way in which she's been questioned by the police.

By contrast, the "gift" statement is addressed to to police. It is specifically addressing the written police statements that she signed earlier the same day (at 1.45am and 5.45am), in which she stated that she had been at the cottage on the night of the 1st and had cowered in the kitchen while Lumumba killed Meredith. And at the very heart of these earlier statements was the police's suggestion to Knox that she'd had a traumatic memory loss, and that her earlier story of being at Sollecito's apartment all that evening/night was therefore incorrect (and that the police had the physical proof that she and Lumumba were in fact at the cottage at the time of the murder). So it's entirely obvious that the "gift" statement would focus upon the evening/night of the murder. Knox is essentially saying that she can back up her initial memory of the evening (i.e. that she was at Sollecito's) with specific facts: in other words, she's telling the police that she is now pretty sure that she didn't suffer any "traumatic memory loss", and that she indeed was at Sollecito's apartment rather than with Lumumba at the cottage.

In addition, while the email was written in a time of stress and anguish, the "gift" was written at a time when Knox was also frightened and confused. It's hardly surprising that the tone of the two communications is different. What's more, there are absolutely no contradictions between the two communications: they focus on different time periods and different aspects, but they do not contradict each other. In fact, it's easy to explain the "vast difference in tone and content" between these two communications - simply by realising the different situations in which Knox found herself when writing them, and the different audiences to whom they were addressed. Of course, if one is determined to look past logic and reason in the search for confirmation of a prior position, it's possible to interpret these two communications as evidence of Knox's guilt and duplicity. But that would be an incorrect and confirmation-biased interpretation.