Okay, this is getting ridiculous.
I'm not trying to dispute Knox's innocence, or the inhumane methods that the Italian police used during her interrogation. I don't know how you guys magically know that the police planted a false memory in Knox's mind, and she wasn't just accusing Lumumba so they'd let her get the **** out of there. I already said that by accusing Lumumba, Knox plainly demonstrated that she didn't have any knowledge of Guede, because there was no one else she could conceivably think of blaming.
That's why reading this
AELE link would have been especially helpful. You'll note that they detail each type of coerced confession, how to identify them, and how to avoid them. You'll also find
they broke every rule in the book. They could have produced a false statement from any of the coercion categories, but the
really interesting thing is that Amanda Knox wrote that note
to them with no expectation anyone else would ever see it, and it seeming probable she wanted to somehow improve her position and explain things,
which clearly shows evidence of false memory syndrome.
This is a contemporaneous account of her state of mind shortly after the statements, and to many people it makes her look like a lunatic, so why'd she write it that way? If she actually knew enough to falsely produce the symptoms in the note, how'd she succumb to it? If she was that familiar with police procedure and interrogation tactics how on earth could she fail to know that the only thing she should have said when they started in on her is 'get me a lawyer?'
All I'm trying to do is point out that she didn't confess to anything. And I'm sure there's a pretty, blue-eyed reason why people here seem to have a problem admitting that.
That's the problem. It's also the most obvious of four of the reasons I chose this sig. It might seem the most likely possibility, but is there another way for you to find out? Granted, dropping a forty-page paper in someone's lap can be seen as merely an annoying tactic, but that's not the reason I'm doing it. If you read that and know anything about the basic facts about the case you'll see that they broke basically every rule in the book--
especially the one they reiterate at least three times:
Page 427 said:
While this concept has been addressed frequently in this text, it is worth repeating again--at no time should an investigator attempt to persuade a suspect he is guilty of committing a crime he claims he doesn't remember committing. It is one thing to express high confidence in a suspect's guilt (which will not cause an innocent person to confess), but it's quite another to make statements designed to convince a suspect, who claims to have no recollection of committing the crime, that he must be guilty of the offense.
Absent these criteria, a defendant's claim of a coerced internalized confession should be viewed with extreme skepticism by the court. However, the ultimate test of the trustworthiness of any confession will be the degree and kind of corroboration included within the confession itself.
(emphasis mine)
One last thing to keep in mind: Let's say you're right, we're all entranced by those those pretty blue eyes...however how could that inherently mean we're wrong? Why do law enforcement sites offer literature that reiterate repeatedly that the one thing they should
never do is try to convince a person who claims they don't remember doing something that they did it? Why does it say the three crucial factors are: it has to be something the subject could imagine themselves doing, there must be something to account for memory loss, and that they had to lay the groundwork for it to be possible?
If you think on it, all three were present not peripherally but definitely. Remember the statements she signed don't have anything to do with her hacking away at anyone, she's just cowering in the kitchen, something one might expect a college girl 5'3" 120 lbs or so could have been doing in the event of extreme violence in the house by an older and larger man. The explanation for memory loss is covered nicely by their instance that she'd 'repressed memories' of the murder due to emotional trauma, which is woosville itself, but Amanda is a language student, not a psych student, and they show that crap on TV enough and it's a common misconception amongst many people that it's 'established science.' It's not at all, it's
very similar to what we're talking about--implanting false memories actually--a way that has lead to
numerous false accusations, my guess would be more than have been known to claim an internalized false confession, perhaps even by a wide margin.
The last one is they have to lay the groundwork, and then demand the subject must remember they did it. That's copiously covered as well, being as they not only told her they had 'hard evidence' of being at the scene, but that her new boyfriend, who'd seemed so nice and kind, had told police that she went out that night and even told police she'd asked him to lie for her (not what he said incidentally you can see it in that Mirror link with the Felice quote) what on earth is she supposed to think? Why would the cops lie to her? Why would Raffaele lie about her? She's just a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed college student that loves Italy, she has no reason to distrust authorities, and it would probably
make no sense to her that they would tell her these things if they weren't true, make those threats and treat her like vermin if they didn't have a good reason, right?
You can see her trying to work it out in the note. She might look like a lunatic or a
really bad liar at first glance, but consider her position: she has definite reinforcement encouraging her to believe she was there and 'repressed' her memory, she's imagined another scenario,and she's dead tired, stressed and confused by all the shouting in a language she doesn't speak more than the basics of at this point. Looks like she's also kinda scared by that and the hitting part--which they don't do on TV and might have been quite intimidating for a girl surrounded by 5-10 cops and completely at their mercy--and doesn't
really know what to think. If the cops have hard evidence then her real memory must be wrong, but that just doesn't seem to
feel right to her.
The crime here was not Amanda signing those two statements about what
could have happened, but the police taking them as absolute accusations (at least for the purpose of arresting Patrick then they trashed it basically and Mignini just made stuff up out of whole cloth for Matteini) and arresting anyone over trash like that when the person they've browbeaten into submission isn't sure of it.
I think they should be punished for it, whether you care or not that means more than Amanda's flashing blue eyes, it means the Bad Guys get theirs. That's how the movie should end!
