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

[anglolawyer]

But if you start from the assumption that the whole investigating police and judicial authority are a system of fascistic thugs and that thei are violating the law, then any other argument becomes unnecessary. If you assume that as true, you should not make any further point.

Bill makes arguments about evidence (clothes, window etc.) and this to me implies one can respond pointing out other actual arguments - without your arbitrary assumption - which can be consdered and are in the opposite direction.
It is obvious that it you also add a prejudicial axiom that makes the judicial system guilty and the defendant become unfairly persecuted by definition, such a priori would alter all terms of the logical equation and no argument would be possible, you would decline every aspect on reality along with it.

I didn't start with that assumption. It's a conclusion I reached after reading extensively. And I note your selective treatment of my post. Any chance you might have a go at the part I added with this edit:

ETA it occurs to me your glee about the defence attitude to the semen stain is truly idiotic. They were afraid! Ha ha! Of what? That it would be tested and turn out to be Raffaele's semen? Just stand back and think how dumb that is. Let's suppose it is his. Well now, what would that say about the competence of your heroes? And, knowing it was his, why would Raffaele have applied to test it on the last day of the first instance trial (when, I agree, it was much too late)?

So, just like your demand of Bill to lay out the whole case on the clothes on the bed, let's hear your take on the semen stain which might have wrapped up the whole case by itself but was never tested. What possible contortion of investigative logic results in failing to test a sample on a pillow that had been thrust under the hip of the stripped, naked body of the victim? Go on Machiavelli. You're so smart. Tell us. Maybe you're afraid! Ha ha!

I don't see how my opinion of the ILE prevents you from explaining your understanding of their approach to this issue which prompted you to mock Raffaele's fear of what a test might produce. He was on trial for murder and had a lot to lose, while you are an anonymous internet poster with nothing at stake except the risk of looking like a fool. So, come on. Let's have it. You mocked Raffaele's fear. Well done. Now let's see what you can come up with to explain the non-testing of a stain on a pillow found under the victim's naked body. In the event of the expected silence, I shall assume you think there was no point in testing it as it might not have told them anything.

ETA and it's you with the axiom problem, my friend, not me. The whole prosecution case is built on an axiom of guilt. Petitio principii indeed!

 

[Machiavelli]

The cops who treated Amanda so well, were they the same ones who beat up Patrick and called him 'dirty black'? Or was he lying about that too? Is she lying about not being allowed to attend to her menstruation? You would think, whatever the law says, the cops would want to record everything to protect themselves from such beastly allegations.

They don't were exactly the same cops but that's not important, because what matters is that Knox did not complain nor reported of any abuse, nor her lawyers did. Moreover, her own testimony and that of witnesses are against her; she has no credibility. And, what also matters, is that in any event her hand written note and statements are not explained nor justified by any alleged police wrongdoing.
Is she lying? Yes, yes she is lying, because she did not report the alleged violation to anyone before. The rules of the game are that a person who suffers an abuse needs to report it, at least to lawyers; attorneys have a duty to ask, and if attorneys obtain information about it, they have an absolutely compelling duty to file a formal complaint. Not only that; but Knox also received visits from parliamentaries, such as Catia Polidori (the laws provides a right of legislators to access prison falcilities for the explicit purpose of interviewing people in custody about possible abuses and about their treatment).

You say you would think "whatever the law says" (!) the cops would want to record everything to protect themselves from such beastly allegations.
Actually the only thing I agree to, is the word "beastly". These allegations are in fact good for non-Italian listeners who apparently don't know anything about the context nor about the law, and who have an already twisted mindset which allows them to obliviate the actual gravity of Knox's and Sollecito's set of statements, including those that were obviously non-coerced.

 

[Machiavelli]

I didn't start with that assumption. It's a conclusion I reached after reading extensively. And I note your selective treatment of my post. Any chance you might have a go at the part I added with this edit:

You are indeed treating that assumption as an axiom in the argument you offered.
I skipped the rest of the post purposely, to emphasize that the assumption is indeed an axiom, so causing the rest of the arguments to become useless.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach's point makes no sense. Say they gave a false alibi because they were getting high on some illegal substance in the piazza when the murder was committed and didn't want anybody to know. Then say the original alibi gets disproved and they later bring forward Curatolo as their witness to prove their real alibi. Is this evidence somehow inadmissible? Of course not. Is it reliable? Well, no. No sane person would believe a word of it but since he's the prosecution's witness and they say he is 'extraordinarily accurate' (Galati) that problem fades away and he provides the required alibi. It's as though the defence called him and the prosecution elected not to cross examine.

But no. You are instead argueing in favor of my argument. You are saying it does make sense.
If they gave an alibi of being in the Piazza having some substances, and if they brought forward Curatolo as their witnsses, that wouldn't change the credibility of Curatolo. But if credible, he would at least be compatible with confirming their alibi.
But this is indeed an "if" statement: IF they claimed an alibi about being in the Piazza taking drugs and lying about it.
The problem is thei did not bring this alibi, they brought a different alibi. And this is why in any event Curatolo could never confirm it. In any event, Curatolo confirmed something they denied throughout the trial.

 

[Machiavelli]

This sounds completely wrong to me. From what I've read on the subject, it's not at all unusual for a person to become gradually aware that what they thought was a "memory" didn't really happen, at least in the sort of context we're talking about. Vague statements are also characteristic of this kind of false memory. You seem to be suggesting that either a false memory pops into someone's head fully formed and in lots of detail, with the person themselves absolutely convinced it's real, and that it never changes; or else it's not really a false memory but a conscious lie. Even if that were true of people with, for example, false memories of child abuse (which I have to say I doubt, as it seems far too simplistic), it certainly isn't true of the type of false internalized statement we might expect to see in a case like this one.

Here are some notes I scribbled down ages ago (from this book, if you're interested):

Coerced-compliant false confessions are:
1 - not false memories
2 - all known cases are always from interrogations of hight-risk subjects that lasted more than 16 hours the least (Knox's interrogation lasted 2.5 hours and she is NOT a high risk subject).
3 - they are confessions (worked out from sense of guilt and rationalized out from a situation of knowing the subject was unaware - drunk, under drug influence etc.), they are not false accusations (admission of responsability inroduced by supposition is not the same of false testimony, such is Knox's)
4 - the existence and features of 'internalized' false confession, they overlap to the description of false memory syndrome. If a memory is actually there, meaning if the experience of it actually internalized, there is no possibility that the subject can distinguish it from the true event (unless an external proof is given to the subject to rationalize the conclusion that it was false) and it is independent from what the people "thinks".
The actual existence of cases of internalized false confession (actual false memory) is very controversial, because the true occurrence of it might be very rare. The compliant-coerced type of false confession instead is actually not 'internalized' but rather rationalized, while internalized parts are fragmentary pre-existing elements; this is why it is typically full with a pattern of suppositions and reasoning (maybe, I think, it's possible, it must be).

In Knox you have an opposite pattern: you have a claim of direct memory, visual and sensory material kind - "flashes", scream, etc - together with assertive statements that build a context (we wanted to have fun, I imagined what was going on, exact knowledge of the position where she was, I am very afraid of him, blood on Raffaele's hands etc.), then you have a rationalization that goes in the opposite direction and intends to claim the existence of this material but, at the same time, to make this material unusable.

 

[NancyS]

This comes under the heading of 'defence strategy'. If guilty, their defence strategy throughout was pathetic. Raffaele should have blamed Amanda and cut a deal. Amanda should have blamed everyone else except Lumumba. The selective clean-up that framed Rudy followed by the extended failure to implicate him over the entire course of the proceedings defies reason. 'But if we say it was Rudy he will retaliate. Oh no!' But he did retaliate anyway, so where was the gain in not blaming him having gone to all the trouble of framing him by faking his MO and staging a sex assault and robbery which cunningly left his DNA in all the places it shouldn't be?

News just in - Ergon announces it was Rudy who took and dumped the phones.

I would have thought the first thing their lawyers and family would have done is to try and find out if they did know anything about what had happened - and to advise making a deal if they had any involvement. They must have been the luckiest murderers ever to avoid leaving any trace at the scene - and they must have been informed that this was so unlikely and advised to blame Rudy if they knew he was also responsible.

If they had gone out that night and shopping the next morning, why lie about this? They could just as easily have said they went for a walk and to the shop for milk/bread - to lie is just nonsensical. Although if they were out and about, Curatolo would probably testify that he only saw them on the night of the disco busses and the other people in the shop would have testified they didn't see Amanda, which would result in still multiple claims of 'she lied she lied'

 

[Bill Williams]

Coerced-compliant false confessions are:
1 - not false memories
2 - all known cases are always from interrogations of hight-risk subjects that lasted more than 16 hours the least (Knox's interrogation lasted 2.5 hours and she is NOT a high risk subject).
3 - they are confessions (worked out from sense of guilt and rationalized out from a situation of knowing the subject was unaware - drunk, under drug influence etc.), they are not false accusations (admission of responsability inroduced by supposition is not the same of false testimony, such is Knox's)
4 - the existence and features of 'internalized' false confession, they overlap to the description of false memory syndrome. If a memory is actually there, meaning if the experience of it actually internalized, there is no possibility that the subject can distinguish it from the true event (unless an external proof is given to the subject to rationalize the conclusion that it was false) and it is independent from what the people "thinks".
The actual existence of cases of internalized false confession (actual false memory) is very controversial, because the true occurrence of it might be very rare. The compliant-coerced type of false confession instead is actually not 'internalized' but rather rationalized, while internalized parts are fragmentary pre-existing elements; this is why it is typically full with a pattern of suppositions and reasoning (maybe, I think, it's possible, it must be).

Machiavelli - I am confused. Are you a lay-expert on sleep issues (which you claim because of your own regrettable sleep issues, combined with an ability to clinically evaluate someone else's sleep issues by looking at their writings!)

.... Or are you an expert in false memory syndrome?

This is embarrassing that you would even try.

 

[JREF2010]

she has no credibility.

you could just post this over and over...and over.
this is your opinion and it will never change.

you base it off , for example an interrogation ran by someone like Napoleoni who has been suspended for being dishonest, and so "Napoleoni has no credibility".

What you know about interrogations and false confessions, only you can believe or choose to be in denial of.

and its odd you find a heroin junkie, a bum who lives in a park and sleeps on benches, as credible.
Without really knowing Toto or Amanda, you determine in your mind who is credible.

the Heroin bum was peddling drugs too, so his character is not commonly referred to as a upstanding and honest, law abiding citizen of a community.

And going back to heroin and being high, which Toto admits to doing often daily, for years and years, his memory might be a little foggy.

But you somehow find him credible. I wonder if you could exaggerate the data that proves Toto credible?

 

[anglolawyer]

You are indeed treating that assumption as an axiom in the argument you offered.
I skipped the rest of the post purposely, to emphasize that the assumption is indeed an axiom, so causing the rest of the arguments to become useless.

That was irrational. The 'axiom' was not part of the argument. My argument doesn't need to assume the cops are thugs or angels. It's not even an argument anyway, just a question: do you, Machiavelli, have an explanation for the failure to test the stain? You rejoiced in the fact Raffaele was 'afraid!' to do so (emphasis supplied) as if it proves something. What did he have to fear?

 

[Bill Williams]

Mach's point makes no sense. Say they gave a false alibi because they were getting high on some illegal substance in the piazza when the murder was committed and didn't want anybody to know. Then say the original alibi gets disproved and they later bring forward Curatolo as their witness to prove their real alibi. Is this evidence somehow inadmissible? Of course not. Is it reliable? Well, no. No sane person would believe a word of it but since he's the prosecution's witness and they say he is 'extraordinarily accurate' (Galati) that problem fades away and he provides the required alibi. It's as though the defence called him and the prosecution elected not to cross examine.

But no. You are instead argueing in favor of my argument. You are saying it does make sense.
If they gave an alibi of being in the Piazza having some substances, and if they brought forward Curatolo as their witnsses, that wouldn't change the credibility of Curatolo. But if credible, he would at least be compatible with confirming their alibi.
But this is indeed an "if" statement: IF they claimed an alibi about being in the Piazza taking drugs and lying about it.
The problem is thei did not bring this alibi, they brought a different alibi. And this is why in any event Curatolo could never confirm it. In any event, Curatolo confirmed something they denied throughout the trial.

Machiavelli, please do not respond to this... I am asking this of others. I have read this response three or four times and truly to me it makes no sense.

So Machiavelli, be a good chap and stand down for a minute. Can someone else explain what Mr. Machiavelli's point is here?

The really confusing things is, other than Judge Hellmann's and Judge Zanetti's broadsides aimed at their own Italian judiciary, not to mention the Italian Supreme Court, the prosecution in Perugia is winning...

.... so why is Machiavelli ignoring that they are winning and making completely unintelligible posts?

Is Machiavelli still claiming that photos which clearly show the cottage's balcony in line of sight to a street lamp, is not really illuminated?

Put that fact aside for a minute.... this is not the way winners argue their cases. Call me confused.

 

[Machiavelli]

I've read much of the literature about false memory, answer as I recall, many people who had had false memories constructed by overzealous psychotherapists did retract their allegations upon realising the falsity of them. This often happened when the memories were no longer being reinforced by the 'authority', i.e. The psychotherapists did(and in 'Amanda's case the police). Can you provide a cite from the literature to support your claims about false memory syndrome?

This means they came to the rational conclusion they were false, not that they retracted it.
The most famous case of false memory is probably Piaget, who had himself a false memory of an attempted kidnapping from his childhood, which never happened.
Jean Piaget came to the conclusion that his memory was false and researched the topic, only after - when he was since many years into his profession - his nanny told him about having falesly told him the story; he had forgot of having being told by the nanny - hypnosys can remove the consiousness of being "told" something even, in adults. But it was impossible to remove the visual memory itself. It can be re-labeled as false on external rational convincement (like scenes you remember from a movie or from a dream: you just know it's a movie) but it cannot be 'removed' or be made vague.

 

[anglolawyer]

I would have thought the first thing their lawyers and family would have done is to try and find out if they did know anything about what had happened - and to advise making a deal if they had any involvement. They must have been the luckiest murderers ever to avoid leaving any trace at the scene - and they must have been informed that this was so unlikely and advised to blame Rudy if they knew he was also responsible.

If they had gone out that night and shopping the next morning, why lie about this? They could just as easily have said they went for a walk and to the shop for milk/bread - to lie is just nonsensical. Although if they were out and about, Curatolo would probably testify that he only saw them on the night of the disco busses and the other people in the shop would have testified they didn't see Amanda, which would result in still multiple claims of 'she lied she lied'

You have to get right into the universe in which they really did murder Meredith Kercher and left the evidence we now see as proof they did so. We can forget about police corruption or any other weirdo ideas - they really did kill her. Thus, the knife and bra DNA is real, so is the luminol and mixed traces and the witnesses really did see and hear things connected with the crime. And Raffaele and Amanda know all this. They know they have been rumbled. Their stupid lies have not worked and they are in the same position as Rudy. What's more, they already fell out at the questura, where Raffaele crumbled and ratted on Amanda. They are faced with life in prison but they have some outs. They can:

1 plead guilty and throw themselves on the mercy of the court
2 elect a fast track trial and get a sentence reduction
3 rat on each other and get off almost completely (I think this option was particularly available to Raffaele)
4 tell some story (separately or in combo) that would appeal to the 'involvementers', or
5 steadfastly and rather stupidly plead not guilty and gamble on falsifying all the evidence, bankrupting their families in the process.

If guilty, which of these would be the best? The answer is certainly not 5.

 

[Grinder]

If the police did make her crumble that night and she was guilty, there is no reasonable explanation for her not naming Rudy. She would have known he was involved and could have cried about how scared she was and how he had threatened her if she said anything - he was the perfect guy to take the blame (especially as it is continually claimed that they staged the scene to set him up!). Confirming Lumumba indicates that she had no idea who was responsible. It's far harder to lie than tell the truth - and once she had cracked she would have said Rudy did it. If they had been involved, I think she would have convinced herself that it was all Rudy's fault and psychologically he would have been an easy person to blame as they had no prior relationship

I've always said that guilty or innocent of the murder, the interrogation's results shouldn't have been calumnia because they forced her to say what they knew to be correct.

Mach explanation of the De Felice saying his famous buckled and told what was correct statement is that he said she told us some things we knew were correct.

Mach, perhaps you could explain what things they knew were correct in her statements.

 

[NancyS]

Coerced-compliant false confessions are:
1 - not false memories
2 - all known cases are always from interrogations of hight-risk subjects that lasted more than 16 hours the least (Knox's interrogation lasted 2.5 hours and she is NOT a high risk subject).
3 - they are confessions (worked out from sense of guilt and rationalized out from a situation of knowing the subject was unaware - drunk, under drug influence etc.), they are not false accusations (admission of responsability inroduced by supposition is not the same of false testimony, such is Knox's)
4 - the existence and features of 'internalized' false confession, they overlap to the description of false memory syndrome. If a memory is tactually there, meaning if the experience of it actually internalized, there is no possibility that the subject can distinguish it from the true event (unless an external proof is given to the subject to rationalize the conclusion that it was false) and it is independent from what the people "thinks".
The actual existence of cases of internalized false confession (actual false memory) is very controversial, because the true occurrence of it might be very rare. The compliant-coerced type of false confession instead is actually not 'internalized' but rather rationalized, while internalized parts are fragmentary pre-existing elements; this is why it is typically full with a pattern of suppositions and reasoning (maybe, I think, it's possible, it must be).

In Knox you have an opposite pattern: you have a claim of direct memory, visual and sensory material kind - "flashes", scream, etc - together with assertive statements that build a context (we wanted to have fun, I imagined what was going on, exact knowledge of the position where she was, I am very afraid of him, blood on Raffaele's hands etc.), then you have a rationalization that goes in the opposite direction and intends to claim the existence of this material but, at the same time, to make this material unusable.

As nothing was recorded we don't really have any idea what led to Amanda signing statements. Was it a false memory or was it due to being exhausted, terrified and confused and buying into the idea that she was there and couldn't remember due to shock - and trying to please the police by imagining what they were asking her to remember. Without a recording we'll never know. The only thing we do know is that it was well dodgy and there must be some reason the recordings were not done or never saw the light of day

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill makes arguments about evidence (clothes, window etc.) and this to me implies one can respond pointing out other actual arguments - without your arbitrary assumption - which can be consdered and are in the opposite direction.
It is obvious that it you also add a prejudicial axiom that makes the judicial system guilty and the defendant become unfairly persecuted by definition, such a priori would alter all terms of the logical equation and no argument would be possible, you would decline every aspect on reality along with it.

Machiavelli. Thank you for being helpful, with all the other illogical stuff you've been posting I had forgotten about Amanda's clothes on her bed. This was a point that you tried to ignore with verbiage...

... the point was, whether you believe her or not, Amanda claimed that the clothes which she wore to Raffaele's on the night of Nov 1st, ended up on her bed back at the cottage on the morning of Nov 2, after her shower and a change of clothes to get ready for the weekend.

A picture shows those clothes still on her bed weeks' later within a sealed crime scene.

The claim is that Knox took part in a horrible, grisly, brutal knife murder of a true innocent. Again, you may disbelieve her, but Knox says that the clothes she wore at the time in question are on her bed, and photos confirm this.

Question - please read the question slowly lest the translation in your head be difficult: Why did the PLE not collect the clothes as evidence?

Let's start with that. Be a good sort and keep to the question please.

 

[Machiavelli]

That was irrational. The 'axiom' was not part of the argument. My argument doesn't need to assume the cops are thugs or angels. It's not even an argument anyway, just a question: do you, Machiavelli, have an explanation for the failure to test the stain? You rejoiced in the fact Raffaele was 'afraid!' to do so (emphasis supplied) as if it proves something. What did he have to fear?

Of course I have an explanation! I explained that more than once.
But actually, I think your axiom was indeed part of your argument, or so it seems to me. Because (and I did not "rejoice", but rather pointed the light on it) the fact that Sollecito's defence did not request to test the stain is something that changes its light if you don't use the axiom, and because it also provides you the tip to explain and understand about how it works, under a different light; you may understand that, as Stefanoni decided to delay the test of the alleged semen stain in order to leave the pillowcase intact (so that it was sent to another laboratory section that deals with print analysis, and kept it), and it was kept untouched until prof. Vinci requested the laboratory to access it and could examine it himself directly. At that point, the ball was in the defence's field. After their print test, they could have requested to test the alleged semen stain. They did't. The print analysis is all what prof. Vici requestd. They waited two years before requesting that the pillowcase be sent back to Stefanoni's lab for a DNA test on the alleged semen stain.

 

[Bill Williams]

As nothing was recorded we don't really have any idea what led to Amanda signing statements. Was it a false memory or was it due to being exhausted, terrified and confused and buying into the idea that she was there and couldn't remember due to shock - and trying to please the police by imagining what they were asking her to remember. Without a recording we'll never know. The only thing we do know is that it was well dodgy and there must be some reason the recordings were not done or never saw the light of day

Good point. But why are we not deferring to Machiavelli, who as well as being a lay-expert on sleep issues, is (apparently) an expert on coerced-compliant confessions?

My guess is that Machiavelli has a copy of the interrogation tapes and has made note of the times when Knox is faking pseudo-coerced-compliant responses. Don't you agree?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli. Thank you for being helpful, with all the other illogical stuff you've been posting I had forgotten about Amanda's clothes on her bed. This was a point that you tried to ignore with verbiage...

Actually, I asked you to explain how analysis of her clothes could confirm or deny her story, and to detail the 'clothes' evidence that you intend to bring before our attention.

 

[anglolawyer]

But no. You are instead argueing in favor of my argument. You are saying it does make sense.
If they gave an alibi of being in the Piazza having some substances, and if they brought forward Curatolo as their witnsses, that wouldn't change the credibility of Curatolo. But if credible, he would at least be compatible with confirming their alibi.
But this is indeed an "if" statement: IF they claimed an alibi about being in the Piazza taking drugs and lying about it.
The problem is thei did not bring this alibi, they brought a different alibi. And this is why in any event Curatolo could never confirm it. In any event, Curatolo confirmed something they denied throughout the trial.

I know all this. I take issue with the idea that Curatolo's evidence can be used for one purpose but discarded for another and I argue by analogy. You want to cherry pick his evidence for the part that suits you but ignore the part that doesn't. I don't see anything which compels a fair minded observer to do that. Galati even maintains he is 'extraordinarily accurate'. If so, this must extend to his recollection of times as well as dates. He says they were there until midnight, later modified to 11.30 p.m.

Fine he proves Amanda is a liar (but interestingly, not Raffaele, who gave no evidence) but so what? Everybody tells lies. Filomena even lied about her drug use. Big deal.

You also ignored what I posted about your timeline, now you have committed yourself to a murder after 10.30 (meaning some time not long after, presumably) but in which they are hanging around in the square for an hour beforehand. You can't use Curatolo this way. If he is that wrong then he cannot be considered reliable in his identification and may have been looking at someone else or just stoned out of his bonce.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course I have an explanation! I explained that more than once.
But actually, I think your axiom was indeed part of your argument, or so it seems to me. Because (and I did not "rejoice", but rather pointed the light on it) the fact that Sollecito's defence did not request to test the stain is something that changes its light if you don't use the axiom, and because it also provides you the tip to explain and understand about how it works, under a different light; you may understand that, as Stefanoni decided to delay the test of the alleged semen stain in order to leave the pillowcase intact (so that it was sent to another laboratory section that deals with print analysis, and kept it), and it was kept untouched until prof. Vinci requested the laboratory to access it and could examine it himself directly. At that point, the ball was in the defence's field. After their print test, they could have requested to test the alleged semen stain. They did't. The print analysis is all what prof. Vici requestd. They waited two years before requesting that the pillowcase be sent back to Stefanoni's lab for a DNA test on the alleged semen stain.

Please note the thrust of Machiavelli's argument here - a rare time when at least one can make sense of it.

The problem, acc. to M. is that the defence did not prove their innocence. Apparently in Italian law it is not a requirement for the prosecution to even attempt to prove their guilt. Like Machiavelli, it is good enough just to make assertions of guilt.

Remember, Machiavelli once said that "presumption of innocence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" were only procedural rules. (I can't wait for him denying he said this.... go for it, Mr. M.!)