Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Ammonitida]

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.

I think we can distinguish. Her memories with Raff seem much clearer -- containing a lot more detail as one would expect from a recent, real memory. She even stresses that her memories with Raff seem more real. Contrast that with her "memories" of Lumumba which consist entirely of "blurred images" and "flashes", vague and little detail -- highly suggestive of a false memory. Also factor in the duress she experienced while telling these vague memories. They were not given freely but after hours of coercion. These are all clues as to which version is the truth.

This means that both could be true. And this is eviedence against Lumumba.

It should not have been considered evidence against Lumumba, at least not good enough evidence to go barging into his home and arresting him. She stressed many times that her memory of Lumumba could not be trusted. There were strong clues that it was false. The memory should have been treated very skeptically which is not what happened here.

And it is false: she is lying when she says she had these memories. She is not credble."

There is no convincing evidence that she told any malicious lie. None. It is obvious from her handwritten note that she believed there could be some truth to her memory of Lumumba. That does not make her a liar, but a confused woman who was still suffering from her ordeal at the hands of the cops who had physically and verbally abused her during the interrogation.

Either you give evidence that the witness had mental issues that lasted for a while, or you convict him/her.

It is a fact that abusive interrogations can induce false accusations/confessions and we have strong evidence that Amanda suffered through such an interrogation. Her handwritten note alleges physical abuse which is illegal under Italian law. Since her note was addressed to the Perugia authorities and not to the media or defense lawyers, this lends credibility to her account of being physically assaulted as it would be foolish to lie about the cops under these circumstances. So if the physical abuse is true which it very likely is considering the circumstances, then all the other things she said are probably true as well, such as being repeatedly YELLED at and called a "stupid liar". Plus we have the undisputed account of the translator suggesting to Amanda that she could have "repressed" the memories of the murder all the while she is being yelled at, assaulted, threatened with 30 years of prison, and told that they have hard evidence of her involvement. This is recipe for an internalized false accusation/confession.

 

[Grinder]

Question for Mach

Someone else brought up the question of the police interrogation of Patrick, specifically was there a tape of it.

Question for Mach - was he an official suspect after being arrested and brought in? If so, shouldn't he be allowed an attorney and have his interrogation taped?

I fired Foxy Knoxy for hitting on customers: Patrick Lumumba reveals why he was framed over Meredith's murder

By ANTONIA HOYLE

HERE

_____________________________

I'm surprised that the audio tapes for this interview haven't surfaced. The interview was conducted in Perugia with Patrick's girlfriend and child present. In the interview, Patrick details the manner in which he was physically molested by the same cops that Amanda says molested her. Later, Patrick claimed that he was misquoted by Antonia Hoyle concerning the use of force. Ironically, Patrick blamed Amanda's hatred toward him as the cause of her accusation, though Amanda ---later---blamed this same use of force as the cause of her accusation against Patrick.

I see that Antonia still works as a journalist, HERE, specializing still in interviews. And she says that her policy is to permit the interviewee to review the report before it's published. Antonia said, on Twitter, that she followed the last day of the APPEAL court proceedings (October 3rd) and she found the verdict incredible, "Oh my GOD I don't believe it." (HERE) Hmmm. If she comes to understand that Amanda's original conviction was a miscarriage of justice.......will those audio tapes be released? Whether or not the tapes could be used in any future court proceedings it would be interesting to listen to Patrick describe how the Perugian cops resorted to violence against him. The same cops, the same day, Amanda says the cops molested her.

///

 

[Grinder]

Mary, given what an important element lying about the police is in Italy how could Patrick not sue the papers et al.

I can't think of why he wouldn't at a minimum file the charges even if he couldn't afford the full suit.

I meant to question whether the interview ever took place.



The article has always sounded made up to me. The first part is in service to the prosecution's story of jealousy and rivalry between Amanda and Meredith and is preposterous. The second part is just for sensation.

Patrick didn't speak much English at the time, yet they attribute this long, descriptive, conversational monologue to him. It's published only a few days after his release; I can't believe his lawyer would allow him to take an interview with the tabloid of tabloids, or to say anything about how he had been treated by the police.

 

[Grinder]

So, in closing,
can someone please tell The 411 at PMF
that Raffaele Sollecito's dear Mother died from a cerebral hemorrhage.
.

No way Mikey - you try it. I'm not going there.

 

[Diocletus]

Someone else brought up the question of the police interrogation of Patrick, specifically was there a tape of it.

Question for Mach - was he an official suspect after being arrested and brought in? If so, shouldn't he be allowed an attorney and have his interrogation taped?

Yeah. Good point. Didn't they bust into his house and drag his ass out? Where I come from, that's called an "arrest".

Maybe Machiavelli can clarify whether in Perugia, when the cops bust into your house and drag your ass out, you are still considered just a "witness." LOL.

Oh, but I forgot! The police are allowed to deny you your right to a lawyer for 48 hours while they lie to you, harrass you, and beat your ass. So, I guess everything was "legal".

 

[CDHost]

You are not answering.
Yes or no.
She had memories, or she had not, memories of Patrick killing Meredith.
She "trusted the cops" about where she was few nights before. You are seriously saying this? You think her basic cognitive functions failed?

Lets turn this around...

Yes or no.
Those Iraqi detainees that lied about their involvement in Al-Qaeda. Did they or did they not have memories of having met with and taking actions on behalf of Al-Qaeda like passing them intel? When they say the information came from US military intelligence are they lying? Do you think her basic cognitive functions failed?

My answer to the last question is "yes". People have a social construction of reality. Brainwashing works.

 

[Dan O.]

Then Hoyle would remain a proven liar, as Machiavelli would put it, since Lumumba categorically denies to have claimed he was beaten by the police.

I would expect Machiavelli to get that wrong but what is your excuse?

Hoyle is accused of lying by Patrick, nothing more. Without further information to determine the facts, nothing is proven.

But perhaps a British journalist doesn't have to worry about credibility at all?

Are you confused? We are talking about the Daily Mail. Credibility isn't part of the picture.

 

[Dan O.]

Does anyone know f the police checked Patrick's phone to see if the text "don't bother coming in. It's not busy" was on it?

This has probably been answered long ago. IIRC by the time they arrested Patrick his phone had been switched out. I fact they had a ping near the cottage from his previous phone. The phone stuff was one of the reasons they kept him for two weeks.

In the Perugia Shock interview of Patrick that I posted just a few pages back, Patrick claims the reason he switched the sim on his phone is because Vodaphone doesn't have coverage of his bar. He says that he keeps the other sim always at the bar. This would be verifiable by simply checking the past phone records for Patrick.

As for stored texts, these can either be stored on the sim or stored in the phone. Some phones don't save outgoing texts by default. They could be deleted automatically after a fixed time or manually deleted. Even if the text was still there, it wouldn't support ILE's theory of the crime so there is no reason for them to have saved it.

 

[Fine]

Update on the Sarah Scazzi murder case.

Sabrina: "I feel like Amanda Knox." (HERE and HERE)

///

 

[Katody Matrass]

In the Perugia Shock interview of Patrick that I posted just a few pages back, Patrick claims the reason he switched the sim on his phone is because Vodaphone doesn't have coverage of his bar. He says that he keeps the other sim always at the bar. This would be verifiable by simply checking the past phone records for Patrick.

In the grounds for jailing Lumumba Matteini cited changing of IMEI number = actual swap of phone device, not the sim card. He still used the same phone number.

Interestingly the IMEI of Lumumba's new phone differs only by one digit out of 15 (!). I'm not an expert but it seems improbable that he gets a new phone and by some astronomical coincidence it has almost the same IMEI. I think it is not impossible that the cops misread the phone logs to get a significant advantage for the hearing in front of Matteini.

 

[RoseMontague]

Update on the Sarah Scazzi murder case.

Sabrina: "I feel like Amanda Knox." (HERE)

///

Thanks Fine, just a matter of time that Sabrina herself makes the comparison, one that we have made for a long time.

It appears from the article that the SC ruled that the preventive detention of Sabrina and Cosima has no basis or evidence on the murder and kidnapping charge. It seems to imply they are only still in jail due to the hiding of the corpse. Are they keeping them in there so they won't hide any more stray corpses? Maybe I am reading this one wrong.

It does seem to be a good move on the part of Sabrina's lawyers to ask for a change in venue. When your own town joins in a civil suit against you, this should make for an easy decision for the High Court (using just the common sense approach, of course).

 

[spartacus]

Thanks Fine, just a matter of time that Sabrina herself makes the comparison, one that we have made for a long time.

It appears from the article that the SC ruled that the preventive detention of Sabrina and Cosima has no basis or evidence on the murder and kidnapping charge. It seems to imply they are only still in jail due to the hiding of the corpse. Are they keeping them in there so they won't hide any more stray corpses? Maybe I am reading this one wrong.

It does seem to be a good move on the part of Sabrina's lawyers to ask for a change in venue. When your own town joins in a civil suit against you, this should make for an easy decision for the High Cort (using just the common sense approach, of course).

I think this case needs a wikipedia entry.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Some words of truth about wannabe journalist Nadeau and her sleazy sponsor:

The Daily Beast and Amanda Knox’s Trial By Media

 

[Fine]

Thanks Fine, just a matter of time that Sabrina herself makes the comparison, one that we have made for a long time.

It appears from the article that the SC ruled that the preventive detention of Sabrina and Cosima has no basis or evidence on the murder and kidnapping charge. It seems to imply they are only still in jail due to the hiding of the corpse. Are they keeping them in there so they won't hide any more stray corpses? Maybe I am reading this one wrong.

It does seem to be a good move on the part of Sabrina's lawyers to ask for a change in venue. When your own town joins in a civil suit against you, this should make for an easy decision for the High Cort (using just the common sense approach, of course).

_______________

Rose,

Well, I'm not sure what the legal status is of Sabrina and her mother, except that it appears the case against them is dissolving. They are still in prison and it seems another court hearing is required for them to be released....and, then, charged with what?

Another criminal mastermind released on a "technicality"?

///

 

[Teddy2007]

Thanks Fine, just a matter of time that Sabrina herself makes the comparison, one that we have made for a long time.

It appears from the article that the SC ruled that the preventive detention of Sabrina and Cosima has no basis or evidence on the murder and kidnapping charge. It seems to imply they are only still in jail due to the hiding of the corpse. Are they keeping them in there so they won't hide any more stray corpses? Maybe I am reading this one wrong.

It does seem to be a good move on the part of Sabrina's lawyers to ask for a change in venue. When your own town joins in a civil suit against you, this should make for an easy decision for the High Court (using just the common sense approach, of course).

In the Sara Scazzi case we now have 3 people to be charged with hiding a dead body, but no murderer!

 

[RoseMontague]

Some words of truth about wannabe journalist Nadeau and her sleazy sponsor:

The Daily Beast and Amanda Knox’s Trial By Media

I would have asked her if she had found the real killers yet.

I noticed it says the new e-book version will have an asterisk. My question is if it will still have the bleach receipt? Maybe she could also include those interviews with dozens of forensic scientists on the mixed-blood issue.

 

[RoseMontague]

In the Sara Scazzi case we now have 3 people to be charged with hiding a dead body, but no murderer!

I think they are still charged, but it is becoming doubtful that they will keep them in jail while they are continuing to investigate. So far they have basically tapped the phones of the entire town and charged about 20 people in connection to this case. The main evidence against them is a dream of a florist, it seems (no kidding) and a pure sexist nonsense of a coroner's report that was linked to in the Italian wiki entry.

 

[Machiavelli]

Lets turn this around...

Yes or no.
Those Iraqi detainees that lied about their involvement in Al-Qaeda. Did they or did they not have memories of having met with and taking actions on behalf of Al-Qaeda like passing them intel? When they say the information came from US military intelligence are they lying? Do you think her basic cognitive functions failed?

My answer to the last question is "yes". People have a social construction of reality. Brainwashing works.

I cannot follow the comparison because I don't know the cases you address.
But I disagree on the latter statement: perception of reality cannot be considered a social activity.
Brainwashing may work, sometimes, but not in two hours, not with the methods known in this case, and not with the symptoms manifested by Amanda. And, just like DNA contamination, failure of cognitive functions is unfrequent and peculiar and evidence of the event must be given by who makes this claim. There must be some early claim of a state of mental confusion by the defence, an indication or a call for medical control made at the time.

 

[Dan O.]

In the grounds for jailing Lumumba Matteini cited changing of IMEI number = actual swap of phone device, not the sim card. He still used the same phone number.

Interestingly the IMEI of Lumumba's new phone differs only by one digit out of 15 (!). I'm not an expert but it seems improbable that he gets a new phone and by some astronomical coincidence it has almost the same IMEI. I think it is not impossible that the cops misread the phone logs to get a significant advantage for the hearing in front of Matteini.

My earlier thought was that Patrick had two phones purchased and registered at the same time. In Europe, the sim is the phone plan. The actual phone is simply an interface to that plan and the users will often replace or upgrade phones while kipping the same sim. It's conceivable that when Patrick is talking about the sim he leaves at the bar it includes the phone that the sim is in. the phone Patrick leaves at the bar may simply have a better antenna that works in the marginal location.

 

[Machiavelli]

1. Glad we agree that the 1:45 statement is no basis for criminal slander liability due to the real possibility that the cops hit the witness.

We don't agree at all on this.

The sincle events (01:45 interrogation, 05:54 statemet, etc) must not be assessed one by one. Conclusions about the 01:45 are based on the second statement and so on. The implication of each event depends on the others, not just on its own features.