Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[sherlockh]

So you imagine that a roomful of authorities yelling at you in a foreign language is LESS intimidating than a conversation with one or two officers in your native tongue?

Yes, AK is bright, but she was relatively young, didn't speak the language well, and was interrogated by a gang in the middle of the night after a very stressful week. These factors worked against her intelligence (an intelligence that no one describes as street smart or crafty).

I am saying that all the examples of false confessions have shown that a monotone setting with 1 or 2 interrogators is a prerequisite for a proper brainwashing. A pack of angry policemen yelling at me would give me a headache at most. I would just be too distracted to start dreaming up stuff. JMO.

 

[SMK]

I am saying that all the examples of false confessions have shown that a monotone setting with 1 or 2 interrogators is a prerequisite for a proper brainwashing. A pack of angry policemen yelling at me would give me a headache at most. I would just be too distracted to start dreaming up stuff. JMO.

I think many people would feel such a scenario to be conducive to hysteria and false confession. I think if one grasps the type of person Amanda was at that age, and how peculiar , even obnoxious, her difference must have made her seem to her interrogators, one can see why it might wind up with her near-bizarre attempts to appease them.

 

[Malkmus]

Some info on his mental capabilities came forward in his appeal although the court did not agree with his reasoning.


http://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/court-of-appeals-criminal/1994/11525.html

Thanks for that... I wonder what "low mental capability" means though. The book about the case "Dreams of Ada" makes no mention of it, which is puzzling.

As a sidenote, I believe Emyr's post cites examples of individuals who succumb to false confessions that are neither children nor mentally deficient.

ETA: the article you provide does not seem to assert that Fontenot indeed had any mental deficiencies, only that he may have had PTSD from his mother's death and had a hard time understanding legal terminology. Unless I missed something...

 

[sherlockh]

Thanks for that... I wonder what "low mental capability" means though. The book about the case "Dreams of Ada" makes no mention of it, which is puzzling.

As a sidenote, I believe Emyr's post cites examples of individuals who succumb to false confessions that are neither children nor mentally deficient.

ETA: the article you provide does not seem to assert that Fontenot indeed had any mental deficiencies, only that he may have had PTSD from his mother's death and had a hard time understanding legal terminology. Unless I missed something...

Maybe it would have been a better defense strategy to not put Knox on the stand and claim that she is 'mentally weak'. Although I don't really see how they would proof that but putting Knox on the stand and show a 'mentally strong' person didn't really work well IMO.

 

[Malkmus]

Maybe it would have been a better defense strategy to not put Knox on the stand and claim that she is 'mentally weak'. Although I don't really see how they would proof that but putting Knox on the stand and show a 'mentally strong' person didn't really work well IMO.

I believe her defense in court tried neither stance, but instead argued a very fair point, that she was in a very confusing situation involving a language she was only just learning. She wasn't the only one confused, the police perhaps just as much (the text message for example).

 

[Nova]

Thanks. The article also explains why this person was vulnerable. That case reminds me of the Norfolk Four where it is explained that people in certain professions that are trained to have an absolute respect for authority are more vulnerable to coercions.

You mean like students? Not as gung-ho as soldiers, maybe, but students spend years in institutions where their success depends on the continued good will of authority figures. And that good will often depends on providing the answer desired by the authority, whether or not the student actually agrees.

 

[Nova]

I am saying that all the examples of false confessions have shown that a monotone setting with 1 or 2 interrogators is a prerequisite for a proper brainwashing. A pack of angry policemen yelling at me would give me a headache at most. I would just be too distracted to start dreaming up stuff. JMO.

You have a list of all false confessions? I'd like to see that link.

And how do these examples show a quiet interrogation to be a "prerequisite"? That word implies causality.

I don't think they had 12 officers there to question AK because of union quotas. I think they "tag-teamed" her and did so specifically because they know an angry mob puts pressure on suspects and gets statements that LE wants.

And we all get in the habit of saying "false confession," but of course AK never actually confessed to anything except being in the kitchen and hearing a scream.

 

[dgfred]

Nothing in your summary of AK's remarks admits to involvement in the murder. She admitted being in the next room (and that, of course, was untrue).

Once again HOW is meeting the person you are accusing of murder, letting them into the cottage, and doing nothing while your cottage mate is getting murdered NOT BEING INVOLVED??? The police have NO IDEA at that moment that you are going to say LATER that it was a dream/flashback/confusion that caused you to accuse the person. Being in the next room IS involvement.

There is no way to dance around the fact that already suspicious police are going to think you are definately involved after you tell them you are... whether a dream or unreal/imagined (or any other excuse).

 

[SMK]

Along the lines of more reasons to want this ruling to hurry up and come: In my trawling other forums, I see two lines of thought, one I agree with, the other I strongly disagree with. (I think I can mention PMF as they make mention of websleuths, and have cited my blog and Facebook and connections with Fisher in the past.)

On one, PMF, they are comparing Amanda to the serial killer out in Cleavland, who raped and strangled 18 women, but claims it was "really out of character" for him. They view Knox as a violent sexual killer, who would reoffend numerous times if granted freedom.
On TJMK, they rightly claim that no pressure from prime ministers, heads of state, presidents; no letters, no petitions, will ever free Knox. She will be freed in open Perugian court, or not at all. This I strongly agree with.

I wish the ruling would come. If Knox was actually wrongfully convicted, as many of us believe, it should be now or never for it coming to light to a judge and jury. If it had to go to the supreme court, that to me would be a very bad sign.

 

[SMK]

Once again HOW is meeting the person you are accusing of murder, letting them into the cottage, and doing nothing while your cottage mate is getting murdered NOT BEING INVOLVED??? The police have NO IDEA at that moment that you are going to say LATER that it was a dream/flashback/confusion that caused you to accuse the person. Being in the next room IS involvement.

There is no way to dance around the fact that already suspicious police are going to think you are definately involved after you tell them you are... whether a dream or unreal/imagined (or any other excuse).

I have problems with the being in the next room as actual involvement. I look back to myself at 20, when my sister often had me around unsavory types by tricking me into going out with her, and then stopping by some house where there was a party going on, which I had no desire to attend. Suppose I had heard screaming and something awful going on. I think I would have just wanted out, and would not believe it had anything to do with me. At my age now I would phone 911, but I am not sure I would have known to do that at 20.....especially if it were in a foreign country where I did not have command of the language....

 

[dgfred]

Because her statement was quite obviously false! If not obvious at the outset, certainly obvious as soon as she declared it a dream and painfully obvious the moment forensics began to come in.

Keeping part of the statement and simply subbing RG for PL is not following the evidence; it's sheer laziness (if not out and out prejudice against Americans).

How is it obviously false at that moment? Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on IMO. So she later claims it is a dream and they should just let her go, or what?

Is it prejudice against RS too, or sheer laziness?

 

[dgfred]

I have problems with the being in the next room as actual involvement. I look back to myself at 20, when my sister often had me around unsavory types by tricking me into going out with her, and then stopping by some house where there was a party going on, which I had no desire to attend. Suppose I had heard screaming and something awful going on. I think I would have just wanted out, and would not believe it had anything to do with me. At my age now I would phone 911, but I am not sure I would have known to do that at 20.....

What about meeting him at the basketball court?

What about letting him into the cottage?

What about doing nothing why your supposed friend was murdered?

What about not calling the police or an ambulance?

What about not helping Meredith after she was stabbed/cut?

I don't understand your problem with involvement whether in the next room or not :waitasec: .

 

[SMK]

How is it obviously false at that moment? Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on IMO. So she later claims it is a dream and they should just let her go, or what?

Is it prejudice against RS too, or sheer laziness?

I think they did not like Sollectio, viewed him as a creepy rich kid, and his connection to Knox did not help matters. I would agree that Knox and Sollecito helped the police to become more suspicious, but that does not mean it ought to have escalated in the manner it did.

 

[SMK]

What about meeting him at the basketball court?

What about letting him into the cottage?

What about doing nothing why your supposed friend was murdered?

What about not calling the police or an ambulance?

What about not helping Meredith after she was stabbed/cut?

I don't understand your problem with involvement whether in the next room or not :waitasec: .

I would hope you would understand, in the example I gave from my youth.

I would not have, in any way, shape or form, believed myself to be involved for what some other creep had decided to do. Yes, there are more factors with Knox, IF, IF, IF all that you list above actually occurred.

 

[dgfred]

I think they did not like Sollectio, viewed him as a creepy rich kid, and his connection to Knox did not help matters. I would agree that Knox and Sollecito helped the police to become more suspicious, but that does not mean it ought to have escalated in the manner it did.

What do you mean escalated?

They arrested the person AK accused of committing the murder.
They continued to process the crime scene and phone/computer evidence.
They investigated Patrick for 2 weeks, in which AK did not PLAINLY take back her accusation.
When evidence was presented to exonerate Patrick, he was released.
When prints were found of RG, he was tracked to Germany.
His friend was asked to get him to talk over Skype and hopefully turn himself in.
RG was captured returning on a train.
They continued to investigate all three, and process the crime scene.

I see normal escalation.

 

[SMK]

What do you mean escalated?

They arrested the person AK accused of committing the murder.
They continued to process the crime scene and phone/computer evidence.
They investigated Patrick for 2 weeks, in which AK did not PLAINLY take back her accusation.
When evidence was presented to exonerate Patrick, he was released.
When prints were found of RG, he was tracked to Germany.
His friend was asked to get him to talk over Skype and hopefully turn himself in.
RG was captured returning on a train.
They continued to investigate all three, and process the crime scene.

I see normal escalation.

I will grant you one thing, Fred.
IF Hellman and the jury decide to uphold the convictions, at this point I will begin to supsect that Knox and Sollecito were in fact involved.

I do not think this should have to go to the Supreme court of Italy.

I will be done with Knox and Sollecito should this occur. I will believe that we may have been misled, that there is something in the case which would make an independent man like Hellman, and a new jury, believe they were culpable.

Conversely, if the convictions are overturned, I will see that we who believed the convictions were wrongful were correct, and that Hellman saw what we saw. But I am done with the case if it has to go to the high court.

 

[dgfred]

I would hope you would understand, in the example I gave from my youth.

I would not have, in any way, shape or form, believed myself to be involved for what some other creep had decided to do. Yes, there are more factors with Knox, IF, IF, IF all that you list above actually occurred.

Oh I understood your example... but it wasn't really similar unless you stated you let your friend into your house and he/she committed a murder, and you did nothing to help the victim.

 

[SMK]

Oh I understood your example... but it wasn't really similar unless you stated you let your friend into your house and he/she committed a murder, and you did nothing to help the victim.

IF this occurred, then yes, it is different. Had I let someone into my own place, and they had done this to someone I knew, I would have called for police immediately. However, I was a young person who never smoked pot once. So I was clear headed. I did drink at times, and if drunk, not sure what I would have done. And then might have been viewed as partly culpable, but surely not fully, if I had no desire, no intention, to hurt anyone. Maybe libel for allowing the criminal in..........I am assuming Guede was a lone wolf burglar who knifed a screaming Meredith. If your scenario is true, I think Knox committed reckless involuntary manslaughter.

 

[Allusonz]

And, alas, the heart of many cases. I've certainly had my eyes opened since I first started reading about the West Memphis 3 in the late 1990s.

I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but I too tended to trust LE and assume that people without mental disabilities would never confess. Boy, have my eyes been opened!

Yes I agree. This is far more reaching than I had ever imagined and I don't believe many believe how deep it goes especially when we talk DNA.

 

[SMK]

@Fred:

Why did not Mignini simply say that Knox had done something really irresponsible, by allowing Guede in, and being too stoned to help MK when Guede attacked her? The charge would have been negligent reckless involuntary manslaughter. Why did he have to say, 'It was Amanda who used the kinfe" to the jury ? Why???