Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

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.

Mike, lemme guess, you didn't read that paper?

Lemme try something else. If the idea that someone might believe what police tell them in interrogations is 'armchair psychology,' how come a google search of internalized false confession returns so many papers from doctorates of psychology?

Incidentally, reading that AELE paper would have helped you with your confusion regarding why the distinction between 'confession' and 'accusation' is either irrelevant or actually supportive of Amanda's position in this regard. As I noted earlier, the basis of an internalized false confession is false memory syndrome. That's the phenomena where people can become convinced they have memories of things that didn't actually happen. If someone can become convinced that they personally experienced something that didn't happen to the point they'd admit to it despite the fact they might spend decades in prison for it or even an appointment with Dr. Sparks, don't you suppose it might be easier to convince them they merely saw something they didn't, especially when that might not leave them a crispy critter?

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

The real reason for that is because it didn't happen like that, and in fact for many people understanding what really did is crucial to realizing what occurred. I (truly!) understand that it is much easier to believe that innocentisti are just being overly generous to her regarding the interrogation, like she has to be some sort of saint, she can't have made a mistake. However that's not actually why I and others contest this point. There's simply too much evidence of coercion on every level, and a scenario which suggests that Amanda wasn't coerced into signing that statement becomes so bizarre in attempting to explain away the constant inconsistencies in the stories and actions of the main actors and the other relevant evidence it ends up looking like it came from the mind of Mignini or something.

Let me put it this way, what do you imagine happened that night in the Questura? Just a paragraph or two explaining the basic motivations of police and Amanda, and the rationale for the arrests. You see, whatever you come up with for Amanda, it still has to explain the fact that they then went out and solely on the basis of those 'vague and confused' statements, sent seven police cars to haul him out of his home while he was feeding his baby, interrogated him all day without a lawyer, then arrested and charged him with murder on no evidence and refused to release him for two weeks despite oodles of people coming forward within days of his arrest to proffer an alibi. The ruining of his business on the basis of it still being a 'crime scene' for literally months after he was released is gonna take some 'splaining too.

Then stop and think about this for a minute: if you (and the police post-hoc) can come up with the possibility that Amanda might have accused Patrick to take the heat off herself, doncha suppose that possibility might have occurred to them at the time as well? In fact, wouldn't it kinda make sense if police were trained to try to ensure that suspects weren't just pulling their legs if they said it wasn't them, it was actually someone else? There might even be techniques developed over hundreds of years to try to make sure that they don't just go out and arrest anyone some wicked little hip-wiggler blurted out when the screws got turned a little and her delicate little sensibilities were discomfited?

What might some of those things be? Let's see if we can think of a few obvious ones! Perhaps corroborating information might be one? You could talk to them and make them tell the same story over and over and see if they slipped? It kinda seems they know that one, what with them having Amanda in the interrogation room some 15-20 hours those four days, and having her with police answering questions or at the station waiting to for a total of 53 of the 89 hours between the arrival of the Postals and the arrest. How come they forgot that part before they went out and arrested Patrick? Another way might be to ensure it matches the other facts of the case as well, that the statement actually explains things in a rational manner. In fact, here's a naughty trick! The damned confession doesn't actually matter that much if you can get the evidence to convict them anyway, does it? So why not ask them for 'bonafides?' Reasons for police to believe that someone else did it if they're going to go out and arrest them anyway? How about a highly detailed account of what happened so that it can be cross-checked with other known facts about the case, make sure she gives facts you know are correct? We could call that something like 'corroborating,' couldn't we?

If some weaselly little lawyer tries sniveling about the backroom accommodations and using words so delicate-sounding they must be French ( ) like 'coercion' we just sneer at the obnoxious twerp 'we have the murder weapon, she told us how they did the break-in, we have the timeline down and cross-checks with the coroner's ToD and other indications, she gave us the info necessary to break the other two down into blubbering little blobs, and we now know about the invisible bloody footprints and she admitted to washing in the sink, so you can take this piece of paper and throw it in the Tiber because we're gonna lock up your girl for decades!'

That's why a real confession is a detailed account of the crime and when police say "...gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct..." there's a reason for that, notably that's the way it's really done.

So, what do you suppose Arturo di Felice was referring to when he said she buckled and made an admission of facts they knew to be correct?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli--My understanding is that the thing went like this: (i) the police interrogated and Knox made oral statements to them, (ii) the police typed something up, that they thought reflected what Knox had said, and these typed statements (1:45) and (5:45) implicated Knox, (iii) the typed statements were translated, orally, to Knox, and (iv) Knox signed them.

Did the police not know that before they asked Knox to sign the statements, that she should have a lawyer? Even assuming that Knox's oral statement was "spontaneous," surely, her signing of a document that the police had typed was not.

No, the timeline is the following:

Knox made oral statements during the questioning, at the presence of Anna Donnino, accusing Patrick Lumumba. In the first part of the interrogation she denied all police suspicions/allegations that she was lying and covering somebody. Then she was told that Sollecito had withdrawn from her alibi. When she was aksed about the sms message, and understood the police got focused because of its Italian wording, that they thought she was lying about it and thought she had met with someone that night (the unknown recipient of the msg), Knox suddenly accused Lumumba. Crying, covering her ears wth her hands, saying "he's bad" and said they went home together, they wanted to have fun, he wanted her and asaulted her in her room. The police stopped the questioning due to self-incriminating statement, as the qustioning shifted her status to that of a a formal suspect. She signed the minutes of this questioning at 01:45

Then she was given a chamomille tee.

At a time that we can roughly place about 3:00 (very approx.) Mignini came and told her about her status of formal suspect, told her about her rights, and told her that he would not interrogate her but if she wanted to provide them with information so to arrest Lumumba, she could make further statements.

Amanda released an oral statement that was not recorded but verbalized at the presence of the magistrate, the interpreter Anna Donnino and other officers. The statement was finished at 5:54 am and Amanda signed it.

Later in the morning, at about 8:00, Amanda asked for paper and a pen, she wrote herself a two pages memoriale which she gave to Rifa Ficarra saying "it's a gift". She later claimed she wrote this hand written note by her decision, voluntarily, and she gave it voluntarily to the police.

Two days later, on nov 8., Amanda appeared before GIP Claudia Matteini. Because the hand written statement was partly retracting and contradicting the previous statement, while still producing evidence against Patrick Lumumba and also against Raffaele Sollecito, she was asked if she wanted to answer questions by the judge. She decided not to answer. She also decided to not release further spontaneous statements to clarify the previous ones.

Amanda did not make any further statement - nor written nor oral - to clarify anything about her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba, she kept her silence for about 20 days until Guede was arrested.

Amanda was interrogated again on Dec 18., this time by the Public Minister. In this occasion, when she was asked questions about her false accusation of Lumumba, she burst in tears and was unable to answer, and pleaded her right not to answer.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree entirely.

However, I am bothered by the calunnia conviction. I really don't think Amanda deserves to be a "convicted criminal".

It seems to me the Italians view slander quite differently culturally than we in the US do. I was surprised Knox's parents were in Italy given they were charged with slandering the prosecutor. It's kind of an interesting side note to the whole affair.

 

[Diocletus]

The police stopped the questioning due to self-incriminating statement, as the qustioning shifted her status to that of a a formal suspect. She signed the minutes of this questioning at 01:45

Machiavelli--Since she was a formal suspect upon making the self-incriminating statement, why was she not provided a lawyer before she was asked to sign the "minutes" that the police drafted?

Surely a "suspect" is entitled to a lawyer in Italy? And, she was clearly a suspect when she made the oral statement, which was before she signed the police document. I suppose this is why the Supreme Court has ruled the 1:45 and 5:45 documents inadmissible.

But this raises a question for me: if the documents are inadmissible because the police caused Knox to sign them in derrogation of her right to counsel, then why should they be admissible for any kind of criminal charge against her? What kind of law is this where one has a right to counsel, but information created in violation of that right can nevertheless be used to incriminate the person? Of what use is this so-called right to counsel if it can be so easily trod upon and cast aside?

 

[Micromegas]

There's simply too much evidence of coercion on every level, and a scenario which suggests that Amanda wasn't coerced into signing that statement becomes so bizarre in attempting to explain away the constant inconsistencies in the stories and actions of the main actors and the other relevant evidence it ends up looking like it came from the mind of Mignini or something.

I never said Knox wasn't coerced into signing the statement. I've said plenty of times that I believe she's innocent, and the cops leaned hard on her. The fact that she implicated Lumumba and not Guede is persuasive evidence that she wasn't involved in Kercher's murder in any way.

The only thing I said about poor, blue-eyed Amanda is that, for whatever reason, she accused Lumumba of the murder. And you're the one making some semantic game out of this, trying to say that it wasn't a false accusation but a false confession.

Whatever. Let it go, okay?

-Mike

 

[bri1]

No, the timeline is the following:

Knox made oral statements during the questioning, at the presence of Anna Donnino, accusing Patrick Lumumba. In the first part of the interrogation she denied all police suspicions/allegations that she was lying and covering somebody. Then she was told that Sollecito had withdrawn from her alibi. When she was aksed about the sms message, and understood the police got focused because of its Italian wording, that they thought she was lying about it and thought she had met with someone that night (the unknown recipient of the msg), Knox suddenly accused Lumumba. Crying, covering her ears wth her hands, saying "he's bad" and said they went home together, they wanted to have fun, he wanted her and asaulted her in her room. The police stopped the questioning due to self-incriminating statement, as the qustioning shifted her status to that of a a formal suspect. She signed the minutes of this questioning at 01:45

Then she was given a chamomille tee.

At a time that we can roughly place about 3:00 (very approx.) Mignini came and told her about her status of formal suspect, told her about her rights, and told her that he would not interrogate her but if she wanted to provide them with information so to arrest Lumumba, she could make further statements.

Amanda released an oral statement that was not recorded but verbalized at the presence of the magistrate, the interpreter Anna Donnino and other officers. The statement was finished at 5:54 am and Amanda signed it.

Later in the morning, at about 8:00, Amanda asked for paper and a pen, she wrote herself a two pages memoriale which she gave to Rifa Ficarra saying "it's a gift". She later claimed she wrote this hand written note by her decision, voluntarily, and she gave it voluntarily to the police.

Two days later, on nov 8., Amanda appeared before GIP Claudia Matteini. Because the hand written statement was partly retracting and contradicting the previous statement, while still producing evidence against Patrick Lumumba and also against Raffaele Sollecito, she was asked if she wanted to answer questions by the judge. She decided not to answer. She also decided to not release further spontaneous statements to clarify the previous ones.

Amanda did not make any further statement - nor written nor oral - to clarify anything about her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba, she kept her silence for about 20 days until Guede was arrested.

Amanda was interrogated again on Dec 18., this time by the Public Minister. In this occasion, when she was asked questions about her false accusation of Lumumba, she burst in tears and was unable to answer, and pleaded her right not to answer.

Um, you can't state 'this is definitely the timeline'. You can state 'this is the timeline if police are to be believed'. I think Amanda's track record (even if you counted the 'slander') on honesty is better than the cops'. The number of lies told by the police to the public who pay their salaries is a lot higher than Amanda's one alleged lie.
When in your timeline does Amanda ask if she should have a lawyer present?
Why was the second part of the interrogation not recorded, if Amanda had been informed she was a suspect?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This thread was merged with another so I just want to note that post #10665 was in direct response to post #10615 by Mushy. One of the drawbacks of merging threads is some posts appear out of context.

 

[NoahFence]

NG is basically a self-serving idiot, blood-thirsty, and out for ratings. I wish she would vanish.

As long as America keeps lapping up this crap, it won't happen. Amanda Knox was the lead story on....

Access Hollywood.

That's all that really needs to be said.

 

[komponisto]

Hellmann's interesting comments today (which in my view he should not have made) implied that he was critical of the various judges who preceded him (chiefly Matteini and Massei), rather than prosecutors. He also said that in his view Knox and Sollecito were correctly arrested initially.

What he said was that they were correctly "investigated" (the word used was indagati). I'm not sure what this means, although he also said he would have done "the same thing" as the prosecutors, which I find to be a very perplexing remark.

In any case, his remarks (which I agree were probably not exactly appropriate) provide yet more support for the proposition that this will be a 530.2 acquittal.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

we are all agreed, I guess

I just want to know why supposedly objective observers have a hard time admitting that Knox made a false accusation.

-Mike

Micromegas,

Again, check your premises. As far as I can recall, I haven't ever disputed that Ms. Knox made a false accusation. I have disputed many aspects of her false accusation, including those discussed today. For example, I agree that the police did not inform Ms. Knox that she was expected to be there that night, but Dr. Giobbi's testimony leads to the conclusion that had she not shown up, she would have been called in. This is in distinction to what Fiona wrote.
EDT
I am happy to let this go if we can bury the "blue eyed Amanda" stuff.

 

[Antony]

Yeah, we do. The police leaned on her hard for a long time. They wore her down, and for whatever reason she signed a statement that accused Lumumba of murdering Kercher.

No one has to make excuses for what Knox did. I'm of the opinion she was innocent of the murder. I believe the interrogation was inhumane and irresponsible. As far as the legal status of the slander case, I neither know nor care.

I just want to know why supposedly objective observers have a hard time admitting that Knox made a false accusation.

Because there's no evidence that she made the accusation, other than what the police say. Her so-called "gift statement" is ambiguous at best, and the other 2 statements (apart from being inadmissible as evidence), weren't they typed up in Italian and so weren't even Amanda's own words? If you accept that the interrogation was "inhumane and irresponsible", why do you attach any blame to her at all?

I personally find the sentence of 3 years for the alleged slander, quite vicious and unjust. Amanda's false accusation supposedly resulted in Patrick being locked up for 2 weeks; yet all the police and others who falsely accused Amanda and Raffaele, leading to them losing 4 years of their lives, it seems enjoy complete impunity.

 

[pipelineaudio]

The Sarah Scazzi murder case, cousin Sabrina Masseri and her Mom charged with murder, about 20 others charged with various and sundry crimes related to the case.

Thanks! Any really good sites dedicated to that one?

 

[madrigal]

There has been much speculation about the shower taken by Amanda prior to getting in touch with the police. Amanda herself admitted that the bathroom had spatters of blood so what exactly is the point of trying to prove otherwise.

Housemate Filomena Romanelli, told the Perugia court...

“She told me, ‘It’s very odd. I’ve just come back to the house and the door is open. I had a shower but there’s blood everywhere . . . Meredith is nowhere to be seen. Oh God, maybe something’s happened to her, something tragic.’

“I thought it was odd that she’d had a shower when there was blood all over the place,” she told the chief prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, during cross-examination. “I really don’t think that’s normal.”

Police forensic experts later found numerous traces of blood in the bathroom including a 10in-long smear on the floor.

 

[komponisto]

Dr. Giobbi

Micromegas,

Again, check your premises. As far as I can recall, I haven't ever disputed that Ms. Knox made a false accusation. I have disputed many aspects of her false accusation, including those discussed today. For example, I agree that the police did not inform Ms. Knox that she was expected to be there that night, but Dr. Giobbi's testimony leads to the conclusion that had she not shown up, she would have been called in. This is in distinction to what Fiona wrote.
EDT
I am happy to let this go if we can bury the "blue eyed Amanda" stuff.

Speaking of him, do you suppose that Amanda's picture has been removed from the "wall of shame" at his unit's office in Rome? If not, it really will be a wall of shame.

 

[bri1]

I never said Knox wasn't coerced into signing the statement. I've said plenty of times that I believe she's innocent, and the cops leaned hard on her. The fact that she implicated Lumumba and not Guede is persuasive evidence that she wasn't involved in Kercher's murder in any way.

The only thing I said about poor, blue-eyed Amanda is that, for whatever reason, she accused Lumumba of the murder. And you're the one making some semantic game out of this, trying to say that it wasn't a false accusation but a false confession.

Whatever. Let it go, okay?

-Mike

Mike, sorry I know you want to move on from this discussion, but I just wanted to comment quickly. You obviously don't have to read or respond if you don't want!
You say 'she accused Lumumba' but there are serious problems with this statement (even though exactly the same statement has been made numerous times by police, prosecution etc, in the case).
There's two problems that stem from the wording of the statements:
a) They don't sound like words Amanda would have spoken as someone not involved in law enforcement, or as someone with only a rudimentary grasp of italian.
b) The statements tend to be littered with phrases like 'I see him in my mind', 'I imagined' and words like 'vision' etc etc.

I think it's much more accurate to say that Amanda signed statements that appeared to implicate Lumumba, rather than Amanda accused Lumumba. I don't think this is a quibbly / semantic point.
Also, when X is a crime and / or morally wrong, to say Amanda did X is to imply that the basic psychological 'requirement' for doing X was met.
Let me use an example. Say Barney shoots Betty and a whole room full of people see him do it. Just based on these facts, we can't say Barney murdered Betty. To know whether Barney murdered Betty, we have to know Barney's state of mind.
If Barney was coerced, then even though he performed the physical action (and he is responsibile in the most basic, physical sense), his psychological state was not such that he committed the crime, and he bears no moral or legal responsibility.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Maresca to be binned?

Stephanie Kercher indicates that it is possible that they might instruct their own solicitor to represent them in the future in a bid to get justice for Miss Kercher.

She said:

''We have not got a solicitor in this country at the moment. It is a possibility as there are other routes the family may now take. We are just trying to find the truth."


Maresca could yet be binned.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8803239/Amanda-Knox-verdict-latest.html

 

[bri1]

There has been much speculation about the shower taken by Amanda prior to getting in touch with the police. Amanda herself admitted that the bathroom had spatters of blood so what exactly is the point of trying to prove otherwise.

Housemate Filomena Romanelli, told the Perugia court...

“She told me, ‘It’s very odd. I’ve just come back to the house and the door is open. I had a shower but there’s blood everywhere . . . Meredith is nowhere to be seen. Oh God, maybe something’s happened to her, something tragic.’

“I thought it was odd that she’d had a shower when there was blood all over the place,” she told the chief prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, during cross-examination. “I really don’t think that’s normal.”

Police forensic experts later found numerous traces of blood in the bathroom including a 10in-long smear on the floor.

Yes. There was blood in the bathroom. Amanda saw it.
Of course it means nothing, as the Postal Police weren't even worried enough about the entire situation (blood and all) to break down Meredith's door.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Stephanie Kercher indicates that it is possible that they might instruct their own solicitor to represent them in the future in a bid to get justice for Miss Kercher.

She said:

''We have not got a solicitor in this country at the moment. It is a possibility as there are other routes the family may now take. We are just trying to find the truth."


Maresca could yet be binned.

I knew it; I predicted it. He may even be sued.

 

[Paninaro]

Knox suddenly accused Lumumba.

Hypothetically speaking, Machiavelli.

If the police lie to a suspect and say that they have strong evidence that she and another man are involved in a murder; they are putting pressure on her to confess to this and they are skillfully leading her in that direction - it being the main focus of the interrogation, instead of trying to find out what really happened: Do you consider this good police work and a good thing in general?

And if this results in a false confession and a false accusation of an innocent man, is this the moral responsibility of the police, how started the lying or of the innocent suspect who has no experience at all of police interrogation, while the police are supposed to be experts in the field and conducting themselves according to a strict ethical code?

You don't have to agree that this happened in this case, but can you see a hypothetical danger in conducting police work in that way?

 

[Micromegas]

Because there's no evidence that she made the accusation, other than what the police say. Her so-called "gift statement" is ambiguous at best, and the other 2 statements (apart from being inadmissible as evidence), weren't they typed up in Italian and so weren't even Amanda's own words? If you accept that the interrogation was "inhumane and irresponsible", why do you attach any blame to her at all?

She signed the statement. And the note she wrote to police the next day made it clear that (as davefoc pointed out) she quite understandably regretted implicating Lumumba.

For the millionth time, I'm not saying that means she was guilty. I think Knox was innocent of Kercher's murder. I'm just opposed to the way people infantilize Knox, as if there could have been no other conceivable outcome for that interrogation than her signing a statement accusing an innocent man of Kercher's murder. Obviously she could have accused Guede, which would have been much more in keeping with the prosecution's theory that Knox and Sollecito were only trying to cover up their involvement. But just when you figure she would have ratted on Guede, she accused Lumumba.

In addition, she could have signed a false confession to the murder. Contrary to what some people here would have you believe, that would entail signing a statement confessing that she had murdered Kercher. That's not what she did.

-Mike