Amanda Knox was interrogated repeatedly in the five days following the murder of Meredith Kercher. Amanda consistently told the same story over and over again. She repeatedly told the truth.
In the early morning hours of November 6, 2007, the questioning became much more aggressive. Amanda was in a situation that she had absolutely no control of. She was thousands of miles from home, In a country where she had a very limited knowledge of the language. She was confronted by aggressive police officers who were accusing her of a horrible crime that she didn't commit. Amanda was terrified.
Amanda did not have a lawyer present during her interrogation. She was told it would be worse for her if she did. Amanda was told that she was being questioned as a witness but she was clearly being interrogated as a suspect. Italian law is very clear, no suspect is to be interrogated with out the presence of an attorney. The interrogation of Amanda Knox was illegal.
Interrogators are known to use several techniques to manipulate innocent suspects into self-incrimination. Over long periods of time, interrogators play mind games to confuse the suspect. One technique is to ask the suspect to imagine hypothetical scenarios. The interrogators feed the information that they want the suspect to imagine. Over long a long drawn out interrogation, the suspect gets confused and starts trying to comply with the request being made to imagine the scenarios. This is exactly what they did to Amanda Knox.
Physical force was also used on Amanda and she was lied to intentionally to make her believe the police had evidence against her.
Amanda stated in court testimony that she was repeatedly slapped on the back of her head and called a stupid liar. The interrogator who slapped Amanda told her that she was trying to help her to remember. Amanda was told that they had proof that she was at the crime scene at the time of the murder. This was a lie. She was told that she was going to prison for 30 years and she would never see her family again.
Amanda was told that her boss, Patrick Lumumba was the man that attacked Meredith. She did not give Patrick's name to the police. His name was suggested to her.
The police took a text message on Amanda's phone out of context. The text from Amanda to Patrick, "see you later" was taken literally by investigators. In the US, this phrase, in the context that it was written, simply means goodbye. The police told Amanda the text meant that she planned on meeting Patrick on the night of the murder. The police also left out the second part of the message, "good night." When you put the phrase together, it explains the meaning even more clearly. Amanda had no intention of meeting Patrick that night. She was simply saying goodbye to Patrick in the text.
The interrogators told Amanda to imagine she was at the cottage. She was told to imagine that Patrick committed the crime. None of it seemed possible to Amanda. She tried to explain to the police that none of what they were saying made any sense. She knew that she was not at the cottage at the time of the murder. She had repeatedly told the interrogators the truth and now they wanted her to imagine something completely different.
The interrogators kept telling her over and over again to imagine that she was there. When she still could not imagine what they were saying, she was slapped across the back of her head.
Once again she was told to imagine that she was there. She still could not do it. She knew what they were telling her was simply not true. She was scared and confused. After many hours of interrogation, with nothing to drink, exhaustion started kicking in. Amanda was trying to remember, she was trying to help but it just did not seem possible.
Then came another slap across the back of her head! You stupid liar! You were in the cottage! You will spend 30 years in prison! You are protecting a murderer! You will never see your family again! You will imagine that this happened!
This abuse went on for hours until Amanda was finally broken. She was desperate to end the questioning. She was extremely confused and she could not take anymore abuse.
Suffering from extreme exhaustion with no food nor water, after a long and grueling interrogation, twenty year old college student Amanda Knox gave in to the interrogators demands by describing an imaginary dream or vision. In this vision, she was in the kitchen covering her ears to block out screams while the man she worked for, Patrick Lumumba, was in Meredith's bedroom.
This so called confession was typed out by the police. The confession was not written by Amanda Knox. It was reported that over 30 members of the police force signed the confession. Why was it necessary for 30 people to interrogate a 20 year old female college student?
Click here to read an extensive analysis of the illegal interrogation of Amanda Knox including an audio recording of Amanda explaining the interrogation. You can also read the hand written letter Amanda wrote shortly after the interrogation that retracted her earlier coerced statements.
267 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 267 of 267Could you cite a source for Lumamba claiming he was beaten and kicked? Not saying it's not true, but I haven't heard it before. From what I read, he always seemed to blame AK, when I thought his spleen would have been far better vented at the police. Regardless of the role of AK in accusing him. I alwasy thought it perverse that the police weren't sued for the loss of his business. They should have brought him in for questioning pronto, checked his alibi thoroughly and let him.
Re 4.1 I think they are denying the assertions that they failed to give her food and drink over many hours questioned her and treated her in any way unlawfully as a police witness. Not sure whether it is just Bruce, AK's parents or Amanda herself making up the bit about hours of interrogation though.
Re your comment about the "quantities that Amanda consumed". How much dope was she claiming to have smoked?
4.2 Plausible, but presumably Raffaele used his phone in the same way and turned his on at 6am for the same reason? No wonder they slept so late. They can't have slept well with the noise of all the phones coming on and texts being received! ...The phones may have been on vibrate mode, are you going to say?
4.3 I thought I'd read that the list of recipients included employees of her US university? Maybe not.
4.4 Re the email being sent "a few days after the murder". It was just 2 days after the body had been discovered. Semantics perhaps and I acknowledge your points on this, but the tone of the email doesn't look any less odd to me.
4.6. You're right actually. I shouldn't have mentioned it. Regardless of how much litter there is on the road, it doesn't excluse me dropping more.
4.7 I appreciate that that was what AK was doing, but my view of it stands. It all comes under the heading of disturbingly inappropriate (along with the "yucky death" comment in court). I'm not saying any of this makes her guilty, of course. But her use of language in this email is, to my mind at least, inappropriate, and for want of a better (or even different) word, odd.
4.8. I can't see how see could plausibly deny having met him, but again, we'll have to agree to differ.
4.9 Plausibly she kept the crap and his footprints because she needed hard evidence that a third party had been involved in the murder. That she then hoped Guede would not be caught (because he's an accomplice) is not inconsisent with this.
4.10 Yes, her court testimony (months later) gives a more plausible explanation for her coming up with Patrick's name than the voluntary statement does. If she is innocent it's a shame for her, that her voluntary note gave no indication of the police methods (as set out in Reid etc), barring the slapping business. It's a shame she didn't state any of it before (presumably) her lawyers confirmed to her that there was no tape of the questioning.
4.11 Yes, if talking nonsense about Amanda Knox was a crimainal offence, I'd be serving a life sentence. Alongside pretty much everybody else who has expressed an opinion on the case. But talking rubbish about something you don't know much about isn't a criminal offence. On the other hand, talking rubbish about one's whereabouts a few days earlier to the police when you need an alibi is more troublesome.
We're entering a dark world of pedantry here I suspect, but you picked me up for suggesting that AK said she was trouble by dreams in her voluntary note. To quote the note:
"these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked..."
Could I ask what your interest is in this case? The "dreams" error notwithstanding, you appear to have a wide and deep knowledge of all the evidence against AK.
Response to Pippov from MGL
--------
Re your comment about the "quantities that Amanda consumed". How much dope was she claiming to have smoked?
------------
I do not know, but I am sure she was not a long term heavy user. Long term and heavy use of cannabis has been associated with schizophrenia
4.2 Response to Pippove from MGL
-------------
Plausible, but presumably Raffaele used his phone in the same way and turned his on at 6am for the same reason? No wonder they slept so late. They can't have slept well with the noise of all the phones coming on and texts being received! ...The phones may have been on vibrate mode, are you going to say?
-------
I sleep with my mobile switched on all night by my bedside and not on vibrate mode. What ever texts and/or missed calls you refer to, they can hardly have been a constant chorus of background noise for 4 hours.
4.7.1 Response to Pippov from MGL
--------------
I appreciate that that was what AK was doing, but my view of it stands. It all comes under the heading of disturbingly inappropriate (along with the "yucky death" comment in court). I'm not saying any of this makes her guilty, of course. But her use of language in this email is, to my mind at least, inappropriate, and for want of a better (or even different) word, odd.
---------
You are welcome to find it odd, but why bring it up if it is not evidence of her guilt? It merely serves to reinforce her demonization that corrupted the fairness of her trial.
4.8.1 Response to Pippov from MGL
--------
I can't see how see could plausibly deny having met him, but again, we'll have to agree to differ.
------------
Neither do I, especially as she never actually denied meeting him. What I said was that it is plausible that she could have claimed not to recognise him given her claim in court not to have known him very well. Note that this is not the same thing as claiming it is plausible that she would not have recognized him. That is also plausible as well, but not relevant to my point about the greater likelihood of a guilty Amanda accusing a stranger instead of Patrick.
I would agree to differ, but it is not clear to me what we would be differing about as I get the impression either you are misunderstanding my point or I am not making it clear enough – or it is the other way round.
4.9.1 Response to Pippov from MGL
-----------
Plausibly she kept the crap and his footprints because she needed hard evidence that a third party had been involved in the murder. That she then hoped Guede would not be caught (because he's an accomplice) is not inconsisent with this.
---------
She did not need evidence to prove a third party. The police were already telling her they knew she was at the cottage with someone else. They simply wanted to find out who this person was.
4.10.1 Response to Pippove from MGL
---------------
Yes, her court testimony (months later) gives a more plausible explanation for her coming up with Patrick's name than the voluntary statement does. If she is innocent it's a shame for her, that her voluntary note gave no indication of the police methods (as set out in Reid etc), barring the slapping business. It's a shame she didn't state any of it before (presumably) her lawyers confirmed to her that there was no tape of the questioning.
----------
It would have been incredibly stupid of Amanda and her lawyers to trust the police’s claim not to have a tape of the interview. They could have claimed to have found it a later stage of the trial if it had been convenient for them.
4.11.2 Response to Pippov from MGL
--------------
Yes, if talking nonsense about Amanda Knox was a crimainal offence, I'd be serving a life sentence. Alongside pretty much everybody else who has expressed an opinion on the case. But talking rubbish about something you don't know much about isn't a criminal offence. On the other hand, talking rubbish about one's whereabouts a few days earlier to the police when you need an alibi is more troublesome.
-------------------------
You are accusing Amanda of murder. Amanda is in prison, partly because she was accused of accusing Patrick of murder. She was just talking rubbish about something she did not she did not know anything about – ie the murder. Is this the rubbish you are referring to in your last sentence?
Response to Pippov from MGL
----------------------------------
We're entering a dark world of pedantry here I suspect, but you picked me up for suggesting that AK said she was trouble by dreams in her voluntary note. To quote the note:
"these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked..."
--------------
It might be pedantic, but I was not picking you up for making mistakes, merely demonstrating that your belief in her mendacity and therefore her guilt seems to be based on trivial instances of Amanda’s behaviour and her innocent mistakes. Note that the quote does not suggest troubled by dreams in the sense of troubled by guilt, but troubled in the sense of confused.
In normal conversation quibbles over such meanings are petty and pedantic, but if the consequence of misinterpretation is the attribution to a person of a horrendous crime, I feel obliged to point this out and risk being called a pedant.
Response to Pippov from MGL
---------------------
Could you cite a source for Lumamba claiming he was beaten and kicked? Not saying it's not true, but I haven't heard it before.
--------------
Search for this phrase on your web browser:
I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me
4.2 I meant that Raffaele received texts when he turned his phone on (e.g. from his father), which would presumably have made beeps. My remark was flippant, but essentially I was querying the plausibility that AK and RS both used their phones as alarm clocks, yet went to sleep with them off, and then both switched them on to look at the time at 5.30 and 6 am and then both went back off to sleep. But yes this doesn't make them guilty.
You say elsewhere that I'm accusing AK of murder. I'm not accusing her. She's been convicted of the offence by a jury and judges that have heard all the evidence. The only primary documents that I have to look at show her in a bad light, but I agree that doesn't make her guilty. I just haven't been persuaded that the court is wrong.
I found the Lumumba interview in the Daily Mail. Yes, it's food for thought, although you presumably don't accept much of what he says about Amanda's behaviour and personality as the truth? The police's rank incompetence and knee-jerk reactions reminds me of the behaviour of the British police arresting the wrong children in dawn raids in the James Bulger case and also a week of bungling in the Soham murders. But at the end of it it, the right people were caught in both cases.
You say (earlier) that stress in just as likely to lead to false memory in an innocent Amanda as it would be to lead a guilty Amdanda lying. That's the least plausible thing you've said. Guilty people lie all that time, but in my experience it's very rare for innocent people to get such false memories after 2 hours questioning, (which they then call dreams). I've heard of various forced and coerced confessions, but never this. But I could be wrong. Maybe it's all detailed in the books you quoted. I don't have the time (or inclination) to study them, but presumably AK's defence team will present this evidence more effectively in the appeal if they get the chance.
Re 4.8.1 We'll have to agree to differ about whether we're differing and who understands what. I understand your point fully, but I don't accept that a guilty Amanda would have been better off saying there was an unknown assailant. I've probably not explained my rationale very well, but I think we've gone as far we can with this.
4.9.1 We're in a labyrinth of cross-purposes here too. I was explaining why guilty Amanda wouldn't want to clear away evidence of Rudy's presence when clearing up the murder scene, staging break-in etc. Guilty Amanda wanted the police to think a burglar had killed Meredith and left as much evidence of burglar as possible. What she wouldn't want is for Guede to be actually caught though. And she certainly wouldn't want to admit being in the cottage at any stage. When she was forced to do so (yes, maybe using dodgy tactics), it was in a panic and rather than just admitting the point, she actually created a distraction from the hostile questioning that was tying her up in knots.
4.10.1 Fair point. but if you're guilty and the evidence seems overwhelming maybe you start to take a few calculated risks? And tapes won't give the key to what made Amdanda say what she said in any case. They can't tape exhaustion, hunger, thirst, dreams etc.
Re the "troubled by dreams", I'm not sure there's a huge difference between that and what Amamda said in the note, especially as I gave the caveat that I couldn't remember exactly what the note said. But again, I think we're on the road to nowhere debating that one. I wasn't accusing you of pedantry incidentally. I'd hope not to be so rude. My comment was directed more at the fact our difference on this point wasn't meaningful.
If AK and RS are innocent, what has happened to them is a Kafkaesque nightmare and an abomination. But from my vantage point (which is, of course, a necessarily restricted view), it doesn't look much like a miscarriage of justice.
Maybe all the circumstantial evidence against them is pure back luck, the fingering of Lumumba the result of a dream, stress and exhaustion, AK's insesnitivity to MK in emails and first trial a result of shock/nerves and that all the forensic evidence was fabricated and AK's defence is incompetent in showing it as such. It's just that to me, that explanation is less plausible than the one that says she's guilty.
You ask why I mention AK's odd and insensitive behaviour if it's not proof of guilt. Well from memory, I mentioned it in passing (using the word "odd" in relation to her email) and you asked what you thought was odd about it. I told you and we've been discussing her behaviour since. Regardless of how seriously we take AK's behaviour as evidene, what is for sure is that the FOA campaign to portray her as an all-round normal, naive girl founders on the various accounts of AK's behavoiur. The evidence of MK's friends ("what do you think? She fucking bled to death"), the cartwheels, the email, the "yucky death", show, to my mind, a disconnect with "normal" human emotions. That definitely doesn't make her guilty. These traits are actually likely to get an innocent person into trouble and make them suspects. The problem for me is that FOA and people like yourself keep pretending that her behaviour is and was quite normal, when it so obivously wasn't.
And if her parents think all this behaviour and attitude to MK's death is quite normal, then how seriously can we take their certainty that she's not guilty? Not very, I don't think.
5.1 Response to Pippov from MGL
The only primary documents that I have to look at show her in a bad light, but I agree that doesn't make her guilty. I just haven't been persuaded that the court is wrong.
-----
You admit that the only primary evidence you have looked at is insufficient to establish her guilt, yet you are not persuaded that the conviction was wrong? What is the evidence that persuades you that they were right – or is that not important to you?
5.2 Response to Pippov from MGL
I found the Lumumba interview in the Daily Mail. Yes, it's food for thought, although you presumably don't accept much of what he says about Amanda's behaviour and personality as the truth?
--------
I have no reason to doubt Patrick’s description of her behaviour and I am sure his opinions of her are sincerely held. Of course I disagree with his conclusions about her, but they are hardly surprising conclusions from someone who’s life has been ruined by a very public arrest for murder that the police and media presented as the consequence of Amanda’s lies.
5.3 False Memory - Response to Pippov from MGL
-----------
You say (earlier) that stress in just as likely to lead to false memory in an innocent Amanda as it would be to lead a guilty Amdanda lying. That's the least plausible thing you've said. Guilty people lie all that time, but in my experience it's very rare for innocent people to get such false memories after 2 hours questioning, (which they then call dreams). I've heard of various forced and coerced confessions, but never this. But I could be wrong. Maybe it's all detailed in the books you quoted. I don't have the time (or inclination) to study them...
------
In your experience? Have you had much experience of aggressive interrogation techniques? As I have not, I prefer to rely on studies of those that have. Here are some quotes from the article I mentioned:
1)Recent work has shown that stress can increase the incidence of false memories (Payne, Nadel, Allen, Thomas, & Jacobs, 2002) and that more false memories for misinformation occur for highly negative emotional scenes than for neutral or positive emotional scenes (Porter, Spencer, & Birt, 2003).
2)Several aspects of interrogation situations are specifically designed to elicit stress and strong emotional states in suspects, such as feelings of hopelessness, extreme anxiety, guilt, and distress (Ofshe, 1989)
3)...the uncertainty brought about by repeated allegations and threats of incriminating evidence coupled with the heightened stressfulness of interrogations may reduce suspects’ ability to rely on strategic judgment processes that would allow them to correctly reject the allegations
4)...research has shown that the stress induced through sleep deprivation increases people’s suggestibility (Blagrove, 1996).
5.4 Re Normality - Response to Pippov from MGL
--------
The problem for me is that FOA and people like yourself keep pretending that her behaviour is and was quite normal, when it so obivously wasn't.
And if her parents think all this behaviour and attitude to MK's death is quite normal, then how seriously can we take their certainty that she's not guilty? Not very, I don't think.
-------------
What do you mean by not normal? It is a highly subjective and relativistic term. Surely you can’t simply be saying she is a harmless eccentric? I think that friends and family do actually recognise Amanda’s behaviour on some occasions has been unusual and have only claimed that it is normal behaviour for her – that’s Amanda just being Amanda.
By bringing it up but then denying it makes her guilty you aren’t making a lot of sense. If the insistence of Amanda’s abnormality is intended to imply she lacks the human instinct of empathy then the FOA and myself have very good reasons for rejecting this sense of abnormality.
1) There have been occasions when Amanda has displayed empathy
2) None of the incidents you refer to are evidence of this lack of empathy. Certainly I would agree that they could be considered as inappropriate things to say, but there are other explanations. The fucking bled to death statement suggests that she is angry about the murderer and unreasonably irritated by MK’s friends expression of hope that MK did not suffer, as if by allowing this it would lessen the gravity of the crime or the depravity of the murderer. It also suggests a person trying to be tough, someone trying to assert their importance as a key and dependable witness. You have already failed to demonstrate the oddness of her email so I will not dwell on this again. As for the cartwheels, this is pure journalistic mischief, playing on the association of cartwheels with the expression of joy. Using the expression “yucky death” is simply a poor choice of words.
3) Certainly some of this evidence points to occasions when Amanda has been insensitive, selfish, egotistical, hedonistic and self obsessed. All this seems perfectly consistent with the behaviour of many young men and women emerging from their teens. Even if some of what she says and does does not conform to the typical behaviour of the subgroup of people she is pigeon-holed into, it can still be explained by emotions of anger and excitement and misplaced beliefs in peculiar and stressful circumstances.
4) Newspapers and history books demonstrate that the potential antipathy of humans towards others is actually chillingly quite normal. A simple example of how ordinary innocent people can SEEM to turn into venomous psychopaths by circumstances is when they believe a person is guilty of a horrible crime and subsequently approve and celebrate their incarceration and in some cases even demand the barbaric act of their execution – all on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence. At least Amanda had the integrity of doubting the evidence of her own memory.
4.10.1.1 Response to Pippov from MGL
--------
... And tapes won't give the key to what made Amdanda say what she said in any case. They can't tape exhaustion, hunger, thirst, dreams etc.
----
It would demonstrate whether Amanda ever accused Patrick without the doubts she expresses in her voluntary note and whether the police did intimidate her by shouts of Stupid Liar etc. It might even corrobrate Rome police officer Edgardo Giobbi claim to have heard Amanda screaming while he was in another room during the interrogation.
5.5 Response to Pippov from MGL
--------
Maybe all the circumstantial evidence against them is pure back luck, the fingering of Lumumba the result of a dream, stress and exhaustion, AK's insensitivity to MK in emails and first trial a result of shock/nerves and that all the forensic evidence was fabricated and AK's defence is incompetent in showing it as such. It's just that to me, that explanation is less plausible than the one that says she's guilty.
-------
Just a few points:
1)There is no firm evidence of AK’s insensitivity to MK in her email. This is your interpretation and even if your interpretation is justified you yourself seeem to suggest it is not evidence of her guilt.
2) Nobody is claiming the forensic evidence was fabricated. The claim is - by many independent forensic scientists unconnected with the trial -that it is of insufficient quality to qualify as credible evidence of AK’s and RF’s guilt.
3) You have yet to demonstrate why the little evidence you have access to is sufficient to establish her guilt as being more plausible than her innocence. So far you have only offered inferences of her guilt from interpretations of her behaviour which are only seem to be justified by a presumption of her guilt and your expectations of human behaviour grounded solely on your own life experiences.
4) The conviction had more to do with the laxity of legal procedure more than the incompetence of her defence. Her retraction in the voluntary note should have immediately disallowed the prosecution for slander. It was possibly the perverse interpretation of it as confirming her accusation of Patrick that justified its pursuit, thereby allowing the signed declarations accusing Patrick as evidence in her trial for murder.
4.9.1.1 Response to Pippove from MGL
-----------
We're in a labyrinth of cross-purposes here too. I was explaining why guilty Amanda wouldn't want to clear away evidence of Rudy's presence when clearing up the murder scene, staging break-in etc. Guilty Amanda wanted the police to think a burglar had killed Meredith and left as much evidence of burglar as possible.
----------
If she wanted the police to think a burglar had broken in and killed Meredith why did she suggest Patrick instead of a stranger?
Re: You admit that the only primary evidence you have looked at is insufficient to establish her guilt, yet you are not persuaded that the conviction was wrong? What is the evidence that persuades you that they were right – or is that not important to you?
This is like an evangelist knocking on my door and telling me I need to prove to him that God doesn't exist. I'm not making it my personal mission to establish guilt or innocence. The court found her guilty, there seems to be plenty of evidence and the campaign to free her is loud but short of intellectual rigour. What am I to conclude?
My point, lost in the fog, is that the lies and exaggerations of the FOA campaign do not give me a strong sense that I'm looking at a miscarriage of justice.
Re: In your experience? Have you had much experience of aggressive interrogation techniques? As I have not, I prefer to rely on studies of those that have. Here are some quotes from the article I mentioned:
I meant experience of watching criminal court cases, albeit from a safe distance. I was contesting your assertion that a confession during an iterrogation is as likely to be the result of "false memory" as it is of guilt. Do any of these books that you quote actually go into such probabilities? In my lifetime, I've heard of hundreds, nay, thousands of occasions where guilty people lie that they are not guilty. Before Amanda Knox, I hadn't hear of a single example of "false memory" leading to confessions. I don't doubt it's possible that stressful situations and aggressive questioning produces strange reactions in vulnerable people. What I was disputing was your assertion that confessions are "just as likely" to come from false memory as guilt.
I'm not intending to be offensive when I say this, but the word "sophistry" comes to mind whilst reading your arguments and those of much of the FOA campaign.
And none more so in the descriptions of the interrogaation. AK wasn't starving, exhausted, or all the other exaggearations that Bruce, Steve Moore and others have claimed. Yes, the "false memory" theory is possible, but is it likely? To me, no.
By bringing it up but then denying it makes her guilty you aren’t making a lot of sense.
I've already told you why I brought it up. It was in passing, with the caveat that it wasn't evidence of guilt. You decided to make it a topic for debate. But since you bring it up again, the email is gratuitously offensive and quite shocking whilst the other examples show a remarkable lack of empathy. No, I haven't "proved" this, and as you say, "normal" behaviour is subjective and relative. All I'm saying is that TO ME, the email was shocking and offensive as has been much of her general behaviour since the murder (e.g. Snogging in the Police Station). You can argue all you like that her behaviour is that of a typical 20 something. Good luck to you, but you've a job on convincing people of that one. And why even bother trying? If I was in charge of the Free Amanda campaign I'd be arguing on the basis of AK being fingered by police for lacking the usual social skills and being as odd as two left feet. Trying to argue that she's a regular girl just in the wrong place at the wrong time, immediately raises the eyebrows of people who can see quite plainly that she isn't and (I believe) makes people doubt the rest of FOA's arguments.
If she wanted the police to think a burglar had broken in and killed Meredith why did she suggest Patrick instead of a stranger?
You're in danger of giving me false memories here. I'm sure I've answered this question at least half a dozen times.
Assuming she's guilty.....
Having commmitted the murder and wondering what to do about the crime scene, she leaves evidence of the person not obviously linked to her (i.e. Guede). She doesn't flush the toilet and leaves his bloody footprints. And she stages a break-in.
When she is being questioned, she wants to avoid telling the truth. If she said she'd been in the house while an unknown man had killed Meredith, that would have been close to the truth and a step towards a full confession. By naming Lumumba, she came up with a lot of nonsense that can give her time to think, get the police off her back for a while and she can always deny the whole thing later on. And in the spure of the moment, backed into a corner (her alibi up the swanny), it was the best she could come up with.
I'm getting dizzy going round in circles. I would, however, be interested in your opinion on the appeal court ruling. It has been generally reported as a victory for AK and RS. I'm confused for the following reasons:
1) Haven't experts from Rome already independently verified the DNA evidence in the first trial? Presumably you'd dispute their independence?
2) Surely it's bad for the defence? It's heads I win, tails you lose. I.e. If the experts say the evidence is fine, then the verdicts stand and it's the end of the road. If they say the evidence is faulty, they presumably look at other bits of evidence...until they find some that sticks.
What do you expect to happen if (and you are no doubt convinced this will happen) doubts are cast on the relaiblity of the knife and bra clasp? Presumably you don't expect RS and AK to be discharged? Would all the evidence then be reviewed?
I just don't understand why all the DNA evidence wasn't reviewed. I.e. Mixture of blood with Knox DNA, luminol etc, or will that all just be re-hashed as part of the appeal trial?
6.1 Response to Pippov from MGL
----
This is like an evangelist knocking on my door and telling me I need to prove to him that God doesn't exist. I'm not making it my personal mission to establish guilt or innocence.
---
No one is knocking your door. You voluntarily offered your opinion. I am only asking you to articulate what this opinion is based on.
6.2 Reponse to Pippov from MGL
-----
The court found her guilty, there seems to be plenty of evidence and the campaign to free her is loud but short of intellectual rigour. What am I to conclude?
------
There is plenty of evidence but it is all of very poor quality. The sheer quantity of poor evidence does not make the case against her any stronger. I suggest your conclusion should derive from your own thoughts and not be influenced by any perception of the lack of rigour in others. I also suggest you should not be persuaded of her guilt just because a court decided she was.
6.4a Response to Pippov from MGL
-----
In my lifetime, I've heard of hundreds, nay, thousands of occasions where guilty people lie that they are not guilty. Before Amanda Knox, I hadn't hear of a single example of "false memory" leading to confessions
----
Thousands of guilty people lying is not evidence against the possibility or even probability of an innocent person having a false memory under suitable conditions. Your claim not to have come across any such cases is not evidence against this either. Such cases maybe rare, but the probability of their occurrence has to be established against the number of cases where innocent people who had been aggressively interrogated to extract a confession yet did not have a false memory. As you have probably never heard of such cases either I suspect you will agree with me that this is quite rare as well. I certainly hope it is.
6.4b Response to Pippov from MGL
-------
What I was disputing was your assertion that confessions are "just as likely" to come from false memory as guilt.
---------
I did not actually say the stress of the interrogation was just as likely to produce a false memory from an innocent Amanda as a lie from a guilty one. What I said was, that there was sufficient stress to account for both possibilities. As the evidence for false memory rests on Amanda’s testimony the probabilities of whether she lied or had a false memory turns on the probabilities of whether she was lying or telling the truth in her voluntary note. It is understandable that someone might doubt she is telling the truth if they had never heard of false memories – as it would seem incredible. However, as cases like this have occurred – and there are significant correlations with these cases and Amanda’s testimony - this fact should restore at least the credibility of her claim to have had a false memory. Add to this the unlikelihood of her knowing about these cases - like yourself - it makes her claim all the more stronger. I would have expected a guilty Amanda to claim the police deliberately forced a confession from her rather then come up with something that is difficult even for herself to believe.
6.5 Response to Pippov from MGL
------
I'm not intending to be offensive when I say this, but the word "sophistry" comes to mind whilst reading your arguments and those of much of the FOA campaign.
-------
I was wondering when the charge of “sophistry” would crop up. I suspect people use this term to criticise arguments that they are sure must be wrong but cannot figure out why or how to undermine them so they balance the flattery of its cleverness with the insult that it is deliberately and deviously fallacious.
I may indulge in some rhetorical flourishes, but I assure you my reasoning is sincere. If it is wrong you need to demonstrate this adequately before suggesting we agree to differ. Of course, by doing so you would also risk being accused of sophistry, because you would be trying to get to the bottom of why each of us believes the fundamental things we do. You would have to question your own assumptions as well as mine to demonstrate your reasoning is built on better foundations.
6.6 Response to Pippov from MGL re Oddness V Normality
---
1) Can I suggest your conclusion of her guilt should not be influenced by your perception of other people’s claims about the normality or otherwise of Amanda’s personality. Even if they are saying all her behaviour was perfectly normal, this has no bearing on wether it is or it not.
2)Please clarify – at least for yourself- what you think is the significance of each occasion of her oddness. Generalisations with examples without explaining their significance does not help me understand your point of view any better. Nor do claims that it was not intended to demonstrate her guilt. The onus is not on me to explain why her behaviour is normal. The onus is on you to explain why it is not and what its significance is. Where you have thrown up examples of her oddness I have offered an interpretation that is consistent with her innocence at least as far as the murder is concerned. I don’t deny that her behaviour seems odd to some people – like yourself, but calling it odd is subjective and unhelpful unless you specifically explain its relevance as evidence of a lack of empathy.
3) An absence of a display of empathy is not evidence of a lack of empathy. I am personally shocked and offended by people who are shocked and offended when they don’t get the emotional display they expect from others. Though no staunch monarchist, I was revolted by the spectacle of the media and public demanding that the Queen showed them she cared about the death of Diana many years ago.
6.7 Response to Pippov from MGL
----------
I'm sure I've answered this question at least half a dozen times.
-----------
Yes, but your answers just invites more questions which you have not yet responded to except by going round in circles.
1) Why would lying about a stranger been closer to the truth and why would it be a closer step towards a full confession?
2) Why was it the best thing she could come up with – why was it better than suggesting a stranger? Why would she come up with such a convoluted and risky plan instead of a simpler and less risky one of blaming it on a stranger that was consistent with break-in evidence suggesting that – if she was guilty- she was already thinking along the lines of a burglar – ie a stranger?
3)Why would lying about a stranger and risking the capture of Guede have made her situation worse? If she could be connected to him and felt she could not plausibly deny it or if Guede implicated her, her lie about a stranger would be the least of her worries. If she thought she could deny knowing Guede, then a lie about a stranger might get her off the hook as long as Guede did not implicate her. The key factor in a guilty Amanda’s strategy would be to depend on Guede not getting caught. Why jeopardise herself further by blaming Patrick on the slim chance this would be accepted as a false confession produced by false memories?
6.8 Response t Pippov from MGL Re appeal court ruling
----
My understanding is that it is independent because it will not be conducted by the police’s own forensic crime people. This was requested at the original trial but rejected by the court at the time.
If they are innocent it has to be a good thing – better than a chance than no chance at all. But I do not know what will happen. I presume all the old evidence will be taken into account by the appeal court as well as the new evidence. I suggest we wait and find out what this review reveals before we speculate on it further.
6.1 No one is knocking your door. You voluntarily offered your opinion. I am only asking you to articulate what this opinion is based on.
I voluntarily offered my opinion about the FOA campaign, not whether AK is guilty or not. I said at the outset that I couldn't possibly know whether or not she is guilty. My query concerned why FOA used lies and exaggerations and suggested this approach was counter-productive. I also said that the way the campaign was run made me suspect that AK was guilty. Maybe the exaggerations are necessary in order to make the case seem credible or maybe they are just by-products of over-zealous campaigners. I don't know, but I suspect the former.
Granted, I've gone on to express opinions about AK and the case that are pretty pointless. In my defence that was largely at your prompting. Surely whether I think AK is guilty or not is of no consequence whatever. Even if I become an expert in DNA science overnight, I'd still need to examine the actual evidence rather than taking your (or Edda Mellas's) advice that it's worthless. The idea that I should examine all the evidence against AK to pronounce on her guilt or otherwise is preposterous. What purpose does it serve? It certainly wouldn't help AK one jot. Even if I were the head of the BBC. AK's fate will be determined by an Italian court and not a popular vote in the UK.
I came to this site to look at the case for the defence and ask for clarifications. To be fair, you've provided me with a lot of information and food for thought. But, with all due respect to me, my actual opinion as to AK's guilt isn't worth shit. And why should it be?
6.2 Same thing here really. I can't possibly evaluate evidence without court transcripts. I could say, for example, that RS admitted MK's DNA was on the knife when he said he'd accidentally cut her. Or that AK said she had dinner at 11pm and that this contradicted of stories of washing up at 8pm or so. And on and on and on. And for every one, you'll have an explanation that exonerates both AK and RS, albeit with varying degrees of credibility.
I think it is reasonable to ask about the particulars of the campaign without first undertaking a forensic examination of the evidence.
6.5 Sophistry
Well your explanation for AK saying MK locked her door regularly (in contradiction to Filomema) was superficially plausible but not convicing. Ditto the picture you drew of AK and RS turning on their mobile phones at 5.30 and 6.00 respectively (RS putting some music on his computer) and both rolling back to sleep. I can't possibly say that you are wrong about this, only that they seem, to me, less likely explanations than AK not telling the truth.
But yes, maybe I think that because I'm starting from an assumption of guilt. If you know she's innocent, all inconsistencies can be explained away.
I'd insist again though, that what I think is wholly irrelevant. AK's fate will depend on whether the court's independent experts say that the DNA evidence is flawed and the other physical evidence (mixed DNA, luminol footprints etc) is also wothless.
6.6 You'll be saying Prince Philip is innocent next.
You're right. Saying AK behaved oddly served no purpose. The email (and other examples) appear odd to me and (as a minimum) lacking in empathy. But they prove nothing. I can't remember why I even mentioned them.
But getting back to sophistry, in justifying the peculiar tone and tactless remarks of the email, you said it was only to close friends. I'm pretty sure that that isn't the case (via memory and checking just now in Massei Report) and that the list of recipients was pretty long and included mere acquaintances. I'm surprised that you didn't know that also.
MGL My understanding is that it is independent because it will not be conducted by the police’s own forensic crime people. This was requested at the original trial but rejected by the court at the time.
Pippov: Okay. The Kerchers' DNA expert and Guede's DNA expert were independent of the police's forensic crime people and didn't find fault, but you're presumably arguing that the Kerchers' expert was biased in some way and gave a dishonest/incompetent assessment?
MGL: If they are innocent it has to be a good thing – better than a chance than no chance at all. But I do not know what will happen. I presume all the old evidence will be taken into account by the appeal court as well as the new evidence. I suggest we wait and find out what this review reveals before we speculate on it further.
Pippov: Amen!
6.1.1 Response to Pippov from MGL
----------
I voluntarily offered my opinion about the FOA campaign, not whether AK is guilty or not. I said at the outset that I couldn't possibly know whether or not she is guilty. My query concerned why FOA used lies and exaggerations and suggested this approach was counter-productive. I also said that the way the campaign was run made me suspect that AK was guilty. Maybe the exaggerations are necessary in order to make the case seem credible or maybe they are just by-products of over-zealous campaigners. I don't know, but I suspect the former.
----------
I am not sure why you should suspect Amanda is guilty just because you believe her campaigners are exaggerating and using lies. Even if they are – and doing so to make the case seem more credible – this is still consistent with the view that they are more concerned about the end – freeing an innocent Amanda – rather than the means. It does not seem very likely to me that they are campaigning for her freedom without believing in her innocence
6.5 Reponse to Pippov from MGL - Sophistry
Well your explanation for AK saying MK locked her door regularly (in contradiction to Filomema) was superficially plausible but not convicing. Ditto the picture you drew of AK and RS turning on their mobile phones at 5.30 and 6.00 respectively (RS putting some music on his computer) and both rolling back to sleep. I can't possibly say that you are wrong about this, only that they seem, to me, less likely explanations than AK not telling the truth.
--------
The onus is on you to explain why this is unconvincing and only superficially plausible without presupposing that she is lying as that seems to be the only reason you assert the former.
6.6.1 Response to Pippov from MGL
--------
But getting back to sophistry, in justifying the peculiar tone and tactless remarks of the email, you said it was only to close friends. I'm pretty sure that that isn't the case (via memory and checking just now in Massei Report) and that the list of recipients was pretty long and included mere acquaintances. I'm surprised that you didn't know that also.
---------
1) The Massei report says it was sent to 25 people. The book Darkness Descending says it was sent to “My close friends” – possibly a distribution list she added people to.
2) I don’t think 25 close friends is particularly large circle for a young person. Of course some of them may not have been that close, but I suspect she knew them all a lot better than Guede.
3) This is a dispute over semantics rather than sophistry. Perhaps 25 people cannot all be close friends, but this is hardly the mass audience you were suggesting.
7.2 Response to Pippov from MGL
---------------
Pippov: Okay. The Kerchers' DNA expert and Guede's DNA expert were independent of the police's forensic crime people and didn't find fault, but you're presumably arguing that the Kerchers' expert was biased in some way and gave a dishonest/incompetent assessment?
--------------
MGL : My understanding is this. The experts you refer to did not carry out the tests, they and the defence experts merely witnessed some of them and reviewed the final report. What these experts were not allowed to do was to conduct tests themselves or review the detailed results of the tests that were performed from which the final report was prepared. I believe it is the detailed results that will be reviewed this time – not the final report.
Re.6.5 Sophistry
MGL said...
The onus is on you to explain why this is unconvincing and only superficially plausible without presupposing that she is lying as that seems to be the only reason you assert the former.
I really don't think the onus is on me at all. I came to this site with questions about the campaign and, in particular, why it appears to depend, in part at least, on lies and exaggerations. Broadly speaking, your response is to tell me to justify why I think AK is guilty. I really don't understand why you think my opinion is of any importance.
For what it is worth, I have re-read AK's note, the email and read a transcript of her recent statement in court. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that AK's appeal will fail at the first hurdle. I know nothing about DNA collection or analysis, but my guess is that the independent analysts will uphold their reliability.
AK does not behave like a woman wrongly convicted. She says her incarceration is a "mistake". Mistake???? So the court has made "a mistake" because of "my invovlement in" Meredith's "yucky death". Innocent people just don't speak like this.
Her note is an exercise in obfuscation, her speech at the appeal was confused and rambling. An innocent person, with time to prepare, would have a clarity of expression and thought based on the truth that "I did not kill MK and was in no way involved in her murder".
And as for the email, the rambling recollection of showers, meals and mops, and declaration that she wants to stay in Perugia (2 days after MK's body discovered) was written to 25 people, including people she didn't know well (uni employees). Given the way email works, that is a mass audience in anybody's semantics. If you were a key witness to a murder and you sent your witness statement (or whatever you think it is) to 25 people, would you not expect the recipients to be mulptiplied 10 fold within hours?
The offensive details included in the email would still be odd if it were written to close friends. You presumably insisted at first that the email was only to "close friends and family" because you too would find the tone and content of the email odd if written to mere acquaintances unfamiliar with how she felt at having her room mate and friend brutally murdered?
So yes, I now strongly suspect she is guilty. I've considered your suggestions of false memory and the possibilities that her email was written in a context that I'm misreading and and that the note was influenced by exhaustion and stress (unconnected with lying), but none of this adds up. To me (as a result of prejudices perhaps) her note doesn't read like somebody under the stress of interrogation. It just reads like the words of a person with something to hide trying to confuse and muddy the waters.
But what you haven't explained to me is that why that should matter to you? I'm not on the jury. What does my opinion (and how it is formed) matter?
Response to Pippov from MGL. Re: Close friends V Mass audience
-----
Pippov: And as for the email, the rambling recollection of showers, meals and mops, and declaration that she wants to stay in Perugia (2 days after MK's body discovered) was written to 25 people, including people she didn't know well (uni employees). Given the way email works, that is a mass audience in anybody's semantics. If you were a key witness to a murder and you sent your witness statement (or whatever you think it is) to 25 people, would you not expect the recipients to be mulptiplied 10 fold within hours?
--
MGL:
1)If she had wanted to get the email out to a mass audience I would have expected her to email more than 25 people and would be surprised that these 25 were the only email addresses she had available.
2)Perhaps she was wrong to have sent the email to anybody and should have realised that it might have been forwarded despite her request it not be sent to journalists at the beginning. But this more likely the wrongness of a person who is acting on a sense of new-found importance as a key witness rather than the wrongness of a person who has just committed a murder.
--------
Pippov: You presumably insisted at first that the email was only to "close friends and family" because you too would find the tone and content of the email odd if written to mere acquaintances unfamiliar with how she felt at having her room mate and friend brutally murdered?
MGL: I used the phrase close friends because that was the expression used in the email according to the book Darkness Descending. I did not find the email odd or offensive. I do not doubt that you find it so, but you have not demonstrated that this interpretation has any significance as to her guilt – or even as evidence of a sociopathic lack of empathy.
Response to Pippov from MGL. Re the importance of Pippov’s opinion.
----
Why does your opinion matter? It matters to me because I am trying to understand why anyone could be convinced of Amanda’s guilt. Either you have good reasons, in which case I might end up agreeing with you, or you have poor reasons, in which case I may have a better chance of persuading you and others like you of your mistakes. So far your reasoning seems to be based on preconceived generalisations about human behaviour you seem unwilling to question.
For example:
1)AK does not behave like a woman wrongly convicted.
---
You make a claim based on a generalisation about wrongly convicted women, but fail to expand on this. Stringing together a few Amanda quotes taken out of context without explaining why they are relevant is not a good reason for me to accept this.
2)Her note is an exercise in obfuscation, her speech at the appeal was confused and rambling. An innocent person, with time to prepare, would have a clarity of expression and thought based on the truth..
----
What was confused and rambling about her speech at the appeal ? Why would an innocent person be able to express themselves more clearly?
3)To me (as a result of prejudices perhaps) her note doesn't read like somebody under the stress of interrogation. It just reads like the words of a person with something to hide trying to confuse and muddy the waters.
---
What is it about the note itself that suggests she is trying to hide something and confuse the police? I cannot see anything in the note that suggests this so can only presume you are simply imposing the presumption of her guilt in this interpretation.
I'm not sure from your response whether your interest is intellectual or evangelical. Which is it? I.e. Why are you trying to understand why people think Amanda is guilty? Why is this more important than, say, trying to understand why people think God created the world in 7 days, or that VAT is a progressive tax? Or that “Friends” has merit as a sitcom? People believe all sorts of rubbish. I'm asking why you find mistaken beliefs about Amanda Knox are interesting in particular. Changing those perceptions won’t change anything. Or do you think that if you change enough people’s minds, “the truth will set her free”? If so, how?
And how did you discover the truth? Were you, like Steve Moore, trained to believe that anybody arrested must be guilty, but became suspicious when lies contradicted "known facts"?
I'm honest about my interest (probably a tad prurient and as open-minded as one can be given the usual in-built prejudices). But what's your interest?
Re your question, an innocent person would (I think) express themselves more clearly because they would (after 3 years) have a clear narrative as to what happened and why. What went wrong with the interrogation the problem with the note and how she came to write that she couldn't remember where she was on the night Meredith was killed (and in particular the causes and effects of her false memory – which is apparently the crux of this whole case). AK doesn't express any clear narrative, says nothing about her false memories. She'll say the court made a "mistake", but give no insight into how it all went wrong. I don’t have the time now to look at the detail of this again, but from memory the speech was a long ramble saying pretty much nothing of consequence.
Re note: As a whole it reads like childish obfuscation. Looking at a bit of the detail: "My account of this story goes as follows". The word “story” is suggestive of fiction. You are dismissive of interpretations of AK's use of language (I think), but it's reasonable to ask why she would use certain phrases and not others. You may, of course, say that the use of the word "story" is used after no sleep and doesn't indicate anything very much. I'd differ and believe that the use of this word is revealing.
The statement that “this is the best truth that I can think of regarding my involvement in Meredith’s death” to me suggests an acknowledgement of her involvement in the murder. She says the statement is the “best truth”, which suggests there are several “truths” competing in her head. I.e. She’s lying. Your theory of the false memory is neat and it actually explains everything away. But for me, it’s a bit like Bobby Ewing (or was it JR?) appearing in the next series of Dallas and saying the last series was all a dream.
But as I keep saying, none of this matters. If I were on the jury, I’d be looking in detail at all the evidence and probing relentlessly for reasonable doubt. I’d even be reading the books on false memory that you suggest. Did AK’s lawyers cover this literature in any detail in the trial? If not, doesn’t see need new lawyers? I mean that seriously. But I’m not on the jury. I’m getting my info off the internet and readily recognise that my perceptions of this may be wholly flawed. What puzzles me is why anybody (i.e. you) would take any interest in my opinion. If I were on the jury, had a personal connection with those involved in the case or were being paid to express an opinion, I’d do more research, but I’m just a Joe with a passing interest in the PR campaign on behalf of AK and questioning why it isn’t scrupulously honest.
Response to Pippov from MGL
-----------------------------------------
1) There was a miscarriage of justice. This should be addressed.
2) Neither of us may be personally powerful, but this does not exclude the possibility that what either of us says is important. Ideas are like DNA. They are transferable, and, if fit enough, might conceivably end up in the mind of lawyers, high court judges or juries.
3) Why is the use of the word “story” revealing? You can’t just say something like this and expect anyone to take this for granted. Just because the word “story” at first conjures up the idea of a fictional story it does not mean that the word cannot be innocently used to refer to a true story.
4) Of course if you take the expression ”my involvement in Meredith’s murder” out of the context of the note it is going to sound like she was saying she was involved.
5) I still don’t understand why a long, rambling incoherent speech should be considered as evidence of dishonesty and a guilty mind. What exactly would you have expected her to say if she was innocent and why? The purpose of your analogy of her false memory claim to the Dallas dream episode is not very clear. Does this mean I should suspect you of insincerity?
There might be some doubt about the guilty verdict, but I'm puzzled as to how you can be so certain it's wrong. Could you tell me what gives you this certainty and how you came to know what so few other people do (excluding the eminent people listed on this site of course).
The use of the word "story" was just an example. The word suggests a fictitious account and it's in the context of a note that all reads like a person attempting to deceive. There's no point in re-hashing debates about the note but to me the language reads like an attempt at deceit and not somebody suffering from false memory. The "my involvement in Meredith's murder" quote wasn't intended to be taken out of context. I acknowledge that she was attempting to persuade readers of her innocence. It's just her choice language in the note and the protestations that she's suffering memory loss ("I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house last night") suggest to me that she's lying and attempting to deceive.
I just don't find it your false memory story credible. Rather, it's incredible that an innocent person cracks and starts to make things up after 2 and a half hours questioning. And then 3 hours later still can't remember whether she was at the scene of the crime or not. I accept I haven’t tackled your suggested reading list, but I don't think the authors of this site believe it's credible either. Otherwise why is there a need to use phrases like "waterboarding", "16 hours questioning", "no food or drink" and "exhaustion" with respect to a 2 and a half hour.
Yes, I might be wrong. I'm not claiming I know. All will hopefully be revealed in the appeal of course. Presumably the defence lawyers will make a far better case regarding AK’s false memories than they did in the first trial. Will they have an eminent psychologist lined up to explain false memory syndrome and that AK's note and accusations of Lumamba are consistent with this?
Changing the subject somewhat, what’s the defence explanation for RS (reportedly) saying that MK cut herself on a knife whilst she was visiting his flat?
Re your question of what I would expect AK to have said in her appeal speech if she was innocent.
I would have expected her to have stated unequivocally that she did not kill Meredith or have any involvement in her murder. I would have restated my alibi and explained in some detail how she became entangled during the police interview and started saying things that weren't true. Given that false memory syndorme is so crucial to her defence I'd have expected to have quoted some of the academic research into this by way of exmplaining why she started talking and writing such nonsense. I'd have then explained how this "break down" led to the police assuming she was guilty and all evidence being collected and viewed in this light.
She is apparently a brilliant student but is unable to offer any coherent explanation as to how she's ended up in prison for 3 years, other than to say the court made a "mistake". She talked at some length about her poor communication skills (as if that were the reason for her incarceration) and said that she had an inability to stick up for herself. Again none of that is relevant and even if it was, didn't she tell one of the prosecutors to stop interrupting her at the trial? If so it's hardly the action of a woman unable to defend or assert herself.
In brief, I'd expect an innocent person, even one of low intelligence to be able to state clearly that they did not kill the person they are alleged to have killed and to have some clear narrative about what happened to them and why. AK has no clear narrative.
Again, I may be totally wrong and be condemning a confused inncoent person for being confused. I just don't think I am, and what's more, even if I am, it doesn't matter a jot because all the PR in the world (or at least in the UK and Italy) won't make a difference to the outcome of the trial.
Sorry, another own goal. My confused and illiterate rambling contained the significant error of saying all the PR in UK and Italy won't make a difference. I meant to say that all the PR in UK and US won't make a difference. I daresay a concerted and clever PR campaign in Italy might help AK. Unless the independent DNA expert supports the prosecution case of course and then it's the end of all PR...as if.
Response to Pippov from MGL
-----------------------------
I cannot be certain that she is innocent. I do believe she is. What I am certain about, is that - of all the evidence I am aware of, none of it is of a sufficient quality to establish her guilt and justify her conviction. The evidence of her confession should never have been admitted and the parallel trial for slandering Patrick should never have been allowed to proceed given her retraction in the voluntary note. This alone makes her conviction unsafe. Add to this the poor quality of all the other evidence, there is no doubt in my mind that there has been a horrendous miscarriage of justice.
Response to Pippov from MGL
------
Regarding your comment on Amanda’s appeal speech and your expectations of what Amanda should have said if innocent.
1)You would expect her to state unequivocally that she did not kill Meredith or have any involvement in the murder. What on earth do you think she means by - I am innocent, Raffaele is innocent, we did not kill Meredith -?.
2)Why does she need to restate her alibi? One can assume that unless she says otherwise she is standing by her court testimony.
3)Why would you expect her to explain her false memory any better than she already had done? Why would you expect someone to be able to make a detailed explanation of why they were convicted and be able to make a convincing speech in their own defence? Surely this is the job of her lawyers.
4)This is just the start of the appeal process and I get the impression you are expecting too much from her and her lawyers at this early stage.
5)What was incoherent about this speech or any other testimony that Amanda made while she had the benefit of legal advice? What is unclear about the narrative that she gave in her court testimony?
6)It is quite a different matter to stand up to a prosecutor in a trial to standing up to a group of hostile police interrogators without the support of a lawyer. Her claim to not stand up for herself and to have poor communication skills is highly relevant given she was easily persuaded to make a statement without a lawyer and the perverse interpretations of her choice of words that have been the subject of so much scrutiny.
7)Why would you expect all this of an innocent person? What is it about a person’s innocence rather than their guilt that would be revealed by such declarations?
Response to Pippov from MGL re credibility of false memory
----
I can understand why you might find the idea of a false memory initially incredible. What I don’t understand – granting you are a reasonable and decent person - is your disposition to dismiss it so callously and casually, especially when there is scientific evidence that established its credibility beyond any doubt in spite of prejudices to the contrary. If you look at this research, there is a remarkable correlation between it and what Amanda says in her court testimony about the interrogation. Of course this does not prove her false memory claim, but it certainly sweeps aside your suggestion that it is not credible.
Response to Pippov from MGL
-------------
I don’t know what the defence explanation of the comment by RS that MK cut herself on a knife whilst visiting. I personally don’t think they need one as it is obviously the amateurish attempt by RF to try and understand why MK’s DNA was found on the blade given that he knew it was not used to kill MK. Like many people who have watched forensic science TV shows he probably thought DNA evidence is irrefutable. He could not be expected to have considered the more professional explanation by defence and independent experts that the minute quantity of DNA found is insufficient to rule out the strong possibility of contamination.
I started writing a further justification for my analysis of her speech and note, but it really is an exercise in futility. I gave my opinion about the speech dispassionately and weighing up what I perceive to be the probabilities re truth or lying given my limited knowledge. "Callous" or "casual" doesn't remotely come into it. If I was on the jury, a lack of attention to the defence barrister would be callous and casual, but giving my worthless opinion, (when asked to do so) laced with the caveat of my own ignorance, is hardly callous in any meaningful sense. As I said, if I thought my random thoughts would affect AK’s fate even slightly I’d say nothing. Yeah, there’s chaos theory, butterfly effect etc, but really my opinion is worthless in an ocean of equally worthless opinion. I know you gave a neat line on ideas spreading like DNA, but in this case, the wall of noise has pretty much blocked out the chance of any real exchange of ideas between countries.
And even if my views could somehow influence the court case, it would be wrong if they did. Even if I had read everything on this site and digested the Massei Report etc etc, I’d still struggle with placing the context of all the evidence as I wasn’t in court to hear any of it.
Yes, I’d like to know the truth, but there seems so little sign of any truth amidst the propaganda war. I’ve heard and read a lot on both sides of the argument that has turned out to be untrue. Hence my questioning of this site regarding its sometimes lax approach to the truth. The former FBI fellow, Moore, seems to get star billing, but he comes across pretty badly to me. Prejudice partly no doubt, but he says things that are obviously untrue and, frankly, daft. None of which makes AK guilty of course, but if that is the best ally she’s got, she’s in trouble. And clearly her defence team must be a shower if she is actually innocent and you wonder why she hasn’t actually changed them. Any thoughts on that? I know Sollecito's lawyer is supposed to be a star performer. If so, what on earth were they playing at in the first trial? Or do you think they are just victims of the politics of the case, which has been a corrupt process from the start? What is your view as to how the miscarriage of justice happened? I'm genuinely interested. Come on, nobody's reading any of this!
Anyway one hopes that the investigation into the DNA as part of the appeal will genuinely be independent and expert. You are presumably very confident that the independent expert will at least cast doubt on the usefulness of the DNA evidence, if not throw it out altogether? And from there, if AK is innocent, the dominoes will fall? Or do you fear that politics may play a part?
Re the knife, you mentioned RF. Who is that? Or did you mean RS? Surely it does matter if RS said that he cut Meredith when she came round to his house for tea. That would have been a lie. And if so, surely an innocent person doesn't make stories up? Obviously context is missing again. Maybe he meant the remark flippantly or sarcastically, but it does need some explanation I'd have thought.
By the way, if you've got any internet links to articles about academic research into false memory and how that would reasonably tally with what AK wrote in her note, I'd be happy to have a look at it.
I had a look at the section on the "illegal interrogation" on this site and it states the following:
"Coerced false confessions often involve long interrogations, which last many hours. The suspect is forced to go without food and water. The suspect is kept awake for long periods of time and gets so worn down emotionally and physically that he or she is more likely to give false statements in an attempt to end the torture. During the confession, the police suggest information to the exhausted suspect, which the suspect incorporates into the confession.
Amanda's illegal interrogation lasted for many hours. She was already suffering from extreme exhaustion when her final night of interrogation began".
As I understand it AK had her "false memory" 2 hours into the questioning, after she'd turned up voluntarily to the police station to keep Raffaele company. Surely this stuff about lack of food and water and exhaustion is a misrepresentation of what actually happened? I'd be more inclined to believe the false memory hypothesis if the events were presented in a credible manner and without hyperbole and misrepresentations. There really shouldn't be any need to make stuff up if AK is innocent.
Research on false memory
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.111.662&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Response to Pippov from MGL
-------------------------
What was the mistake? In simple terms the mistake is that the jury convicted two people on the basis of very poor evidence. What I would like to know is how they made this mistake. The Massei report exposes their reasoning as extremely weak. The suggestion that Amanda carried a kitchen knife around in her bag all the time is far more absurd than RS’s suggestion that Meredith pricked her finger at a dinner party. They could not come up with a plausible motive and I get the impression they recognised most of the evidence was inconclusive. What I suspect swayed them was the accusation of Patrick and this was their most profound mistake of all. Like you, they dismissed her claims of false memory and treated this statement as a lie. Once they were convinced of this, it would not have been difficult for them to see her lying elsewhere. What persuades me most of all that a mistake was made was their acceptance of the prosecution claim that Amanda confirmed rather than retracted her accusation of Patrick in her voluntary note. It is extremely difficult for me to have any confidence in the judgement of anyone who could come to this absurd and perverse conclusion. Your unpersuasive attempts to deny that it was a retraction is a common argument among anti-Knox blog posters and I am genuinely shocked that seemingly sensible people can make such a blunder.
Response to Pippov from MGL
------
Pippov: Surely this stuff about lack of food and water and exhaustion is a misrepresentation of what actually happened? I'd be more inclined to believe the false memory hypothesis if the events were presented in a credible manner and without hyperbole and misrepresentations. There really shouldn't be any need to make stuff up if AK is innocent.
MGL: You claim an email to 25 people is a mass audience. I consider this to be hyperbole and misrepresentation. But I don’t think this is evidence that you are intentionally trying to defend the conviction of a person you actually believe is innocent. Neither do I think your exaggeration increases the probability of her innocence.
Re Your "mass audience" comparison with misrepresentations on this site isn’t a great one. “Mass audience” was the wrong term, which I’m happy to correct but it wasn't a wild misrepresentation. I used the phrase to denote the fact the email was sent to people who weren't close friends (as you initially insisted). Most emails are sent either to individuals or one or two people and I was saying it was sent to very many people. But yes, “wide” would be a better word than “mass” and I’m happy to acknowledge that.
We all use language inaccurately from time to time, and may use it to overstate our cases. But this site's account of AK's questioning is fundamentally inaccurate and, despite a number of people pointing this out, it isn’t changed.
i.e “Suffering from extreme exhaustion with no food nor water, after a long and grueling interrogation….”
For reasons already stated, I could not possibly know whether AK is innocent or not, but I am open to persuasion. Given that this site is attempting to change minds of people like me, I'm simply making the point that I (and others) will not be persuaded by lies and misrepresentations and AK's case would be far better made without them.
It’s not good enough to say we all use exaggerate. I’m happy to alter my text where it is erroneous, but this site isn’t.
---
I’ve had a look at the research article. It confirms that memory is fallible and that certain types of interrogation techniques can induce false memories in vulnerable interviewees. And vulnerability can originate from low intelligence, low self-esteem, stress, exhaustion, alcohol or drug use. The defence says that the induced false confession was, in this case, the result of stress and exhaustion. So far so good, but I’m not closer to understanding what made AK particularly vulnerable.
If the claims of an all-night interrogation were true, the accompanying claims that AK was suffering from stress, hunger and exhaustion would be very credible. But they aren’t true, so I have no idea what caused her extreme stress. Lying causes stress of course, or being shouted at by a lot of cops for long periods, sleep-deprivation because she hadn't slept the night before? How could I know? I don't. But so far, I haven't heard an account that convinces me that she had a false memory. I'm happy to leave it to her lawyers to convince the courts.
I agree with you that the whole story of the knife in Massei appears far-fetched, but it seems less so in view of:
1 The DNA evidence, whose reliability or otherwise will presumably be established by the independent experts.
2 The fact that RS made up a story of a dinner party with MK in his flat and accidentally cutting her with the knife. Something you dismiss with a virtual waft of the hand.
I still don’t understand why somebody accused of murder would make up a story about having dinner with the victim and accidentally cutting the victim with what police are suggesting is the murder weapon. As I say, I don’t know the context, but surely an enquiring mind would require more explanation than to say RS’s answer was “absurd”. It presumably wasn’t a false memory, so wouldn’t it be fair to conclude it was a lie? And if it was a lie, what could have been the purpose of the lie?
I can’t really add anything new about our differing interpretations of the voluntary note, but, having just re-read it, I’ve a couple more questions.
1) AK says in the note that she had dinner late (11pm) and washed up afterwards and there was a leak.
“One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening”
This is helpful in that it means that she was busy eating at the time when MK was murdered. The evidence of RS’s father contradicts this in that he says RS reported the leak to him in a phone call earlier in the evening (8.30)
2) RS’s computer showed that a music file was turned on at 5.30 am the night after the murder (shortly before he turned his phone on). How would this happen if RS was asleep?
The problem for the defence would appear to be that there are a lot of details like this that make it appear RS and AK are lying. (No memory of phoning her mother at 3am Seattle time, saying MK often locked her door and others)
Presumably there are decent explanations for all these statements, but I haven’t heard them or seen them on this site. Or have I not looked hard enough? Apologies if so.
As for your comments on motive, I don't understand why there a motive has to be establihed. Lots of murders are committed without any apparent motive. What I don't understand is why the prosecution and judge think they need to produce a motive. The scenario described by Mignini in the trial along with invented dialogue (and cartoon I think) was grotesque, pointless and bizarre, which certainly calls into question the Italian judicial process. It was presumably the result of believing that finding a motive is necessary. I really don't think it is necessary if there is sufficient evidence otherwise. That's the rub of course.
Pippov: AK says in the note that she had dinner late (11pm) and washed up afterwards and there was a leak.
“One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening”
...The evidence of RS’s father contradicts this in that he says RS reported the leak to him in a phone call earlier in the evening (8.30)
MGL: Yet another quote taken out of context. In the same sentence she says:
“although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock”
Why do you jump to the conclusion she is lying rather than being mistaken?
Pippov: RS’s computer showed that a music file was turned on at 5.30 am the night after the murder (shortly before he turned his phone on). How would this happen if RS was asleep?
MGL: I do not think that RS was claiming he was sound asleep the whole morning, he was just claiming that he did not get up until much later. Is there any evidence of RS denying that he listened to the music at that time? Or are you simply relying on the fact he never mentioned it as evidence that he was suppressing important evidence. If so, please explain why you think that listening to music at 5.32 in the morning is important evidence.
Pippov: The problem for the defence would appear to be that there are a lot of details like this that make it appear RS and AK are lying. (No memory of phoning her mother at 3am Seattle time, saying MK often locked her door and others)
MGL: The problem for the prosecution is that there are a lot of poor arguments like this that make it appear that they are relying on an assumption of guilt to make it appear that RS and AK are lying in such trivial examples (No memory of phoning her mother at 3am Seattle time, saying MK often locked her door and others)
Pippov: I still don’t understand why somebody accused of murder would make up a story about having dinner with the victim and accidentally cutting the victim with what police are suggesting is the murder weapon. As I say, I don’t know the context, but surely an enquiring mind would require more explanation than to say RS’s answer was “absurd”. It presumably wasn’t a false memory, so wouldn’t it be fair to conclude it was a lie? And if it was a lie, what could have been the purpose of the lie?
MGL:
-------
As I understand it, RS made this comment in his prison diary, in the entry dated 18th November 2007, just a few days after hearing about this evidence which he describes in his entry for the 16th:
Last night I saw on television that the knife that I had at home (the one from the kitchen) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (latent) ... my heart jumped in my throat and I was in total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith or had helped someone in the enterprise. But today I saw Tiziano who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the legal doctor, and has nothing to do with anything as Amanda could take it and carry it from my house to her house because the girls didn't have knife so, they are making a smokescreen for nothing ... I live in a reality show nightmare, the 'nightmare reality show'. Unbelievable!
As you can see, part of this story is suggested by RS’s lawyer (Tiziano Tedeschi ) and is not a complete fabrication on his part. It is quite plausible RS is recalling a real memory of being in the kitchen with AK and MK and using a knife there. Given the circumstances he has found himself in and given that he does not question the DNA evidence and is convinced of AK’s innocence it is not difficult to imagine an innocent RS desperately convincing himself that this must have been how MK’s DNA got there. It is also important to clarify that he would have been referring to the girls house not his flat. The idea that he was claiming the knife incident occurred in his flat is obviously a poor inference, so the claims by others that MK never went there is irrelevant.
It is also important to note that as far as I am aware, neither RS nor his lawyers made this claim as part of their defence, so it is not clear that RS ever meant to assert this in public as a a fact. The mere fact that the prison diary was made public cannot be taken as evidence that RS intended to make such an assertion publicly. Unless he did so, your suggestion that he is lying is unwarranted.
Pippov: But so far, I haven't heard an account that convinces me that she had a false memory
MGL:
What convinces you she did not have a false memory? Surely the decent default position to adopt before you judge a person guilty is to assume they are telling the truth. If you think she is not, then you need to provide better evidence that she is lying than what you have presented so far.
The research on false memory supports Amanda’s claim in two ways:
1) It establishes the very real possibility of false memory. Her experience is not unique.
2) The correlation between her description of the interrogation and the feature of interrogations that create false memories. I will expand on this point in further comments.
Correlating features of false memory research and AK's description of interrogation # 1
a)The police made her feel the situation was hopeless by exaggerating the evidence against her and threatening her with prison for 30 years
b)The police minimise her culpability by never accusing her of the murder, but of protecting the murderer.
c)They undermine the confidence she has in her initial assertions by constantly challenging it, asking her to repeat herself as many times as it takes to get her to make inconsistent statements. They refuse to accept her claims to not remember things and not remember details such as exact times.
d) They suggest that she had forgotten because of trauma and should try and imagine what happened as a means of recollection.
e) False memory is much more likely when when a suggestible innocent suspect, under stress and exposed to crime scene evidence is asked to repeatedly imagine what happened. When the suspect is asked to imagine what happened, especially if the imagination involves vivid perceptual like images with emotive content or borrows from real life experiences, they are more vulnerable to mistaking their fantasies for memories. Amanda imagines Patrick’s face and then being with him at Piazza Grimana, the latter because she had actually been with him there. She also says she was genuinely frightened of Patrick by imagining him as being capable of murdering someone.
f) the more times the suspect attempts to imagine something, the easier it is to imagine it again and the more likely it will be that they will mistake it later for a real memory. Amanda was obliged to embellish her imagined scenario by a series of leading question and answer steps. She was also obliged to undergo the same procedure in a second interrogation with the prosecutor Mignini
Correlating features of false memory research and AK's description of interrogation # 2
g) If a suspect infers something and uses this inference in an imagined scenario, this can make the imagined scenario more credible to the suspect if the source of this inference is trusted. This also makes it easier for the fantasy to be mistaken for a memory. When the police were suspicious of the text messages with Patrick, she inferred they suspected him, and led her to believe he was the murderer. The absence of any challenge to what the police were saying except to protest she was at Raffaele’s flat suggests she was still prepared to trust the police during the interrogation. This also reflects a disposition of being easily influenced by authority figures – another factor increasing the chances of false memory.
h) Exposure to crime scene evidence may invoke feeling of guilt, but they can also supply material for suspects who are asked to imagine what happened. Amanda was not shown any photos during the interrogation, but she was taken to the cottage and shown knives by the police the day before. She also imagined Meredith had been raped because the police had suggested this to her in earlier interviews
i)Another key factor is the repetition by interrogators of the evidence they have against a suspect. This has the effect or undermining the suspect’s confidence in their own recollections. Amanda eventually wondered whether she was traumatised as they had claimed. “I was so scared and impressed by all this that at some point I thought What the heck, maybe they're right, maybe I forgot.”
j) Another major factor associated with false memory by the research is stress, induced by the aggressive interrogation and sleep deprivation. Amanda was intimidated by a large number of police officers, some of whom she claimed slapped her, some of whom shouted in her face calling her a stupid liar and threatening her with prison. Added to this is the fact that the first interrogation started at midnight so she would have been at least tired if not sleep deprived. Stress would also have affected her judgement. Her ability to distinguish between real and imagined memories would have been compromised.
k) It is difficult to understand how anyone can mistake fantasies for memories, but if you consider what it is about a memories that distinguish them from vividly imagined fantasies there is nothing in the images themselves that separates them. We cannot step outside our mind and compare our memories with the actual past. We rely on our beliefs of how they originated and this is only partly determined by the content of the memory itself. Memory is not infallible – it does not provide a completely veridical record of experience. “Remembering involves inference-like reconstructive processes.“ ( Henkel & Coffman). So when we recollect a fantasy we only recognise it as a fantasy because we remember the occasion when we imagined it the first time. But what if others suggest, as they did to Amanda, that perhaps you imagined it because you were actually retrieving a memory you had forgotten? How certain can you be that was not the case, especially when others were all convinced that it was.
Post a Comment