Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

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.

The Social Construction of Reality is a valid concept, in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality

 

[Machiavelli]

2. The cops don’t get a pass on the 5:45 statement, either. This was a part of the same transaction that created the 1:45 statement: same cops, same room, same night. Most importantly, Knox didn’t get the assistance of a lawyer. The 5:45 statement is therefore tainted by the same possibility of hitting that rules out the 1:45 statement, and therefore the 5:45 statement is no basis for criminal slander liability

...

Absolutely not. Things are very different.
First, there is no claim by Amanda she was hit subsequently to having named Lumumba, instead her testimony goes in the opposite direction. The 05.54 statement was released after the chamomille tee and buiscuits. There is no basis for hitting based on the suspect's own recollectin and claim.
Second, there is no claim by Amanda in her interrogation of december 2007, nor in her statement of 2008. There is no claim of further hitting in any of her statements, not even in her written diaries, nor before any judge.
Third, there is no formal complaint by her defence about being hit.
Fourth, during the 05:54 there was a magistrate, an officer of the judiciary. Which means absolutely not the same people, this is no longer a police situation.
Fifth, there was no interrogation. There was no claim by the defence there ever was an interrogation on this statement. There is no claim by Amanda herself there has ever been a questioning on her spontaneous statement, there is an egregious lack of this claim in hsr 2008 statement.
Sixth, the 05:54 statement is a basis for criminal liability by all courts that ruled about it; no court ever ruled that should or could be ruled out from the evidence in a calunnia charge (calunnia is not slander; calunnia is a crime against the judiciary).
Seventh, it is not true at all that a hitting would make the suspect not responsible; what makes the suspect responsible about her position is her subsequent endorsing and claiming the same "memories" in further venues and her failure to provide any consistent explanation for her false accusation.

 

[Machiavelli]

The Social Construction of Reality is a valid concept, in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality

And has nothing to do with the case.

It has to do instead with the perception of the American media and supporters about alleged innocence of Amanda knox and/or corruption of police or magistrates, evidence, etc.

 

[AmyStrange]

Didn't Kokomani flee the country immediately after the murder too, apart from giving a transparently false story to the police accusing Raffaele and Amanda? If you're looking for an accomplice that alone would seem to make him by far the most obvious person to hang such speculation upon.

Kokomani is easily Rudy's most likely accomplice if he had one.

He had to flee Italy because people wanted to kill him.
And then he came back anyway (hhmmm) in a brief period where Mignini was tossing aside his weekend pastime of burning young girls at the stake, to interview people about the possibility of burning young girls at the stake.

Kokomani talked a load of c***. Mignini thought it sounded alright.
But it's all wrong, and there's a new story that he only innocently parked his VW Golf (or something) outside the flat that night.

Sure Mignini and the cops are interested in Kokomani.

But what is he so interested in, outside of wearing silly disguises in court (so the defendents don't recognise him perhaps?)

I'll probably muck this up, but this may be a webpage with a photo of the very innocent Mr K testifying in Massei's court like thing where he's scared of everybody else except I suppose, the people gathering around this crime, which he has no prior involvement in)

http://crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11942&page=4

All this is ignoring the fact that even a liar like Massei said in his Motivations Report that there was no predeliction in the wounds evidence of the assault being carried out by more than one attacker (although people on the other side of the case tell us there had to have been more than one, without substantiation)

-

Bob, Kevin,

I also believe Curatolo might have been a lookout. It just blows my mind that no one thinks it's more than just a coincidence that he has been a super witness for two other murders besides this one. I still haven't confirmed this, but neither have I found evidence that it isn't true.

At the very least, He WAS a super witness for two other crimes, I know that much for sure (well almost for sure),

Dave

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli seems to think he would tell the truth throughout these intense interrogations and under the extreme duress of knowing you might go to jail for a long time.

Heck, I would start telling stories under the threat of going to jail for a day!

I had been questioned by the police. Much tougher police, actual mobsters, real criminals, those who beat and tortured and sent hundreds to hospital the 2001 G8 in Genova. I was also beaten by cops and subjet to a series of illegal acts (actually I was also shot after in the street).
Not only I told them only the plain truth and nothing else, I also told them a series of things about their mothers and sisters.
Years later several of those police officers were convicted for these events. I was not.

But that's personal stuff. The notion of "extreme duress" is riciculous if referred to Amanda Knox. Anyway the point is totally different: I immediately claimed in detail what happened. I never refused to talk to a judge. Amanda's later behaviour is totally different. She is keeping her position about her false testimony.

 

[RoseMontague]

And has nothing to do with the case.

It has to do instead with the perception of the American media and supporters about alleged innocence of Amanda knox and/or corruption of police or magistrates, evidence, etc.

I believe your words were:

But I disagree on the latter statement: perception of reality cannot be considered a social activity.

The statement you were disagreeing on was:

People have a social construction of reality.

And my response was:

The Social Construction of Reality is a valid concept, in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soc...ion_of_Reality

 

[Ammonitida]

I had been questioned by the police. Much tougher police, actual mobsters, real criminals, those who beat and tortured and sent hundreds to hospital the 2001 G8 in Genova. I was also beaten by cops and subjet to a series of illegal acts (actually I was also shot after in the street).
Not only I told them only the plain truth and nothing else, I also told them a series of things about their mothers and sisters.
Years later several of those police officers were convicted for these events. I was not.

But that's personal stuff. The notion of "extreme duress" is riciculous if referred to Amanda Knox. Anyway the point is totally different: I immediately claimed in detail what happened. I never refused to talk to a judge. Amanda's later behaviour is totally different. She is keeping her position about her false testimony.

Please take the time to read Amanda's trial testimony.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

You have made statements in the past that indicate that you have little knowledge of what she said.

 

[CDHost]

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.

The cases I'm citing are meant to be sort of world famous. US interrogators got all sorts of false confessions from people, many of whom were 2 decades older than Amanda Knox and had been on the other end of an interrogation very quickly in death penalty cases. But the information was garbage. Essentially the same techniques: isolation, threats and intimidation designed to increase fear.... What they got were a bunch of confused statements, like Amanda's, containing nonsense about their own activities. Here is a link to a book with a good discussion of the problems with harsh methods ( How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq, Matthew Alexander.

Your original assertion was the inducing a failure, reality distortion is some extremely unusual practice during interrogation. In fact it is fairly common. The entire reason US military intelligence pushed for more gentile methods was because harsh methods led to totally worthless intelligence as JPRA had speculated they would. Throw someone in a room, terrify them and you get garbage statements.

Amanda has a low terror threshold but she has consistently raised the point that she was under effective duress at the time those statements were taken. Further the evidence of the statements themselves confirms this, they read like a forced confession with her distancing herself what she is writing in every sentence. The point in dispute has been did the police do anything severe enough to engender this sort of reaction.

The Reid method of interrogation, which is the standard in the United States, and less harsh than what even the police assert they subjected Amanda too, is banned in many European countries because of its tendency to produce false confessions. And yes within 2 hours there are plenty of documented cases of this sort of nonsense statements. And, as an aside I use Reid's book quite frequently because of the claims this was a proper interrogation. He is critical of many of the things that the Perugian police did which are more likely to produce false statements.

Amanda Knox on November 5, 2007 proved herself unfit for a high stress job. She did not prove herself a murder. And she has from the very start of this incident indicating that her "statements" on those days were made under duress, including claims that they were made while she was being struck.

 

[RoseMontague]

I had been questioned by the police. Much tougher police, actual mobsters, real criminals, those who beat and tortured and sent hundreds to hospital the 2001 G8 in Genova. I was also beaten by cops and subjet to a series of illegal acts (actually I was also shot after in the street).
Not only I told them only the plain truth and nothing else, I also told them a series of things about their mothers and sisters.
Years later several of those police officers were convicted for these events. I was not.

But that's personal stuff. The notion of "extreme duress" is riciculous if referred to Amanda Knox. Anyway the point is totally different: I immediately claimed in detail what happened. I never refused to talk to a judge. Amanda's later behaviour is totally different. She is keeping her position about her false testimony.

Ahhh. It all becomes less clear now.

I am sorry that happened to you.

 

[Machiavelli]

4. I don’t think that you understand the concept of aggravation. An aggravating factor is not a basis, in and of itself, for criminal liability. Therefore, to the extent that Massei says that any later or continuing statement/non-statement is an aggravating factor, this does not mean that he is or could premise a self-standing criminal conviction on that statement/non-statement. If the 1:45 and 5:45 statements go away, then so does the alleged aggravation.

5. The “non-statements” that you reference as aggravating factors are not any basis for criminal liability for slander. A non-statement is actionable only where there is a duty to speak. Knox did not have a duty to speak. To the contrary, she had a right to remain silent. Her excerise of this right cannot be used to incriminate her.

Believe me, I understand the concept of aggravating factors.
What here might be seen by you as aggravating factor, it is not only a factor but also a fact, or a series of facts. A fact can be considered evidence, besides having a (possible) value of aggravating factor.
Massei, rather thant considering those aggravating factors - he does not, as far as I know - he may well consider them as evidence. And Hellmann could do that too.

A non-statement is actionable when there is a duty to speak. Ok. Moreover, a non-statement is not usable as a piece of evidence itself, as something which itself might prove anything else.
But a non statement is usable to make inference on the credibility of witness about other things the witness says. For example: I ask "were where you?" suspect answers "I was at my friend's home", I ask: "what colour is your friend's home?", suspect: "I refuse to answer".
Itself, the refusal to answer does not imply something, but undermines the position of the witness on the topic.
If Amanda always fails to give consistent non-contradictory explanation about her false testimony, I assume she cannot give a consistent explanation.

6. If you accept the possibility of hitting, then you cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox acted out of malice. Knox did exactly what she needed to do to negate any suggestion of malice: she said that that cops hit her. If the cops hit a witness in their custody, then any resulting statement was coerced. Period. Once Knox said that she was hit (and she said that immediately), it became the obligation of the cops to disregard the statement or to demonstrate a lack of coercion.

Not at all. There is radical disagreement here. You interpret this issue as it was a zero sum game between two sides. But it is not. The defendants' position needs to be intrinsically credible. This requirement never goes away. It is never shifted on someone else.

But they cannot demonstrate a lack of coercion, because we already agree that they might have hit Knox. Plus, where are the tapes? The bottom line is that the cops had custody of Lumumba and complete knowledge of the circumstances that led to his arrest. Knox could not release Lumumba, so if you accept that she might have been hit, then her resulting statements are the responsibility of the police, and you cannot find her to be the cause of his incarceration.

The calunnia charge has not directly to do with Patrick's arrest.
For sure, the police had no choice but to arrest him after she released her spontaneous statement.
But this is not what makes the crime of calunnia: this is firstly a crime against the judiciary, not against Lumumba. It doesn't matter if they don't believe her and don't arrest Lumumba: this is a calunnia anyway.

7. Finally, I find it incredible that you agree that the cops might have hit Knox and are just willing to accept this without demand for a formal inquiry. As far as I know, there is no law in Italy that allows the cops to do this, and the cops hitting a suspect in custody is an absolute outrage. You agree that the cops might have hit this witness and you seem ok with that, and on top of that, are satisfied that she was convicted of a crime as a consequence of this abuse. Incredible.

There has been a formal inquiry. Maybe you are not well informed.
But there is something to say: the Italian law says an inquiry for this crime must be formally asked and claimed by the victim. There is no prosecutable claim of "beating" if there is no formal complaint to an authority. And the formal complaint must be filled by the victim of her defemse attorney within 90 days from the event.

 

[CDHost]

Absolutely not. Things are very different.
First, there is no claim by Amanda she was hit subsequently to having named Lumumba, instead her testimony goes in the opposite direction. The 05.54 statement was released after the chamomille tee and buiscuits. There is no basis for hitting based on the suspect's own recollectin and claim.
Second, there is no claim by Amanda in her interrogation of december 2007, nor in her statement of 2008. There is no claim of further hitting in any of her statements, not even in her written diaries, nor before any judge.
Third, there is no formal complaint by her defence about being hit.
Fourth, during the 05:54 there was a magistrate, an officer of the judiciary. Which means absolutely not the same people, this is no longer a police situation.
Fifth, there was no interrogation. There was no claim by the defence there ever was an interrogation on this statement. There is no claim by Amanda herself there has ever been a questioning on her spontaneous statement, there is an egregious lack of this claim in hsr 2008 statement.
Sixth, the 05:54 statement is a basis for criminal liability by all courts that ruled about it; no court ever ruled that should or could be ruled out from the evidence in a calunnia charge (calunnia is not slander; calunnia is a crime against the judiciary).
Seventh, it is not true at all that a hitting would make the suspect not responsible; what makes the suspect responsible about her position is her subsequent endorsing and claiming the same "memories" in further venues and her failure to provide any consistent explanation for her false accusation.

Since you don't know the examples of Iraq, where people stuck with their false stories for weeks. What about the Moscow trials where people stood up in open court and lied about crimes they had never committed so as to get a death penalty? Obviously the level of pressure was much higher in the Moscow trials than anything Amanda was subjected to.

But lets not pretend that a few hours clears the air. Amanda has consistently asserted duress. You are quite correct the courts in Italy have denied her that right which is one of the many places this case has made me appreciate the American Miranda rules.

 

[RoseMontague]

Absolutely not. Things are very different.
First, there is no claim by Amanda she was hit subsequently to having named Lumumba, instead her testimony goes in the opposite direction.

She makes the claim in her hand written statement of 6 November 2007. Makes the same claim in her spontaneous statement in the first trial March 2009, and later repeats it under questioning by Mignini in court.

 

[Teddy2007]

I had been questioned by the police. Much tougher police, actual mobsters, real criminals, those who beat and tortured and sent hundreds to hospital the 2001 G8 in Genova. I was also beaten by cops and subjet to a series of illegal acts (actually I was also shot after in the street).
Not only I told them only the plain truth and nothing else, I also told them a series of things about their mothers and sisters.
Years later several of those police officers were convicted for these events. I was not.

But that's personal stuff. The notion of "extreme duress" is riciculous if referred to Amanda Knox. Anyway the point is totally different: I immediately claimed in detail what happened. I never refused to talk to a judge. Amanda's later behaviour is totally different. She is keeping her position about her false testimony.

Oh bravo! Just curious. Did these police officers speak your language? If you'd been, say, in Nicaruagua, do you think you'd have been so brave? How old were you? Do you think that all people are the same? How do you think the police officers would have reacted if Amanda had said things about the keystone cops' mothers and sisters?

I see you are one of those Italians that, when insulting other men, make reference the sister or mother... very nice, you know, like how you enjoyed giving it to them, or something along those lines. Right. What does that make you? Is there just a hint, and I mean I tiny hint, of mysogyny in your character? You are like an open book. You try not to give too much away, but you keep dropping little hints as to what really drives you. You are an embarrassment to that beautiful country that is Italy.

 

[Machiavelli]

Ahhh. It all becomes less clear now.

I am sorry that happened to you.

I also knew Federico Aldrovandi, who was killed by the police. I used to cross him almost every morning when I lived there at the time.

But also Federico's father was a police officer.

I experienced several events when I dealt with the police, and I don't have any trust or prejudice in either direction.
But I only have one truth.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I had been questioned by the police. Much tougher police, actual mobsters, real criminals, those who beat and tortured and sent hundreds to hospital the 2001 G8 in Genova. I was also beaten by cops and subjet to a series of illegal acts (actually I was also shot after in the street).

Interesting. They wanted you to admit to murder? For how long were you sleep deprived? I think they just wanted to teach a "commie kid" a lesson - and that's quite a different goal then "solving" a murder investigation by forcing a confession.

Not only I told them only the plain truth and nothing else, I also told them a series of things about their mothers and sisters.

Exactly, you went there fully prepared to face them as enemies, and become let's say, a marxist street hero in the course. A naive girl "helping the police" that she have full trust in - that's totally different.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh bravo! Just curious. Did these police officers speak your language? If you'd been, say, in Nicaruagua, do you think you'd have been so brave? How old were you? Do you think that all people are the same? How do you think the police officers would have reacted if Amanda had said things about the keystone cops' mothers and sisters?

I see you are one of those Italians that, when insulting other men, make reference the sister or mother... very nice, you know, like how you enjoyed giving it to them, or something along those lines. Right. What does that make you? Is there just a hint, and I mean I tiny hint, of mysogyny in your character? You are like an open book. You try not to give too much away, but you keep dropping little hints as to what really drives you. You are an embarrassment to that beautiful country that is Italy.

Nobody's perfect. Anyway I addressed also things of them different from their mothers and sisters, but they are not fit to a discussion forum.
I think in Nicaragua I'd have no problem of language, but I may be facing mercenaries paid by the US government and CIA officers, which would put me in a very serious problem because I don't know where they live and where their sisters live.
I think that with mysogyny you are out of track, maybe because you still don't know what I think about Raffaele Sollecito (himself, not his sister).

 

[Katody Matrass]

Ahhh. It all becomes less clear now.

Why? Stockholm syndrome.

 

[HumanityBlues]

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.

The whole "interviews I done" really seems to the fall back of Barbie and Andrea Vogt when they clearly can't justify their ********. You have to wonder who all these anonymous scientists and criminologists are who won't go on the record.

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting. They wanted you to admit to murder? For how long were you sleep deprived? I think they just wanted to teach a "commie kid" a lesson - and that's quite a different goal then "solving" a murder investigation by forcing a confession.


Exactly, you went there fully prepared to face them as enemies, and become let's say, a marxist street hero in the course. A naive girl "helping the police" that she have full trust in - that's totally different.

No actually I have never been a marxist. Nor I meant to be a hero.
I was unprepared to being attacked and to the feeling of outrage that I felt, and that hapened as I realized that there was no law nor state to protect me.
Those police officers were not there to teach a lesson to communists. They were true fascists. They did not move a finger for the polupation of the city as rioters devastated the towns. Nothing to do with public security. In a way they meant to "tech a lesson" to everyone, especially common citizens of Genova, given that they had lost control of the whole situation. They were openly fascist, carrying illegal weapons, following illegal orders.

 

[Diocletus]

I had been questioned by the police. Much tougher police, actual mobsters, real criminals, those who beat and tortured and sent hundreds to hospital the 2001 G8 in Genova. I was also beaten by cops and subjet to a series of illegal acts (actually I was also shot after in the street).
Not only I told them only the plain truth and nothing else, I also told them a series of things about their mothers and sisters.
Years later several of those police officers were convicted for these events. I was not.

Well, what you don't say here is that the police mistreated you during a custodial interrogation.

Any chance they made tapes of your remarks to them (and their remarks to you)?

Anyway, all this shows is that Amanda Knox responded differently than you did to pressure and stress. Any chance you were doing cartwheels in the police station? On the other hand, too bad that Knox didn't know that she could get out of the situation by simply insulting the cops (I'll bet we'd have those tapes, though).

Also, now we understand why you believe the police hit Knox.