Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Skeptic Tank]

Thank you all for the insights you've shared, it's been enlightening. I'm not really surprised that those who believe she's guilty are a small percentage of the people here, and I hope I'm right in interpreting what you all said as being that they are a small percentage PERIOD, everywhere... I hope.

When I've watched the few things I've seen about this case it just reeked of West Memphis 3... lynch mob, witch hunt... madness.

I've frankly found myself very disturbed by the nature of a lot of peoples' obsession with various court cases. I've taken an interest in a handful (Casey Anthony, Zimmerman, OJ when I was younger... a slight interest in Jon Benet Ramsey enough to watch a few documentaries on it...) the only two which have really risen to the level of "obsession" with me have been Casey Anthony and the Trayvon thing. Even then, it has always just been a fascination with the extreme nature of the cases.

As opposed to a weird fixation on the personalities involved. That's what I'm talking about when I say I've been disturbed by the way in which some people seem to fixate on cases. As in, people who started to think of Caylee Anthony as their own daughter... and started hating Casey Anthony's parents way more than was merited, and got to the point where they were willing to believe just about anything about those parents...

Or, with this Jodi Arias thing which I paid almost zero attention to... I got the impression a lot of people were weirdly obsessed with the man she killed, and it's pretty creepy to be having the hots for a dead person who was brutally murdered, IMO.

So yea, why do I get the feeling... no, why do I get the certainty... that this case is perhaps one of the worse examples of that sort of behavior by people?

It's disturbing enough when private citizens get weird about a case like that, when the justice system itself does... wow, that's when it's REALLY frightening. (As in this case, and West Memphis 3)

but let me clarify: I don't think it's weird to be very interested in this case or any other case, as I said I've been very interested in a few myself. And in things like murders etc in general, I've watched HBO's Autopsy and plenty of those Forensic Files type shows, used to watch Unsolved Mysteries a lot when I was young...

It is a particular STRAND of interest and an angle of approach that I find creepy and disturbing.

 

[Mary_H]

Thank you all for the insights you've shared, it's been enlightening. I'm not really surprised that those who believe she's guilty are a small percentage of the people here, and I hope I'm right in interpreting what you all said as being that they are a small percentage PERIOD, everywhere... I hope.

When I've watched the few things I've seen about this case it just reeked of West Memphis 3... lynch mob, witch hunt... madness.

I've frankly found myself very disturbed by the nature of a lot of peoples' obsession with various court cases. I've taken an interest in a handful (Casey Anthony, Zimmerman, OJ when I was younger... a slight interest in Jon Benet Ramsey enough to watch a few documentaries on it...) the only two which have really risen to the level of "obsession" with me have been Casey Anthony and the Trayvon thing. Even then, it has always just been a fascination with the extreme nature of the cases.

As opposed to a weird fixation on the personalities involved. That's what I'm talking about when I say I've been disturbed by the way in which some people seem to fixate on cases. As in, people who started to think of Caylee Anthony as their own daughter... and started hating Casey Anthony's parents way more than was merited, and got to the point where they were willing to believe just about anything about those parents...

Or, with this Jodi Arias thing which I paid almost zero attention to... I got the impression a lot of people were weirdly obsessed with the man she killed, and it's pretty creepy to be having the hots for a dead person who was brutally murdered, IMO.

So yea, why do I get the feeling... no, why do I get the certainty... that this case is perhaps one of the worse examples of that sort of behavior by people?

It's disturbing enough when private citizens get weird about a case like that, when the justice system itself does... wow, that's when it's REALLY frightening. (As in this case, and West Memphis 3)

but let me clarify: I don't think it's weird to be very interested in this case or any other case, as I said I've been very interested in a few myself. And in things like murders etc in general, I've watched HBO's Autopsy and plenty of those Forensic Files type shows, used to watch Unsolved Mysteries a lot when I was young...

It is a particular STRAND of interest and an angle of approach that I find creepy and disturbing.

It's definitely a phenomenon, Skeptic Tank. True crime has not been on the list of subjects I've paid much attention to over the course of my life, but I was captivated by the sight of crowds of people gathering on Casey Anthony's parents' front sidewalk to yell accusations and epithets at the family as they came and went from their home. Complete strangers had their own toddlers hold signs reading "Killer!" while they harangued Casey's parents for not taking better care of their grandchild.

If you have the equivalent of a hazmat suit for your mind and stomach, pay a visit to True Justice for Meredith Kercher, where the host has displayed seventeen portrait photos of Meredith along the sides of the pages, and where he periodically posts travelogues he has written of places Meredith "might have visited," and how she would have felt about being there. It is very obvious he accompanies this poor dead young woman on these jaunts in his dreams.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I checked out that site just now... yea... bit creepy isn't it?

I glanced around at some of his lists of Amanda Knox's lies or whatever and I came back around to a thought I've had before...

I'd like to pose an interesting question to any and all of you who care to entertain it:

If you find yourself in a situation where you are being prosecuted for a crime you DID NOT commit, and they are pursing angles of inquiry which are just absurd... like for instance you're one of the West Memphis 3 guys and you're being accused of Satanically sacrificing 3 small boys... and they ask you if you've ever drawn pentagrams, or something... for instance...

Do you have a moral right to lie about such things, again knowing that you are innocent of the accused crime, so as to not give them any more fuel for their insane witch hunt?

Personally, I say yes.

If you're innocent of a murder but being prosecuted for it anyway, I think you are completely within your moral rights to omit things which you are concerned would make you look more guilty.

So for instance, Amanda Knox leaves out some trivial argument she had with her roommate who ended up dead? Completely legit IMO.

 

[bri1]

Hi all (and welcome, Skeptic Tank),
So, I am a philosopher, as many of you here will know, and I am currently attempting to put together a book on critical thinking and crime, which will focus on the cognitive errors committed by those who propogate (either directly, like ILE, or indirectly, like the PGP) miscarriages of justice (using the case against AK & RS as the primary example and other cases as secondary examples).
Some of the errors I am going to explore are:

1) Ignorance of scientific data relevant to interpreting the evidence (e.g. false confessions, false memories, time of death, etc)
2) Misunderstanding of the requirements needed to consider circumstantial evidence probative.
3) Ignorance of the principles of the scientific method and of investigatory techniques (e.g. the issue of contamination, the requirement of stating your predictions in advance).
4) Misunderstanding of the principle of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
5) Misunderstanding the concept of impartiality in regard to expert testimony (e.g. C&V report)
6) Ignorance of the nature of marijuana and the cultural contexts in which people use it.
7) The motive fallacy in relation to arguments of the defense and their experts.

If anyone would be prepared to share their ideas about this topic with me, I'd be really grateful to hear your views. (I am also going to post at IIP)

Also, I have just come back from Perugia, where I was on vacation with my father staying at my aunt's farm, which is between Perugia and Gubbio. She has been there all my life, and my parents first took me there as a baby in 1981. One of the reasons I followed the case was that I knew this part of Italy well, and I found the horror of the crime against Meredith so incongruous to the beautiful surroundings and the overwhelmingly positive associations I have with it.
Anyway, on this visit I got to interview someone who has followed the case closely, missing only 2 court hearings, and who has written articles about the case for Giornale dell'Umbria. He is also a cast-iron, dyed-in-the-wool guilter. On an interpersonal level, he was a very kind, hospitable man. But, like many PGPs, he was holding onto evidence that to any objective observer was hopelessly discredited years ago, and unaware of large swathes of relevant psychological literature (this is understandable, at least as his English is probably not really up to fully comprehending the literature written at this level). It was a very interesting conversation. I have two questions relating to this conversation that I'd like some help with, if anyone can oblige to a link upthread if this has been discussed and I've missed it?
a) I know we're still waiting for the motivations report, from the Corte de Cassazione, but have they commented on their decision publicly at all? And if so, have those comments been translated into English and discussed here on JREF?
b) The 9-11 truther judge, was he the Chair of the Panel at Cassazione? Is he known to have any personal relationship with Mignini?

Thanks in advance for help!
Also, whilst waiting at the gate for 1.5 hours when I caught the plane back to the UK from Perugia, I couldn't help but notice that directly behind me in the queue was Stephanie Kercher. (I guess on her way back after presenting the scholarship). Part of me wanted to extend my sympathies for her family's dreadful loss. But it would have been a massive invasion of privacy.
The experience will serve as a reminder that whilst my book project is about the importance of being led by logic and reason, that there are human beings at the centre of this case, with emotions, who are necessarily fallible, but who nonetheless have the same ideal in mind that we do, justice to attempt to remedy the extreme injustice that Meredith's murder was. There is common ground here.

 

[RoseMontague]

Hi all (and welcome, Skeptic Tank),
So, I am a philosopher, as many of you here will know, and I am currently attempting to put together a book on critical thinking and crime, which will focus on the cognitive errors committed by those who propogate (either directly, like ILE, or indirectly, like the PGP) miscarriages of justice (using the case against AK & RS as the primary example and other cases as secondary examples).
Some of the errors I am going to explore are:

1) Ignorance of scientific data relevant to interpreting the evidence (e.g. false confessions, false memories, time of death, etc)
2) Misunderstanding of the requirements needed to consider circumstantial evidence probative.
3) Ignorance of the principles of the scientific method and of investigatory techniques (e.g. the issue of contamination, the requirement of stating your predictions in advance).
4) Misunderstanding of the principle of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
5) Misunderstanding the concept of impartiality in regard to expert testimony (e.g. C&V report)
6) Ignorance of the nature of marijuana and the cultural contexts in which people use it.
7) The motive fallacy in relation to arguments of the defense and their experts.

If anyone would be prepared to share their ideas about this topic with me, I'd be really grateful to hear your views. (I am also going to post at IIP)

Also, I have just come back from Perugia, where I was on vacation with my father staying at my aunt's farm, which is between Perugia and Gubbio. She has been there all my life, and my parents first took me there as a baby in 1981. One of the reasons I followed the case was that I knew this part of Italy well, and I found the horror of the crime against Meredith so incongruous to the beautiful surroundings and the overwhelmingly positive associations I have with it.
Anyway, on this visit I got to interview someone who has followed the case closely, missing only 2 court hearings, and who has written articles about the case for Giornale dell'Umbria. He is also a cast-iron, dyed-in-the-wool guilter. On an interpersonal level, he was a very kind, hospitable man. But, like many PGPs, he was holding onto evidence that to any objective observer was hopelessly discredited years ago, and unaware of large swathes of relevant psychological literature (this is understandable, at least as his English is probably not really up to fully comprehending the literature written at this level). It was a very interesting conversation. I have two questions relating to this conversation that I'd like some help with, if anyone can oblige to a link upthread if this has been discussed and I've missed it?
a) I know we're still waiting for the motivations report, from the Corte de Cassazione, but have they commented on their decision publicly at all? And if so, have those comments been translated into English and discussed here on JREF?
b) The 9-11 truther judge, was he the Chair of the Panel at Cassazione? Is he known to have any personal relationship with Mignini?

Thanks in advance for help!
Also, whilst waiting at the gate for 1.5 hours when I caught the plane back to the UK from Perugia, I couldn't help but notice that directly behind me in the queue was Stephanie Kercher. (I guess on her way back after presenting the scholarship). Part of me wanted to extend my sympathies for her family's dreadful loss. But it would have been a massive invasion of privacy.
The experience will serve as a reminder that whilst my book project is about the importance of being led by logic and reason, that there are human beings at the centre of this case, with emotions, who are necessarily fallible, but who nonetheless have the same ideal in mind that we do, justice to attempt to remedy the extreme injustice that Meredith's murder was. There is common ground here.

Be sure and let us know when your book comes out. Sounds like a terrific idea.

 

[Bill Williams]

Also, whilst waiting at the gate for 1.5 hours when I caught the plane back to the UK from Perugia, I couldn't help but notice that directly behind me in the queue was Stephanie Kercher. (I guess on her way back after presenting the scholarship). Part of me wanted to extend my sympathies for her family's dreadful loss. But it would have been a massive invasion of privacy.
The experience will serve as a reminder that whilst my book project is about the importance of being led by logic and reason, that there are human beings at the centre of this case, with emotions, who are necessarily fallible, but who nonetheless have the same ideal in mind that we do, justice to attempt to remedy the extreme injustice that Meredith's murder was. There is common ground here.

That was both wise and kind to let Stephanie be. You were very kind and considerate.

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you have a moral right to lie about such things, again knowing that you are innocent of the accused crime, so as to not give them any more fuel for their insane witch hunt?

Personally, I say yes.

Personally, I say no. This is what the right to silence is all about. If The PLE had done their jobs and supplied Amanda and Raffaele with a lawyer (not to mention Patrick) then most of this could have been avoided.

As Knox says in her book, just the knowledge that she was free to walk out of that interrogation room until arrested would have been everything. Now, I'm not sure I would have had the courage to walk out.... if Raffaele for instance had tried to walk out he would have very well been beaten....
But the whole point of the right to silence is that one really does not have to defend oneself. The other side has to do all the proving.

People should read up on the difference between a witness interview, and an interrogation. The details and evidence presented at interrogation are completely secondary to one goal. Confession. People need to get this through their heads, particularly BRI1 who seems to be wanting to write about all this.

An interrogation is not a debating society where one might want to use a lie to defend oneself. In fact, it is fair game for the interrogators to lie.... like they did about Raffaele.... please, please, please,please, read up on it.

It's not a moral issue. It's a tactical issue. Tell a lie at interview (as Amanda admits doing about the marijuana use in the cottage) and the next thing you know Ficarra will use that as a pretext to go through Amanda's phone directory and see the "See you later" text.

Silence is better. And it's the law.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not a level playing field

It's not a moral issue. It's a tactical issue. Tell a lie at interview (as Amanda admits doing about the marijuana use in the cottage) and the next thing you know Ficarra will use that as a pretext to go through Amanda's phone directory and see the "See you later" text.

Silence is better. And it's the law.

Good point. One expects the interrogators to lie (I have deep misgivings about this), but lying in response is a bad idea. Also, one should always have a lawyer by one's side in an interrogation.

 

[anglolawyer]

7) The motive fallacy in relation to arguments of the defense and their experts.

Hi bri1

Can you explain what the motive fallacy is?

Like Bill, I think you did a good thing leaving Stephanie alone and I can also see how realising these are real peoples' lives we are discussing here might make an impact.

 

[anglolawyer]

Good point. One expects the interrogators to lie (I have deep misgivings about this), but lying in response is a bad idea. Also, one should always have a lawyer by one's side in an interrogation.

No lying and have a lawyer, check. Not only is a lie probably not in your interests, it might, for all you know, divert the enquiry. An example is the white lie Amanda was asked to tell about drug use in the apartment. As it happened this worked against Amanda herself because it made her own use stand out. It will have distorted the picture and complicated the investigative task somewhat.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Will Barbie Nadeau ever comment on that photo she took showing the door on the sealed crime scene wide open before the prosecution went back to "discover" the only physical evidence that implicated Raffaele in the murder?

Have you ever thought that picture means absolutely nothing, that is the only door into the cottage, she took a picture after the police went inside, why else would the door be open?

 

[Bill Williams]

Good point. One expects the interrogators to lie (I have deep misgivings about this), but lying in response is a bad idea. Also, one should always have a lawyer by one's side in an interrogation.

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

Suggestibility
A person's suggestibility is how willing they are to accept and act on suggestions by others. Interrogators seek to increase a subject's suggestibility. Methods used to increase suggestibility may include moderate sleep deprivation, exposure to constant white noise, and using GABAergic drugs such as sodium amytal or sodium thiopental. It should be noted that attempting to increase a subject's suggestibility through these methods may violate local and national laws concerning the treatment of detainees, and in some areas may be considered torture. Sleep deprivation, exposure to white noise, and the use of drugs may greatly inhibit a detainee's ability to provide truthful and accurate information.

Deception
Deception can form an important part of effective interrogation. In the United States, there is no law or regulation that forbids the interrogator from lying about the strength of their case, from making misleading statements or from implying that the interviewee has already been implicated in the crime by someone else. See case law on trickery and deception (Frazier v. Cupp).

 

[Bill Williams]

Then there is everyone's favourite....

Reid technique

The Reid technique is a trademarked interrogation technique widely used by law enforcement agencies in North America. The technique (which requires interrogators to watch the body language of suspects to detect deceit) has been criticized for being difficult to apply across cultures and eliciting false confessions from innocent people.

(Two of the tactics used are to get people to imagine what could have happened, and clamp down hard on any suggestion at all that the person being interrogated is innocent.)

 

[Bill Williams]

Have you ever thought that picture means absolutely nothing, that is the only door into the cottage, she took a picture after the police went inside, why else would the door be open?

I can't beleve you're saying this.... the question was, was the cottage secure (forensically speaking) between when the Scientific Police packed up on the 3rd (or 4th?) of November and when they returned mid-December to find something, anything that would implicate Raffaele.

Barbie Nadeau took a picture which strongly suggests that the tape used to prove the cottage had been sealed off was tampered with.

True, someone could have simply ripped off the tape and then secured it with more tape.......

But the whole point is so that the police can prove that if they return they are returning to a pristine crimes scene - albeit one hopeless compromised by the postal police allowing both Amanda and Filomena to "rummage through their rooms" prior to the body discovery.

Heck, Raffaele had been at the cottage on the afternoon of Nov 1.

The broken seal means that legally speaking the cottage is rendered useless in revealing any further forensic data. On top of this, when they did collect the bra-clasp, in an unsealed evidence area, Meredith's mattress was in the kitchen and the top-sweater she wore during the horrible murder was in the hamper. Someone after the original photos were taken put it there, disturbing Meredith's room.

This one cannot be blamed on Amanda or Raffaele. They were in jail at the time.

 

[Dan O.]

Do you have a moral right to lie about such things, again knowing that you are innocent of the accused crime, so as to not give them any more fuel for their insane witch hunt?

Absolutely not. If you lie they will find someone that will testify that you did and use that against you. If you tell the truth they will use it against you. Even if you never did and you say so, they will find someone that will testify that you did and make you look like a satanic liar.

The only way out is to let your lawyer intercept the question and ask for relevance.

 

[Mary_H]

a) I know we're still waiting for the motivations report, from the Corte de Cassazione, but have they commented on their decision publicly at all? And if so, have those comments been translated into English and discussed here on JREF?

No and no.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I can't beleve you're saying this.... the question was, was the cottage secure (forensically speaking) between when the Scientific Police packed up on the 3rd (or 4th?) of November and when they returned mid-December to find something, anything that would implicate Raffaele.

Barbie Nadeau took a picture which strongly suggests that the tape used to prove the cottage had been sealed off was tampered with.

True, someone could have simply ripped off the tape and then secured it with more tape.......

But the whole point is so that the police can prove that if they return they are returning to a pristine crimes scene - albeit one hopeless compromised by the postal police allowing both Amanda and Filomena to "rummage through their rooms" prior to the body discovery.

Heck, Raffaele had been at the cottage on the afternoon of Nov 1.

The broken seal means that legally speaking the cottage is rendered useless in revealing any further forensic data. On top of this, when they did collect the bra-clasp, in an unsealed evidence area, Meredith's mattress was in the kitchen and the top-sweater she wore during the horrible murder was in the hamper. Someone after the original photos were taken put it there, disturbing Meredith's room.

This one cannot be blamed on Amanda or Raffaele. They were in jail at the time.

Ok, Ok.... I 'm guessing you didn't know what I meant, what I was saying is, Barbie probably took that picture right after the scientific police went inside. In order to go inside you have no choice but to break the seal and open the door, I'm really not sure how to make this any clearer. It is quite possible, that this picture means absolutely nothing. Now tell me what you know about Saskatchewan?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Does anyone know, the message Patrick sent Amanda and the message she replied with, were they in English, Italian or combination of both?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

When was the picture taken?

Ok, Ok.... I 'm guessing you didn't know what I meant, what I was saying is, Barbie probably took that picture right after the scientific police went inside. In order to go inside you have no choice but to break the seal and open the door, I'm really not sure how to make this any clearer. It is quite possible, that this picture means absolutely nothing. Now tell me what you know about Saskatchewan?

Why would the Scientific police be there in the middle of November? Sorry I don't recall the date, exactly, but I am pretty sure it was not on 18 December.

 

[Skind]

Ok, Ok.... I 'm guessing you didn't know what I meant, what I was saying is, Barbie probably took that picture right after the scientific police went inside. In order to go inside you have no choice but to break the seal and open the door, I'm really not sure how to make this any clearer. It is quite possible, that this picture means absolutely nothing. Now tell me what you know about Saskatchewan?

Bill appears to have understood exactly what you meant, and his reply seems to have gone over your head.

If the police broke the seal to go back in - where is the evidence of that visit? How did they demonstrate the seal was unbroken when they revisited? Where are the photos they should have/would have taken to show the seal was unbroken? Where are the photos of the forensic team themselves? Why did they not close the door, when they closed the gate? Where is the evidence of forensic paraphenalia?

How is the extreme disparity between the state of the house after the forensic police left and the state of the house when they revisited accounted for? Who left the house in such a mess?

In the absence of any evidence of any form for your hypothesis, we are left with the only other rational and reasonable explanation - that someone other than the police (on an official visit) broke the seal and entered.