Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

I don't follow your logic here. If you pay little attention at what the cops say how can you claim they did not lie? If you admit that Amanda was hit as a real possibility and you also know the cops denied this, how can you continue to maintain this position? Your position is right only if you are wrong?

I say that they did not lie, but they might have hit Amanda, because I am based on what the suspect has claimed. It is because of Knox's word, not the police's words. I consider the possibility that they might have hit her, because she claimed that immediately. I accept this claim as an evidence that there is a possibility, a doubt, that this could be true.
But there is no claim of false information reported in the interrogation. There is actually no claim of anything else that could be called misconduct. And above all, there is no claim of anything that could explain why she committed a calunnia with these specific features (statment, writtent note, refuse to speak before preliminary investigation, silence for weeks, failure to answer again in interview, failure to explain before second preliminary judge etc).

 

[RoseMontague]

What you ought to see is simply them explaining normal police procedure. If they didn't do it like that, then what happened? What's your explanation for them being so easily 'fooled' by her 'lies?' Did she cast a spell on them? Did she wiggle her hips?

But I am not the judge of police forces. I am not there to establish whether their relation to the public is bad or good. Or maybe I may judge it independently, but not put it in relation to evidence on Knox and Sollecito. The fact that they have PR problems in explaining what they do is not a thing that makes a suspect become innocent.

What? I believe Kaosium's question was: What's your explanation for them being so easily 'fooled' by her 'lies'?

 

[Ammonitida]

Indeed they do. The evidence is maybe not usable to demonstrate the guilt of someone. But the quality of the evidence is not what makes a difference. It is enough if it is just false information containing an element of evidence.
Stating that you don't know if a man entered your house and raped and murdered your roommate, or writing that you remember having seen blood on someone's hands to police investigating a murder, it is a false testimony about others, which implicates other people. Not enough to convict other people, but enough to orient the investigation on them, to investigate them and at least to verify the path. Even if the indication is immediately discharged as not credible or not usable, yet it is a false indication.

She made it very clear that those memories were very unreliable, even claiming that her memory of being with Sollecito that night seemed more real to her (because it was obviously the truth as confirmed by Hellman with his 530.1 acquittal) -- a clear indication that these memories were false. So you're wrong. Not "false evidence against somebody" but rather hard evidence to support her account of being physically and verbally abused for MANY HOURS at the hands of Perugia authorities (which had the affect of inducing these dream-like memories). The police bungled when they used her dreams as "evidence" to arrest an innocent man. Mignini and its minions are entirely to blame for what happened to Lumumba. It's a shame that Hellman didn't see it that way, but then he was probably just allowing the "prosecution" to save face.

 

[RoseMontague]

I say that they did not lie, but they might have hit Amanda, because I am based on what the suspect has claimed. It is because of Knox's word, not the police's words. I consider the possibility that they might have hit her, because she claimed that immediately. I accept this claim as an evidence that there is a possibility, a doubt, that this could be true.
But there is no claim of false information reported in the interrogation. There is actually no claim of anything else that could be called misconduct. And above all, there is no claim of anything that could explain why she committed a calunnia with these specific features (statment, writtent note, refuse to speak before preliminary investigation, silence for weeks, failure to answer again in interview, failure to explain before second preliminary judge etc).

There is no failure here, she has the right not to answer and was simply exercising her rights under the advice of her lawyers. Seeing how easily her words were misunderstood, I think she made the right decision. Did the lawyers make a statement on her behalf, that she maintained her innocence?

 

[Kaosium]

Any credible source for that claim?

Cite please.

He's starting the time of the 'interrogation' at when the interpreter, Anna Domino, got there according to testimony. However I have a recollection that testimony didn't match some sort of record at the time, but I couldn't find what record that might be or where I read it. I think the place I read it got erased...

I start it at shortly after 10:30 when she's on the phone with Filomena and she cuts her off as they approach to talk to her. However it is also true that Amanda testified they didn't get nasty with her for a while, it was the usual questions at the start. All part of the process, wear her down, find 'lies' to exploit. It doesn't matter all that much, they were at the end of a 89 hour period in which she'd been with them for 53 hours, it wasn't likely to take too much more to break her down and get what they wanted.

 

[RoseMontague]

I say that they did not lie, but they might have hit Amanda, because I am based on what the suspect has claimed. It is because of Knox's word, not the police's words. I consider the possibility that they might have hit her, because she claimed that immediately. I accept this claim as an evidence that there is a possibility, a doubt, that this could be true.
But there is no claim of false information reported in the interrogation. There is actually no claim of anything else that could be called misconduct. And above all, there is no claim of anything that could explain why she committed a calunnia with these specific features (statment, writtent note, refuse to speak before preliminary investigation, silence for weeks, failure to answer again in interview, failure to explain before second preliminary judge etc).

ETA,
I believe she said that the cops said things would go worse for her if she had a lawyer.

 

[Machiavelli]

As has been proven by several studies and I think posted here many times, when lies are used to obtain "statements" those statements are often likely to be false.

Well if you release a false account of facts to a magistrate and an intepreter, without any question, after a chamomille tee; then you write on a paper, yourself by your initiative, another false story and you give it voluntarily to authorities; then you decide not to change your position before judges and then refuse to comment for weeks, and so on, well, I think in that case you won't be able to blame someone else.

 

[Machiavelli]

ETA,
I believe she said that the cops said things would go worse for her if she had a lawyer.

Which, in a way, this is true. Because they would have to arrest her.
They told her that if she refused to testify and insisted for having assistence of a lawyer, they would have to declare her a formal suspect.
Which on a sexual murder investigation means be taken into custody.
Recall, only a formal suspect can be assisted by a lawyer during questioning and refuse to answer.

 

[RoseMontague]

Well if you release a false account of facts to a magistrate and an intepreter, without any question, after a chamomille tee; then you write on a paper, yourself by your initiative, another false story and you give it voluntarily to authorities; then you decide not to change your position before judges and then refuse to comment for weeks, and so on, well, I think in that case you won't be able to blame someone else.

You mean if you write a confused and detail lacking recount of a poorly remembered dream and then explain even further that you were confused and you don't know who the killer was but you were at Raffaele's place, then of course you are able to blame someone else.

 

[RoseMontague]

Which, in a way, this is true. Because they would have to arrest her.
They told her that if she refused to testify and insisted for having assistence of a lawyer, they would have to declare her a formal suspect.
Which on a sexual murder investigation means be taken into custody.
Recall, only a formal suspect can be assisted by a lawyer during questioning and refuse to answer.

No, this is misconduct.

 

[Steft50]

You mean if you write a confused and detail lacking recount of a poorly remembered dream and then explain even further that you were confused and you don't know who the killer was but you were at Raffaele's place, then of course you are able to blame someone else.

Thank you Rose, stating it better than I am able to. I am going to add again, when the police/prosecution set out to obtain information using lies, they will often get lies in return.

 

[Machiavelli]

She made it very clear that those memories were very unreliable, even claiming that her memory of being with Sollecito that night seemed more real to her (because it was obviously the truth as confirmed by Hellman with his 530.1 acquittal) -- a clear indication that these memories were false. .....

She stated that she was sincere when she had these memories, that she actualy had these memories. And that the truth was that she didn't know what the truth was.
This is not a clear indication to distinguish what is false from what is true. This means that both could be true. And this is eviedence against Lumumba. And it is false: she is lying when she says she had these memories. She is not credble.
To say that you have a memory that you think is unreliable, is not the same thing as to say you do't have such memory.
To say your account and report of fact is not usable, is not the same thing as declare it was false and replace it with the true account of facts.
I am really stunned that people attempt to defend a witness who give two versions at the same time and thinks about what "seems more real".
Either you give evidence that the witness had mental issues that lasted for a while, or you convict him/her.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, this is misconduct.

Demonstrate it. Articulate it; law violated. Judge's decision. You're welcome.

 

[Machiavelli]

You mean if you write a confused and detail lacking recount of a poorly remembered dream and then explain even further that you were confused and you don't know who the killer was but you were at Raffaele's place, then of course you are able to blame someone else.

Even a recount where you write, about your memory, that the only truth is you don't know what is the truth?

 

[RoseMontague]

Even a recount where you write, about your memory, that the only truth is you don't know what is the truth?

Yes, the not knowing the truth part is pretty clear.

 

[Ammonitida]

I don't understand the point, why you think this can have any meaning.

You call an hypothesis, the formulizing of a generic phrase, and I don't know: neither if the phrase was ever told, how you became sure about the stating of such phrase by the police or about the claim; nor why should it be considered malicious (note that in Italian the term "hard evidence" does not exist); nor how a claim of "hard evidence" could make sense (Amanda admitted of having been in the cottage); nor I can understand why you think should it be taken by the interlocutor as generic (anyone would ask "what evidence?") and not unfold; also consider that the information would even be factually true: there was, for example, a blood drop of Amanda's blood on the faucet that she claims was not there the evening before, there was a cigarette butt, there was an obvious evidence of cleanup and staging;

The staged break in, for example, is "hard evidece" against Amanda. In my opinion, the clean bathroom floor is hard evidence against Amanda.
If I had found this murder scene, I could have told Knox "I found hard evidence against you", and that won't be a lie, because this is what I think. So if you bring in a generic assessment like that, that's not something you can directly qualify as false information given maliciously.

None of that is evidence against Amanda. No evidence was found in Filomena's room that could link her to the real break-in by Rudy Guede. There was never any evidence of a clean-up in the bathroom imo and even if there was that doesn't necessarily implicate Amanda (Remember, this was all before the luminol prints surfaced). So what evidence could the cops be talking about here? What evidence placed her at the crime scene?

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, the not knowing the truth part is pretty clear.

And do you believe it?

Do you believe she doesn't know whether Lumumba entered her house and raped and killed her roommate while she was there?

 

[RoseMontague]

Demonstrate it. Articulate it; law violated. Judge's decision. You're welcome.

Nope. I can see that you think it is OK that the cops tell somebody things will go harder for them with a lawyer. This is just common sense stuff. Not only was it a lie, in this case I believe it is also one that turned out to be false information, and very bad legal advice, in addition of being an example of police misconduct.

 

[RoseMontague]

And do you believe it?

Do you believe she doesn't know whether Lumumba entered her house and raped and killed her roommate while she was there?

I believe she trusted the cops to tell the truth at that time and was confused, scared, and frightened. She was hit on the head, tag teamed by numerous cops, in a foreign country, and told she was going to jail if she did not make an admission the cops were pushing for.

 

[Malkmus]

She stated that she was sincere when she had these memories, that she actualy had these memories. And that the truth was that she didn't know what the truth was.
This is not a clear indication to distinguish what is false from what is true. This means that both could be true. And this is eviedence against Lumumba. And it is false: she is lying when she says she had these memories. She is not credble.
To say that you have a memory that you think is unreliable, is not the same thing as to say you do't have such memory.
To say your account and report of fact is not usable, is not the same thing as declare it was false and replace it with the true account of facts.
I am really stunned that people attempt to defend a witness who give two versions at the same time and thinks about what "seems more real".
Either you give evidence that the witness had mental issues that lasted for a while, or you convict him/her.

Here is the note in a nutshell:

She recounts what she did that night - no mention of Patrick or the murder; then she says this seems more real than the statements she signed for the police; and lastly, implies that the police's assumption that Patrick is guilty could be true, but gives no reason that he could be.