Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Micromegas]

Yesterday's blasphemy is today's groupthink.

-Mike

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's not pure semantics to point out the difference between a confession and an accusation.

It is indeed pure semantics if your intended argument is that the psychology of false statements which are accusations differs from the psychology of false statements which are confessions.

That's a scientific question, and you can't do science with a dictionary. You need to go out and look at how the real world actually works. When you do that you discover that people who are the victim of internalised false "confessions" come to temporarily believe whatever the police tell them, and that this can lead them to confess their own guilt or accuse others depending on what the police told them.

Perhaps people are too smitten with Knox to be able to make this simple distinction.

Perhaps. But perhaps people actually know what they are talking about, and are thoroughly familiar with this well-worn piece of guilter sophistry.

 

[Diocletus]

I have no relationship with Mignini.
I talked to Mignini; tens of other journalists and writers did the same. I talked to Mignini because I was in Perugia and I happened to meet him on a coffee break during a hearing session. Just like any citizen in Perugia can speak to another citizen. Why shouldn't I?

Machiavelli--I saw that you posted on PMF that a judge had just been transferred to Terni. I understood you to mean that it is Zanetti who has been transferred and that ordinarily the transfer would have to happen with his consent. I think that you were suggesting that maybe this was not a case of consent, and that instead maybe he was transferred as some sort of punishment, etc. Am I correct?

Do you think that there is some possibility that Zanetti, himself, requested the transfer? My thought is that Zanetti might have wanted to be away from Perugia while he writes the Motivation. Do you think this is possible? If so, why would Zanetti want to be away from that place, and what would this say about the atmosphere in Perugia and the possible findings in Zanetti's Motivation?

 

[theRealBob]

I am striving for understanding, struggling for enlightenment, and hoping for a divine revelation. Failing that, maybe Yummi can explain.

No. Yummi cannot explain.

 

[Grinder]

Micromegas,

I think it is worth asking why (whether guilty or innocent) would she have named Lumumba out of the blue? She had reason to believe that he had an alibi. IMO she named him because that is what PLE wanted to hear. MOO.

I've never really liked your MOO I prefer IMO or IMHO because often they aren't your opinion only, as in this case. IMHO most people that have taken any time at all to read and think about it believe that the police did exactly as they described and question her until she told them what they knew to be correct. I read that the day after the statement online and told myself IMHO the police forced it and when Rudy was called in from the bench to replace (actually when the Swiss professor showed) I was sure the police had ******-up.

 

[Diocletus]

I have already explained on PMF - in response to thoughtful - why the two charges are logically linked, and why the calunnia doesn't stand alone.

I agree with what you wrote: if a person comitted a willful, evasive calunnia, this is strong proof that they had something to hide and were therefore involved in the murder.

On the other hand, if an innocent person falsely accused someone, one wonders what the police did to ellicit the accusation. No?

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you saying he is lying about this?

No. Or I don't know, or depends what you mean by lying. Certainly he did not do it, since it was Bongiorno who made the request (orally).
Rather than lying, I would say he's mystifying; he not expressing fully and truthfully twhat was the actual degree of weight and importance of the request: the request was later dropped, it was abandoned and the judge's decision accetped, it does not appear among defence arguments and reasons for appeal; the raw data were irrelevant in C&V report, and it's obvious that having raw data never was among priorities and interests of defenses.

 

[Diocletus]

Logically, however, I can't imagine that the judges can deduce with absolute certainty that they did not commit it.
That would be even more difficult than Massei's effort to deduce that they did.

Not really. All they have to do is decide that the murder occurred at a time for which there is an alibi.

 

[Diocletus]

No. Or I don't know, or depends what you mean by lying. Certainly he did not do it, since it was Bongiorno who made the request (orally).
Rather than lying, I would say he's mystifying; he not expressing fully and truthfully twhat was the actual degree of weight and importance of the request: the request was later dropped, it was abandoned and the judge's decision accetped, it does not appear among defence arguments and reasons for appeal; the raw data were irrelevant in C&V report, and it's obvious that having raw data never was among priorities and interests of defenses.

Machiavelli--Do you think that the raw data is exculpatory or potentially exculpatory?

 

[LondonJohn]

I have already explained on PMF - in response to thoughtful - why the two charges are logically linked, and why the calunnia doesn't stand alone.

They are not logically linked. It is possible that Knox had nothing to do with the murder, yet still decided to falsely accuse Lumumba of her own free will. Perhaps, for example, she was fed up with the police insinuating that she was involved in the murder, and decided to send them off on a wild goose chase after Lumumba in order to stop the police from hassling her.

But the point is not that it is possible for Knox to be totally innocent (you know, under 530.1) of the murder, yet still guilty of criminal slander against Lumumba. The point is that there is clearly now reasonable doubt that she willfully falsely accused Lumumba, given that she was exonerated of the murder. The main plank of the case any for willful false accusation - that Knox was culpable of the murder, and therefore deliberately chose to falsely accuse an innocent man as an attempt to evade justice - is now gone. Therefore the criminal slander guilty verdict is impossible to justify on a "beyond a reasonable doubt" test now. I predict that it will probably be quashed on appeal, and sent back to the appeal court level as a stand-alone charge.

Incidentally, to clarify what some others have said, Knox is not a convicted felon. She will not stand convicted of the criminal slander charge unless and until the Supreme Court affirms the verdict and imposes the sentence. And in that regard, she has not in fact served a three-year sentence for the crime. She has in fact spent none of her time in prison serving a sentence. It has all been spent on remand. If the Supreme Court affirms the appeal court verdict and sentence on the criminal slander charge, it will sentence Knox to three years in prison, but will immediately order that she has already served more time than this on remand and therefore no further custodial punishment is necessary. But as of right now, it is incorrect in every way to claim that Knox is a convicted felon who has served a three-year sentence for the crime.

 

[Micromegas]

It is indeed pure semantics if your intended argument is that the psychology of false statements which are accusations differs from the psychology of false statements which are confessions.

The armchair psychology that declares that Knox believed what police told her (and wasn't just accusing Lumumba to save her own skin) is one of those self-validating notions of which reasonable people should be skeptical. The fact that you invoke "false confession syndrome" to explain what she did is the only reason you've decided it's permissible to ignore the fact that she signed not a confession, but an accusation of an innocent man.

But perhaps people actually know what they are talking about, and are thoroughly familiar with this well-worn piece of guilter sophistry.

Here's another distinction you seem to have trouble with. I don't believe Knox was guilty of the murder. What I believe is that she falsely accused Lumumba, but her supporters resent when anyone points that out.

-Knox

 

[RoseMontague]

No. Or I don't know, or depends what you mean by lying. Certainly he did not do it, since it was Bongiorno who made the request (orally).

I don't know about this. It depends. Maybe you are just less wrong about this one as well. Beats me. Go figure.

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree with what you wrote: if a person comitted a willful, evasive calunnia, this is strong proof that they had something to hide and were therefore involved in the murder.

On the other hand, if an innocent person falsely accused someone, one wonders what the police did to ellicit the accusation. No?

No. A person wonders if the police did something to a person, only if a person accuses the police of doing something to him/her.

Moreover, that's not exactly what I wrote, not what said in my PMF explanation. I have talked about sponteneous statement that was not a police interrogation, hand written note, decision to remain silent, weeks-lasting silence, contradictory explanations in further questionings and furhte refuseal to answer, false explanations (false memory etc), unexplained refusal of admit a lie, lack of report on any concrete event that could have caused it ....

So these are my arguments to require a logical link for the calunnia.

 

[Kaosium]

Well, you still haven't established that the psychologically-questionable notion of coerced confession even applies here, because Knox never confessed.

Mike, what you've typed doesn't make any sense at all to me. How could a coerced confession possibly be psychologically questionable? Did you mean an internalized false confession? I wasn't arguing that, and I think if you do some research you'll find it isn't questionable anymore; look up the Norfolk Four case at your leisure.

As for the terminology, is this just semantics, or do you have a point? I would agree, and have noted numerous times it's not a confession, however why do you suppose the police called it that, arrested her and two other people then paraded through the streets with sirens blaring and said:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in. They all participated but had different roles."

Incidentally, are you trying to say that in your mind it would be more difficult to implant a false memory about what someone else did than what the subject did? What causes you to draw that conclusion, what evidence or argument can you offer to support that contention?

She accused an innocent person.

What makes you think it was an accusation? What cannot be disputed it that it's a vague and confused witness statement that turned out not to be true, what makes you think it amounts to an accusation by any reasonable definition of the term?

The notion that the police suggested Lumumba, and Knox developed a false memory after a few hours of interrogation, is one I think could only come from an imagination desperate to save poor, cute Ms. Knox from being put in a bad light.

That could be, it could also not be. What methods would you employ to try to get to the truth of the matter if you were a rational person?

Look, I don't think Knox was guilty. But the "coerced confession" bit from her supporters always left a bad taste in my mouth.

-Mike

I can't help that, the facts won't change regardless of how tasty they are, and it's the context in this instance which strongly indicate that despite being unusual, Amanda's story is consistent with the contemporaneous facts, known human behavior and interrogation techniques. The police story on the other hand is not. I posted Arturo di Felice's comment about how Amanda 'buckled and gave an admission of facts we knew to be correct'--what 'facts' in those statements could they possibly have known to be correct? There's only one that really matters, that is the inclusion of Patrick Lumumba, basically nothing in the rest of it matches either what they produced before Matteini on the eighth, the crime as prosecuted, or the crime as committed. Isn't that kinda weird? Why do you suppose that happened?

Did you notice that the 'staged' break-in isn't even addressed? Do you suppose they forgot all about it? Did you notice Raffaele is hardly mentioned, and not at all in connection with the crime? Why is Raffaele sitting in a room for hours by himself while they go after Amanda about someone else? Wouldn't you think it might occur to police that most likely suspect to be involved with Amanda in a rape-murder was her new boyfriend she kept cuddling with? Did you ever wonder why they never asked Raffaele about the murder and all? Edgardo Giobbi (of the SCO from Rome) testifies he's 'mathematically certain' he ordered both Raffaele and Amanda brought in so he can study their behavior together, which squares what he told Paul Ciolino about it mere months after the murder when he's tacking Amanda's picture up on the wall next to convicted serial killers and mob bosses. So...why didn't they ask him about the murder, considering he was stoned and so accommodating anyway? Hours later after making the error with his shoe tread they'd arrest him for the murder regardless, yet they never even asked him about it before during or after they went at Amanda for seven hours to produce those two statements about someone else?

On November eighth, 2007, Judge Matteini would tell Amanda that she would receive no consideration for staying and answering questions for police because her arrest was deliberately arranged before her mother arrived, which would be a couple of hours after the 5:45 statement and her subsequent arrest. What do you suppose she meant by that?

 

[Diocletus]

Machiavelli--Given Stefanoni's testimony at the first trial that she got a "few hundred picograms of DNA" when she did the track B real time quantification, I'm curious about your thoughts on the following:

1. How is it that she said she did a PCR quantification, when in fact she did only a flourometer quantification?

2. How is it that she said "a few hundred" picograms, when in fact, the only test that she ran (flourometer) just said "too low".

3. How is it that she claimed to have forgotten to write down the PCR quantification, when in fact, she never did one because the machine was broken?

4. What is the relevance of the alleged negative runs on the PCR machine, when in fact, the only quantification she did was on the flourometer, and there is no record of a negative run on that machine?

 

[theRealBob]

Here's a question: Has Costagliola actually said anything publicly about an appeal to the Supreme Court yet? I know that Mignini and Comodi have been seemingly taking every opportunity to appear on the media and shout about the certainty of an appeal. But I don't think it's their decision to take.

In fact, has Costagliola even said anything in public since the acquittals were announced? I can't recall him being quoted anywhere, but that's not necessarily to say that he didn't make some sort of statement. However, if he has said little or nothing - and seemingly nothing about an appeal - that would only add weight to the suggestion that Costagliola wants as little as possible to do with the prosecution meltdown in this case. And either way, it's extraordinary that the person who was the lead prosecutor in the appeal trial has not been at the forefront of prosecution comments and statments after Hellmann's verdict.

These people just naturally assume their own positions relative to each other.
The fact that the prosecution got obliterated in the appeal tells us their case was never really ever on firm ground. So it's logical for Costagliola to want to recede to the background, when he has such a glittering array of showmen on his team jockeying for poll position.
Mignini wants to be up front (but sometimes, he just can't)
Maresca is worse, he wants to be a big crybaby and have all the lollies too.
Commodi volunteers to take the brunt of Steff's disgrace (while Mignini slips quietly to the rear)

The prosecution case veered from a farce to a disgrace, but no matter what the public facade that we saw was, Mignini, and only the wonderful Mignini can ever be at the very, very, very, front of this, and every show.
...except for the bits where Maresca acts like a noisy crybaby, and Commodi has to lie for Steff when her lies look way too bad for her to go on.

Mignini tells everyone he's the big boy, but Maresca's got the sulks about that, and he'll stop eating his food and make a big mess, too...

 

[christianahannah]

Here's a question: Has Costagliola actually said anything publicly about an appeal to the Supreme Court yet? I know that Mignini and Comodi have been seemingly taking every opportunity to appear on the media and shout about the certainty of an appeal. But I don't think it's their decision to take.

In fact, has Costagliola even said anything in public since the acquittals were announced? I can't recall him being quoted anywhere, but that's not necessarily to say that he didn't make some sort of statement. However, if he has said little or nothing - and seemingly nothing about an appeal - that would only add weight to the suggestion that Costagliola wants as little as possible to do with the prosecution meltdown in this case. And either way, it's extraordinary that the person who was the lead prosecutor in the appeal trial has not been at the forefront of prosecution comments and statments after Hellmann's verdict.

I haven't seen Costagliola's name mentioned (or quoted) in media articles concerning the acquittals, however, he wasn't mentioned or quoted abundantly during the appeal trial.

A good article from LaRepubblica today which touches on some of the points discussed here recently.

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2011/10/05/news/giudici-amanda-22733550/?ref=HREC1-1

 

[Diocletus]

No. A person wonders if the police did something to a person, only if a person accuses the police of doing something to him/her.

Oh. I must be more cynical than you. When I hear that an innocent person has made a false statement during a custodial interrogation, that does not make logical sense to me and I want to know what has happened to produce this result. Because the person is in custody, I immediately want to know what the cops have done.

To your point, though, she said that, among other things, that they hit her. I understand that you don't believe this, but isn't this consistent with Hellmann's finding that she was innocent of the murder?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Sounds as though even Hellman is now trying to make this seem like reasonable doubt, which is a shame, as he spoke with such authority at the verdict, saying that he could not comply with prosecution's request for life sentences, as the crimes were not committed. Now, look: Ignoring it will not make it go away, though:

Court President: "Amanda is innocent"
But now the truth "remains unsolved"
Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann calls for the respect of the sentence: "If I were the prosecutors would have done exactly the same thing: they had more than enough elements to investigate these two guys." But the British press continues to attack the Italian justice system

PERUGIA - "For now, Amanda Knox is absolutely innocent," said the President of the Assize Court of Appeal in Perugia, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann in an attempt to close the circle of controversy 1 two days after the ruling that acquitted 2 Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of murder against Meredith Kercher. "We could not keep her here in advance of the pending Supreme Court," he added with respect to return to the U.S. 3 of the American student. Even Attorney General John Galati and the public prosecutor of Perugia, in a joint statement, said they "respect" the Judgement of the Court after having "delayed publication of the sentence to" the assessments of the vertices of the judicial offices of Perugia. And so the yellow of the man who killed Meredith Kercher irrosolto likely to remain. "This will remain an unsolved truth. No one can say how the facts are," said even the president of the Court. "The trend is difficult to reconstruct. The only one who could tell - he added - is Guede. But he has only said that he always thought that (the crime scene , ) there were Amanda and Raffaele. But this does not mean that there were.

We will never know whether or not there were Amanda and Raffaele. " Vogler said: "If I were in the prosecutors would have done exactly the same thing: they had more than enough elements to investigate these two guys." "C ' is still a difference of roles - he said - the prosecutor does not bring upon himself the responsibility of the conviction and responsibility to send people to jail. We can not speak of responsibility pm, as there is complete diversity of roles between them and the judges "." The judge is not elected - he concluded - we must not respond to public opinion but to our conscience. " Twenty-four hours after the acquittal, the president also explained Claudio Pratillo Hellmann had not suffered absolutely no influence of the media. But the media has called the interference "excessive and improper" and above all able to "influence public opinion." "We pronounce the name of the Italian people - added Pratillo Hellmann - even in the name of those who cried shame, without having the slightest knowledge of the cards. If you do not know in detail all the cards, and here there were several, one can not express an opinion. "

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2011/10/05/news/giudici-amanda-22733550/?ref=HREC1-1

 

[truethat]

As you say at this point it's moot, and no good will come from 'slamming' those who still feel Sollecito and Knox were in some way involved. I hope you will believe me when I say that I am genuinely interested in understanding how people have come to be in your position.

I do not personally know anybody who would be capable of such hideous behavior, unless (or even if) there was extreme provocation. I'm sure there must be a few tortured souls out there who would do it, but what evidence is there that both Sollecito and Knox are in that club?

Do you think that the initial idea came to you before hearing about these things, or was it afterward? My hunch is that the idea formed in your mind as various details of the case came out, and that at some point it created a narrative which tied them all together. Unfortunately however, many of the reported 'facts' were not exactly accurate, so it's not surprising that your feelings on 'how it went down' don't match what we now know to be true.

What I find curious - and somewhat disturbing - is how many people are apparently unable to abandon an idea that was formed from false or incomplete information. Once the wrong idea takes hold, it then reinforces itself by searching for corroborating evidence, and rejecting anything that conflicts with it. For some reason the effect seems to be particularly strong in murder cases.

Perhaps it is actually instinctive behavior. Once the suspect is identified as being a liar and a sociopath, nothing she can say or do will convince people otherwise - thus they are inoculated against her wiles. This may have worked reasonably well in primitive societies, where interaction was face-to-face, and a perpetrator might unintentionally signal their guilt via body language or intimate lies. But in this modern world we have several layers of filtering and distortion before the signals get to us...

I actually used to thing RG did it alone. I saw that 48 hour Mystery show that showed her innocense and I thought it was true. Also my personal insticts are to go against the crowd. So when people were flipping out saying she was guilty that sort of mob frenzy always gives me pause. It annoys me that people just automaticallly get swept up in that thing.

I mean it is clear that she didn't understand Italian and was being interrogated for hours. So I do understand that she gave a false confession. I could see how that would happen.

The thing that gives me pause are all the lies. In watching that show Mystery 48 hours you could see throughout the cases things that show when a guilty person reveals themselves. It usually starts with their story not adding up. And her story doesn't add up.

As far as someone doing something so horrific, it happens all the time. Especially when drugs or alcohol are involved.

I don't see how she would make up details like going in the kitchen and covering her ears while her friend was murdered if SOMETHING didn't happen.


So while I don't think she actually murdered Meredith, I do think that she did something that caused her to react the way she did.


Some other issues, the break in was staged, so why would RG stage a break in? And that their cell phones were turned off during the time and that they said they watched a movie on his computer and it turned out not to be true.