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

[Katody Matrass]

That's a good point. I suspect that one of two things is more accurate:

1) there is an implied "if required" that sits after the word "sentence", which has become superfluous to say explicitly in Italian legalese shorthand;

2) The word "sentenza" can also be interpreted as "judgement" or similar.


I have always understood the word "sentenza" to mean "sentence", in my not-much-more-than-conversational knowledge of Italian. And the Oxford Dictionaries translation concurs:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/translate/italian-english/sentenza

But as I said, it's entirely possible that the context and/or convention dictates that the use of "sentenza" in this instance does not specifically mean "sentence" without any qualification.

In the other direction sentence translates to "condanna".

 

[toto]

My reaction to the Jeffries arrest was, and is, that it is another example of the Cluedo principle(*) at work: police seem unable to look beyond the people closest to the victim.

(*) that's my name for it - in the Cluedo game, all possible culprits are known at the start of the "investigation".

Yes. My reason for posting was to compare the sense of unreality Mr Jeffries had with the sense of unreality Amanda had. Mr Jeffries had a bit more support early on, but he was a retired schoolteacher and Amanda a young student.

 

[AmyStrange]

In the context of the claim that Knox confessed it sounds like Knox confessed to the murder or having a role in the murder. I don't think she did either and as such I think it is at least misleading to refer to the statement as a confession.

It is a confession in the sense that she admitted being in the house when Kercher was killed but it is not a confession in that she admitted to any crime.

I reviewed the statements that were listed here before I wrote the above. Perhaps I am confused or I am misinterpreting something.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Confession

-

I agree.

Mostly what I was referring to when I called it a confession was how the PGP camp portrays it. True, it's more of an "accusation" than a confession, but since the "accusation" allegedly puts Amanda at the apartment at the time of the murder, it's as good as a confession... at least to the PGP camp.

If you're really and truly honest, you'll admit that it's not even an accusation or a confession. It reads like a confused dream and Amanda never says she sees Lumumba kill Meredith or even that Meredith is actually killed at all. It sounds more like she's making up a sexual fantasy to be honest.

Truth be told, it's the worse confession I have ever heard in my life. It doesn't even classify as a false confession in my mind. There is no detail like how Meredith dies or even any proof that she does die at all or that Lumumba is the one that does the killing. There's no killing, no knife, no blood, just a scream and that's it.

But regardless, it will never go away at least as far as the PGP camp is concerned and will always be referred to by them as "the confession",

d

-

 

[LondonJohn]

The hater/guilter lies continue. The guilter PR campaign is in high gear as the Nencini verdict nears. This article is being advertised by The Machine/Harry Rag as "Amanda Knox's startling admission she faked a break-in."

Sigh.

http://www.tekjournalismuk.com/45/post/2014/01/exclusive-amanda-knox-admits-staging-burglary.html

Please note, this used to be the guilter meme that Amanda Knox had participated in a "rape prank". Now she admits to being involved with others in an April Fools prank as a teenager in Seattle, and "Steven Wentworth", the author, has this as proof Knox is a seasoned break-in simulator.

"Wentworth" also resurrects Knox as organizing a street brawl...



Of course it was "brought up as evidence". Even Judge Massei dismissed it.... just because it is "brought up as evidence" does not make it true.

The slur PR Campaign against Knox continues.

Frankly, I think that Peter Sutcliffe or Robert Mugabe could get an op-ed piece "published" in TEK Journalism UK if they wanted to.

It's a two-bit operation with absolutely no significance whatsoever in the UK media landscape.

This is one of the fascinating things about the evolution of "Web 2.0" and beyond. There are obviously great potential societal benefits of providing routes to dissemination of anyone's viewpoint or reportage. But there are also two significant problems: firstly, there risks being such a flood of information that it becomes impossible to see the wood for the trees; and secondly, the issue of trusted sources becomes more and more opaque.

My opinion (and it's the opinion of many media commentators and sociologists) is that we will soon see a "Web 3.0" evolution, where there is a reordering of the web landscape into trusted sites/aggregators and the rest. People will come to understand that if information is published on certain sites or aggregators it is a) significant, and b) trustworthy to beyond a certain threshold. And they will come to treat any other site as an untrustworthy collection of information that is of questionable value (unless and until that site builds a reputation worthy of implicit elevation to the top division).

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't share your view. My faith in the appellate court system in Italy is currently sufficiently north of zero to make me think that the Nencini court will arrive at an independently-motivated verdict.

I hope you're right.

In Italy there really are cases of as they say "ninth grade" (which means nine courts ruled).

This case is currently referred as quarto grado - the fourth time in court.
Bouncing back many times between Cassazione and lower courts is not unusual and the fear Bongiorno expressed about this one being a legal ping-pong case is not unmotivated.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please note, this used to be the guilter meme that Amanda Knox had participated in a "rape prank". Now she admits to being involved with others in an April Fools prank as a teenager in Seattle, and "Steven Wentworth", the author, has this as proof Knox is a seasoned break-in simulator.

"Wentworth" also resurrects Knox as organizing a street brawl...

Of course it was "brought up as evidence". Even Judge Massei dismissed it.... just because it is "brought up as evidence" does not make it true.

The slur PR Campaign against Knox continues.

In regard to the actual prank itself: I'd say that there is a massive and important difference between:

a) A "prank" in which people don ski masks, break into an apartment, and terrorise the occupants with threats of rape; and

b) A genuine prank where a bunch of people rearrange somebody's room to make it look like there has been a burglary, then await the "victim's" shock upon discovering the scene, before coming clean and saying it was a prank.


For a start, there's clearly no element of threat of violence of any sort in scenario (b), in stark contrast to the intense threat of violence in (a). And secondly, there's obviously no intent in (b) to do anything other than induce a short-term shock in the "victim", whereas (a) could very clearly induce a very real panic and terror in the victim, which might have long-lasting effects.

I also reiterate that (b) is illustrative of exactly the form of prank that was commonplace in my student days (in fact, far more extreme variants of it were practised). It's preposterous to suggest that it's indicative of any sort of psychological abnormality. It's also preposterous to suggest that it bears any direct relevance to what happened in Perugia on November 1st 2007.

 

[LondonJohn]

Over on websleuths folks are congratulating themselves for solving the case with this prank theory. They have known all along she was guilty. Now they finally have a motive. I don't even know where to begin.........

It's a shame then that they are either so intellectually deficient or so biased (or both) to make that illogical leap.

It's not even as if there's any suggestion (even by prosecutors) that the "staged" break-in came before the attack. If the theory of the crime was that Knox and others had staged a break-in (presumably within Meredith's room) in order to "prank" her, and that Meredith had then overreacted to the prank, which had then escalated (somehow....) into murder, then obviously the Seattle prank might be of some direct relevance.

But that's not what is suggested by prosecutors (or the convicting court). They are suggesting that the break-in was staged after the murder, in an attempt to misdirect the authorities. That's a totally different kettle of fish.

And as I have already noted, the Seattle prank involved absolutely no element of threat of violence, nor indeed any element of non-consensual interaction with the "victim".

The two events (the Seattle prank and the prosecution theory of the murder) have no reasonable direct relationship, whether causal or indicative. To think that they do is to be exhibiting either stupidity or irrational bias.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why don't they try to deal with the stomach contents evidence instead?

And please no lame replies like Machiavelli's. What the hell is even a non-continuous meal? And the bread "theory" was a bit ridiculous. Like he would know when the meal he ate reached the duodenum.

That particular attempt at a argument was one of the poorer ones I've read in recent times. And totally unsupported with evidence, of course. When one reads "arguments" such as that one, one does begin to think that, in some people's eyes, the defence of a particular position at all costs is more important than a rational, objective analysis of whether that position is correct/supportable.

 

[AmyStrange]

In regard to the actual prank itself: I'd say that there is a massive and important difference between:

a) A "prank" in which people don ski masks, break into an apartment, and terrorise the occupants with threats of rape; and

b) A genuine prank where a bunch of people rearrange somebody's room to make it look like there has been a burglary, then await the "victim's" shock upon discovering the scene, before coming clean and saying it was a prank.


For a start, there's clearly no element of threat of violence of any sort in scenario (b), in stark contrast to the intense threat of violence in (a). And secondly, there's obviously no intent in (b) to do anything other than induce a short-term shock in the "victim", whereas (a) could very clearly induce a very real panic and terror in the victim, which might have long-lasting effects.

I also reiterate that (b) is illustrative of exactly the form of prank that was commonplace in my student days (in fact, far more extreme variants of it were practised). It's preposterous to suggest that it's indicative of any sort of psychological abnormality. It's also preposterous to suggest that it bears any direct relevance to what happened in Perugia on November 1st 2007.

-

Amanda's non-criminal April Fool's prank is considered evidence of murder, while Rudy's criminal burglaries are not.

This is just so sad, and proves once more that they don't care one iota about Meredith. They are just out to get Amanda,

d

-

 

[Mary_H]

I did not mean to express disagreement with most of this. I think it was a coerced false statement. Sometime PGP are right and in this case I don't think I would object to characterizing the statement as an accusation.

The reason I brought this up is that it is routinely reported that Knox confessed and by the most common usage of that terminology Knox didn't confess as I understand the situation. A confession would have included details about what she did to facilitate the murder of Kercher IMO.

Given the coercive nature of the interrogation any confession or accusation would need to have included details that could have been corroborated before the statement could have been used as evidence in a US court I suspect. There were no details that could be corroborated and there was no confession of a crime. She does implicate Lumumba,

This is one of the more remarkable aspects of the case, an aspect that is difficult to be struck by if you know the case well, but, one would hope, should be more obvious to those who have greater perspective.

Amanda and Raffaele were never questioned about how the crime took place or about what they did afterward. When Amanda was examined during the trial, the questions focused mostly on why she implicated Patrick and how she acted the day the crime was discovered. Why the lack of curiosity? Mach says it's because they had to stop questioning Amanda once she became a suspect, but that doesn't explain why she wasn't questioned about it in court.

It's one thing to ask a defendant if she planned a sex game and held a knife to her roommate's throat and have her deny it. It's quite a different thing never to ask her.

 

[Diocletus]

Given the coercive nature of the interrogation any confession or accusation would need to have included details that could have been corroborated before the statement could have been used as evidence in a US court I suspect. There were no details that could be corroborated and there was no confession of a crime. She does implicate Lumumba,

I doubt the US allows coerced statements to be used as evidence. The question is, what's the standard for a showing of coercion.

 

[Strozzi]

My reaction to the Jeffries arrest was, and is, that it is another example of the Cluedo principle(*) at work: police seem unable to look beyond the people closest to the victim.

(*) that's my name for it - in the Cluedo game, all possible culprits are known at the start of the "investigation".

When an organization has an important position to fill, they will often advertise the opening and then also compose a list of internal candidates, so they then have two lists to work with: internal candidates and external candidates. Internal candidates are already known, so they have a natural advantage.

This is a factor in suspecting people close to the victim. They are real multi-dimentional people. They are known, knowable, and observable early on, versus someone unidentified (non-existent).

 

[Welshman]

She was asked about this rumor, so she clarified what really happened. Why shouldn't she? It was a harmless practical joke. The people who are gloating about this revelation have completely forgotten that they described it for years as a "rape prank" involving mock assailants with ski masks.

Meanwhile they ignore Guede's track record before the murder... breaking into places, threatening a guy with a knife, starting a fire in someone's apartment... all without the help of accomplices.

Can you imagine the reaction on the tjmk/pmf hate sites if Amanda had committed burglaries prior to Meredith's murder and threatened someone with a knife. If Rudy received a ticket for a noise violation or carried out a prank, the nutjobs on the hate sites would not say anything about it.

 

[Strozzi]

This is one of the more remarkable aspects of the case, an aspect that is difficult to be struck by if you know the case well, but, one would hope, should be more obvious to those who have greater perspective.

Amanda and Raffaele were never questioned about how the crime took place or about what they did afterward.

Mary, we don't actually know that because the recordings are missing. Amanda may have been questioned about how the crime took place. She evidently did not answer any such possible questions in an intelligible way, or the police would have used it. She might have been asked how the crime took place and responded in such a confused way that the police could not use it and do not want it known what delusions they elicited.

The recording is missing because it reveals the interrogators' methods and the girl's screaming. The police or prosecutor can't have Italy and the world hear the recording.

If you or I were listening to the recording, we would cue ourselves to listen for the sound of the policewoman striking Amanda twice in the back of the head. It may or may not be audible, although there could be other clues that it occurred. But I doubt that the two hits had anything to do with the police destroying the recording. To them, the hits are an insignificant blip compared to everything else that was recorded. And destroyed.

 

[Strozzi]

I doubt the US allows coerced statements to be used as evidence. The question is, what's the standard for a showing of coercion.

I would think one important standard would center on a recording. If the suspect was being interrogated in a room designed with monitoring equipment, the failure to turn on the monitoring equipment or failure to provide the recording might be criteria to disallow the statement, whether it was coerced or not.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Isn’t the success of a prank whether everyone involved views it as a prank? What if the target doesn’t see the funny side of it, what if they are upset by the actions of others?

For example, locking some in a cupboard as a prank might be funny to the group, but if the target person is claustrophobic would they see the funny side of things?

 

[acbytesla]

I did not mean to express disagreement with most of this. I think it was a coerced false statement. Sometime PGP are right and in this case I don't think I would object to characterizing the statement as an accusation.

The reason I brought this up is that it is routinely reported that Knox confessed and by the most common usage of that terminology Knox didn't confess as I understand the situation. A confession would have included details about what she did to facilitate the murder of Kercher IMO.

Given the coercive nature of the interrogation any confession or accusation would need to have included details that could have been corroborated before the statement could have been used as evidence in a US court I suspect. There were no details that could be corroborated and there was no confession of a crime. She does implicate Lumumba,

I'm with you on this Dave. This wasn't a confession or even a false confession. It is a false statement. But like it or not. It could be considered incriminating in the sense that it places Amanda at the scene of the murder.

That said, you are right on Dave. There are no details in this statement where Amanda admits any culpability. And what scant details in the statement are provably false. Amanda was told to imagine certain scenarios and she said she confusedly remembers Patrick killing Meredith.

But Patrick didn't kill Meredith. If for example Amanda's interrogators had pressed her on the details there might be more information that would actually be incriminating or demonstrably false. In the US interrogators go over confessions to make sure that they fit the evidence because psychologically ill or weak people often confess to crimes that they didn't commit.

I've often been troubled that in some interviews, Amanda has been questioned about why did she "confess" and I believe her answer has always been a mistake in the sense she accepts their premise that she confessed. She didn't and I think she should always point that out. That while the police coerced her to make a false statement accusing Patrick, at no time did Amanda confess.

 

[Welshman]

An important issue in this case is if the prosecution had a strong case why did the prosecution have to rely on a coerced confession? A coerced confession is false evidence obtained under duress. If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a strong case, why did they have to resort to using false evidence? Having to rely on coerced confessions is a clear sign the police have a weak case.

 

[andreajo]

Isn’t the success of a prank whether everyone involved views it as a prank? What if the target doesn’t see the funny side of it, what if they are upset by the actions of others?

For example, locking some in a cupboard as a prank might be funny to the group, but if the target person is claustrophobic would they see the funny side of things?

Certainly it is. I don't think that anybody (including Amanda) is trying to say that the April Fool's prank was successful. She mentions apologies for the upset caused.

 

[Bill Williams]

An important issue in this case is if the prosecution had a strong case why did the prosecution have to rely on a coerced confession? A coerced confession is false evidence obtained under duress. If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a strong case, why did they have to resort to using false evidence? Having to rely on coerced confessions is a clear sign the police have a weak case.

*ALL* confessions obtained through *interrogation* are coerced. It is what interrogations are!

Interrogations have but one goal - confession. They are to be distinguished from witness interviews, for instance.

Ninety-nine times out of 100 we are in favour of the police adopting things like the Reid Technique, because none of us feel sorry for perps being badgered and cajoled by cops if the bugger is actually guilty.

A coerced confession IS NOT, per se, "false" evidence obtained under duress. The whole point of interrogation is to place a suspect under duress.

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

Interrogation (also called questioning or interpellation) is interviewing as commonly employed by officers of the police, military, and Intelligence agencies with the goal of extracting a confession or incriminating statements.

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).