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

[Chris_Halkides]

a misused tool

Let's not go there. "Lie detectors" are pseudo-science.

Indeed, and telling someone that they failed a lie detector when they did not can lead to a false confession.

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's not go there. "Lie detectors" are pseudo-science.

Indeed, and telling someone that they failed a lie detector when they did not can lead to a false confession.

The main function of lie detectors is that the ones hooked up to up are spooked.... they don't know the science behind it (or missing from it!)

It looks bad if one refuses to take a "lie" detector test... makes it look like they are being evasive.... it's got everything to do with what people think lie detectors can do vs. what they actually can do.

It's like Statement Analysis.... or the copious number of guilters, like Peggy Ganong, who started their crusade by looking at a photoshopped picture of Knox and concluded guilt on that basis.

Personally I prefer Urim and Thummim (1 Samuel 14:41) in the Bible.

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

 

[Antony]

You misunderstand. Nobody should be shouting at Rudy demanding a confession. We just want his explanation of what happened that fit the facts. He'll be given tea and cakes if it will help him remember.

The problem is that Guede was in Hellman's court claiming that he was an innocent bystander of the murder by Amanda and Raffaele, but Hellman didn't allow him to be cross-examined by the defence, for whatever reason. This was one of a number of mistakes by Hellman, IMO.

Is it too much to hope that they will get a second chance at the re-trial?

 

[Mary_H]

You misunderstand. Nobody should be shouting at Rudy demanding a confession. We just want his explanation of what happened that fit the facts. He'll be given tea and cakes if it will help him remember.

Well, when you put it that way, I'm sure he can be persuaded.

 

[Grinder]

You misunderstand. Nobody should be shouting at Rudy demanding a confession. We just want his explanation of what happened that fit the facts. He'll be given tea and cakes if it will help him remember.

I think it is likely that TJMK or PMF will put together a fund to pay Rudi to write an account of the murder because they want the truth for Meredith.

They will insist on a lie detector test and will have the writing checked by their statement analysis team.

ETA - Did they ever do a statement analysis on Rudi's court letter or his diary? Funny how they haven't analyzed all his words.

 

[Alt+F4]

RG will never tell the truth; money won't motivate him and lie detectors and handwriting analysis are still in their infancy.

Another thread here is about Leslie Van Houten, one of the Manson Family murderers. She has been in prison for 44 years, has just been denied parole for the 20th time. She confessed to murder, gave a full accounting of the murder and has professed profound regret.

What benefit will RG get for a confession? Nothing.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think it is likely that TJMK or PMF will put together a fund to pay Rudi to write an account of the murder because they want the truth for Meredith.

They will insist on a lie detector test and will have the writing checked by their statement analysis team.

ETA - Did they ever do a statement analysis on Rudi's court letter or his diary? Funny how they haven't analyzed all his words.

At one point someone over there was mooting the idea of contacting him with a plea to tell his story. I don't know if they ever actually tried.

 

[Dan O.]

The problem is that Guede was in Hellman's court claiming that he was an innocent bystander of the murder by Amanda and Raffaele, but Hellman didn't allow him to be cross-examined by the defence, for whatever reason. This was one of a number of mistakes by Hellman, IMO.

Is it too much to hope that they will get a second chance at the re-trial?

When Mignini read that accusation in Rudy's letter, the gloves should have come off. That broke the boundary of Rudy only testifying against the accusations made against him by his prison mates. Rudy should have been subject to a full cross examination and since he opened the door he was no longer protected by a right to remain silent.

At the time though, Hellmann was limiting the trial to a narrow focus on key elements of the prosecutions case. Hellmann should have been right in finding when none of the prosecutions evidence held up it wasn't even necessary to hear from the defense. Hellmann obviously had already dismissed Rudy's statement and determined here too that no defense was necessary.

 

[Grinder]

RG will never tell the truth; money won't motivate him and lie detectors and handwriting analysis are still in their infancy.

Why don't you think money would motivate him? The Kerchers could permit him to keep some percentage of his book money. His prospects aren't too good unless Mach finds him a job.

Another thread here is about Leslie Van Houten, one of the Manson Family murderers. She has been in prison for 44 years, has just been denied parole for the 20th time. She confessed to murder, gave a full accounting of the murder and has professed profound regret.

What benefit will RG get for a confession? Nothing.

If he really had a story involving the kids, he would gain a tremendous amount by telling the tale even if he had involvement.

 

[Antony]

Hellmann obviously had already dismissed Rudy's statement and determined here too that no defense was necessary.

I'm not up to speed with all the court documentation. Can someone quote what Hellman said about Guede's "testimony" in his motivation report?

If he dismissed it out-of-hand, could this be a reason for the SC's rejection of his verdict? (Only 2 weeks till we find out.)

 

[Antony]

Why don't you think money would motivate him? The Kerchers could permit him to keep some percentage of his book money. His prospects aren't too good unless Mach finds him a job.

I think I read somewhere that he's getting his story into a book, on the lines of Amanda and Raff - but I'll believe that when it comes out. Presumably his account of the evening of 1 November will be included in that.

If he really had a story involving the kids, he would gain a tremendous amount by telling the tale even if he had involvement.

Exactly, and the lack of a coherent story featuring the 2 - even from the one person supposedly with first-hand knowledge - should be an indication of its credibility, but don't expect the PGP to acknowledge this.

 

[Grinder]

You can't make this stuff up

After months of discussing Amanda's chances for a book deal, her actual signing of the deal, critiquing her interviews, tracking of the daily sales totals and reviewing the book reviews, this shows up today at PMF:

It's in the bargain bin. Why should they care? I thought none of them had any financial interest in Knox and her murderous ex-boyfriend.

The question is not why should they care but why do they care. As you note, they have no financial interest whatsoever. Yet they seem outraged and maybe surprised that the book did not prove to be the instant bestseller it was supposed to be.

Do they not see that they are obsessed with Amanda and live for Schadenfreude?

 

[Dan O.]

I'm not up to speed with all the court documentation. Can someone quote what Hellman said about Guede's "testimony" in his motivation report?

If he dismissed it out-of-hand, could this be a reason for the SC's rejection of his verdict? (Only 2 weeks till we find out.)

He didn't dismiss it out of hand. He quite clearly stated that the law mandates that Rudy's testimony must be dismissed for the reason that Rudy has not made himself available to be cross examined.

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/statements-of-rudy-guede-2/

 

[codyjuneau]

The main function of lie detectors is that the ones hooked up to up are spooked.... they don't know the science behind it (or missing from it!)
It looks bad if one refuses to take a "lie" detector test... makes it look like they are being evasive.... it's got everything to do with what people think lie detectors can do vs. what they actually can do.
....

.
Okay, so what if Raffaele and Amanda challenge Mignini, some of the interrogation cops, the knife diviner cop, and for good measure pseuDoctor Stefanoni to a lie detector contest in a neutral country like Switzerland?

It would sure be fun and telling to hear the excuses coming from Perugia's finest. And the world news media would eat it up!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

.
Okay, so what if Raffaele and Amanda challenge Mignini, some of the interrogation cops, the knife diviner cop, and for good measure pseuDoctor Stefanoni to a lie detector contest in a neutral country like Switzerland?

It would sure be fun and telling to hear the excuses coming from Perugia's finest. And the world news media would eat it up!

Lie detectors are pseudoscience whether they are being used on people we think are innocent, or being used on people we think are corrupt, dishonest and guilty of perverting the course of justice to send innocent people to prison.

Such a contest would prove nothing, and I'd think less of whichever side proposed it.

 

[Dan O.]

I wouldn't endorse any use of lie detectors until they are proven to be safe and effective. Do you realize that we wouldn't even know how many people have been electruted by faulty polygraph machines because the governments are hiding that information.

 

[JREF2010]

Indeed, and telling someone that they failed a lie detector when they did not can lead to a false confession.

What do you think of Truth Serum?

 

[Bob001]

I have given up trying to follow this thread closely. I have no doubt that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and were framed by a lunatic prosecutor, and that Rudy killed Meredith. I confess to some confusion about how Rudy entered the apartment or whether at some point he might have had some kind of help from person(s) unknown. But I am curious: What are the core arguments that the "guilters" cling to? I was astonished to learn that Alan Dershowitz, judging from his remarks on CNN, seems to be one of them.

But Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said that Italian prosecutors might very well extradite Knox. And, if retried, she "likely will be found guilty -- because the evidence supporting a conviction is pretty strong." Knox, now 25, has established a fan base in the United States "because she has a beautiful face and an angelic appearance," Dershowitz said. "But remember, she originally admitted she was at the scene of the crime and she tried to blame an innocent man -- for which she was also convicted."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/justice/knox-extradition

 

[codyjuneau]

No bluffing

Lie detectors are pseudoscience whether they are being used on people we think are innocent, or being used on people we think are corrupt, dishonest and guilty of perverting the course of justice to send innocent people to prison.

Such a contest would prove nothing, and I'd think less of whichever side proposed it.

.
I agree, lie detection is an inexact science, the results are not guaranteed accurate, and lie detectors should not be used by the legal system.

However, if someone says I am lying, and I know it is them lying, and they are attempting to use their lies to unjustly jail me for life, and their legal system turns a blind eye to their lying, I am left with little legal recourse. So perhaps extraordinary measures and risks are required in order to expose their lies. No bluffing though.
.

 

[Antony]

.
I agree, lie detection is an inexact science, the results are not guaranteed accurate, and lie detectors should not be used by the legal system.

However, if someone says I am lying, and I know it is them lying, and they are attempting to use their lies to unjustly jail me for life, and their legal system turns a blind eye to their lying, I am left with little legal recourse. So perhaps extraordinary measures and risks are required in order to expose their lies. No bluffing though.

In a way that can be understood, but it misses the point, I think. We don't need "lie detectors" to expose the lies directed against Amanda and Raff; what we need is a fair level scrutiny of those accusing them, compared with the ridiculous innuendo placed against all the irrelevant details of their statements and actions, both before and since the murder.