Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #6

[Nova]

Amanda said there were "blows to the head", and she claimed that she was beaten for somewhere between 10, 14, 41 and 54 hours (her lies, not errors in reporting). None of it was true.

If the discussion is about poor little Amanda being coerced into falsely accusing someone of murder after 2 hours of questioning as a witness, then I think it is important to give contect to her original claim. Her original claim was that she was interrogated for 54 hours (later modified to 2) and beaten (later modified to a cuff on the back of the head by someone that she cannot describe). After removing the 54 hours of brutal interrogation and blows to the head from the equation, all we have left is the completely unbelievable claim that she was forced to confess after 2 hours of questioning.

If we can have pages and pages about people that make false confessions, then we can certainly put Amanda Knox and her statements in proper context.

The "2 hours" tally seems to be yours alone, based on a beginning and ending time that you, and you alone, chose. Although the total number of hours of interrogation vary according to source, none of the links provided arrives at your total of 2.

As for physical coercion, you don't know whether AK was hit; I don't know whether AK was hit. Nobody who has criticized the verdicts has claimed to know whether she was hit. Coerced, false testimony is not always a result of physical abuse.

But since you are tired of evidence re coerced testimony, perhaps you'd like to provide us with evidence that liars are always killers, since that seems to be the crux of your argument against AK...

 

[otto]

You continue to diagnose strangers as sociopaths without (a) identifying your credentials to make such a diagnosis, or (b) identifying the affects and actions from which you draw your conclusion. (ETA you do identify some of the affects you find troubling below, but you're still far short of enough info to make a diagnosis. Can we call this opinion a guess?)

This is why I compared the lay concept of "sociopath" to "satanist." They are both mere "boogeymen" catch phrases used to explain away lack of evidence by ascribing inhuman motives to a broad and often vaguely defined group of persons. In other periods, people would have substituted "witches," "Negros", "Jews" or "Communists."



This would be offensive if it referred to posters here, who have merely argued there is a lack of evidence of AK's and RS' guilt. So I'll assume you are talking about other people somewhere "out there" who feel an emotional connection to the defendants.

<modsnip>



Because LE formed a theory first and then coerced testimony to support it. This is hardly the first case where that has happened.



You have no way of knowing how upset AK was or was not. As for failing to "withdraw," how could she? She was at the police station more than 10 hours each day.



Up to a certain point, perhaps. But an active 20-year-old might well fidget after awhile. I've taught kids that age and after an hour and a half of sitting still for a lecture, they start to bounce off the walls.



BBM: and so we have the real defense of the verdicts: "It was simply obvious."

AK is guilty of murder because she looks guilty to some people, and that seems to be the bottom line.

I disagree. The term sociopath is well known by psychologists and non-psychologist alike, and it is not a term for satan or the boogeyman or various religious and political groups. About 30 years ago the terms psychopath and sociopath were used to describe personalities that were blatantly abnormal, with psychopath being the term used to describe violent tendencies in addition to the the sociopathic personality. Those terms were then blended and both were moved under the category of sociopath. That was again changed and the abnormal personalities are now identified as antisocial personality disorder. Laypersons are quite capable of understanding these developments in psychology.

As for post-sec students fidgeting during a 90 minute class? Hmmmmmm. 3 hour classes are rather common, and most students have the self-discipline to pay attention. Pre-schoolers and children fidget in class ... not adults (in my experience).

Why do you think police had tunnel vision in the investigation?

 

[angel10510]

"Dr. Ursula Ordonez at Seattle University&#8217;s School of Psychology"

Isn't it important to know what people in the neighborhood think?

This is fictitious. There is no such person at that university. Even googling it, the only two links to this person are the article and this thread.

See also Nova's post 227 above.

 

[otto]

The "2 hours" tally seems to be yours alone, based on a beginning and ending time that you, and you alone, chose. Although the total number of hours of interrogation vary according to source, none of the links provided arrives at your total of 2.

As for physical coercion, you don't know whether AK was hit; I don't know whether AK was hit. Nobody who has criticized the verdicts has claimed to know whether she was hit. Coerced, false testimony is not always a result of physical abuse.

But since you are tired of evidence re coerced testimony, perhaps you'd like to provide us with evidence that liars are always killers, since that seems to be the crux of your argument against AK...

I didn't choose the times. The witness interview began at about 11:30, and was over at about 1:30 or 1:45 ... at which point the witness became a suspect. At about 3:30, she asked for pen and paper, and at about 5:45, she had prepared her gift statement for the police.

I'm not "tired" of anything. I have said that false confessions have no relevance in this case.

 

[SleuthyGal]

LOL @ faux psychologist being cited.

 

[Malkmus]

I didn't choose the times. The witness interview began at about 11:30, and was over at about 1:30 or 1:45 ... at which point the witness became a suspect. At about 3:30, she asked for pen and paper, and at about 5:45, she had prepared her gift statement for the police.

I'm not "tired" of anything. I have said that false confessions have no relevance in this case.

Your confusing the 5:45 statement with the "gift" letter she wrote herself later that day. She did not write the 5:45 statement with a pen and paper, it was typed up by ILE and signed by her just like the 1:45 statement. She asked for a pen and paper to write the letter in which she had doubts about the two statements she had signed.

 

[otto]

Your confusing the 5:45 statement with the "gift" letter she wrote herself later that day. She did not write the 5:45 statement with a pen and paper, it was typed up by ILE and signed by her just like the 1:45 statement. She asked for a pen and paper to write the letter in which she had doubts about the two statements she had signed.

At what time do you place her status change from witness to suspect?

 

[Malkmus]

At what time do you place her status change from witness to suspect?

At 1:45 her status changed from witness to suspect. But her witness statement couldn't be used so Mignini was called in to get a new statement from her as a suspect, to which they got her to sign relatively the same statement at 5:45. Hours later while waiting to be transported to Capanne prison she asked for a pen and paper and wrote the "gift" letter doubting the statements which she handed to one of the officers.

 

[flourish]

You continue to diagnose strangers as sociopaths without (a) identifying your credentials to make such a diagnosis, or (b) identifying the affects and actions from which you draw your conclusion. (ETA you do identify some of the affects you find troubling below, but you're still far short of enough info to make a diagnosis. Can we call this opinion a guess?)

This is why I compared the lay concept of "sociopath" to "satanist." They are both mere "boogeymen" catch phrases used to explain away lack of evidence by ascribing inhuman motives to a broad and often vaguely defined group of persons. In other periods, people would have substituted "witches," "Negros", "Jews" or "Communists."



This would be offensive if it referred to posters here, who have merely argued there is a lack of evidence of AK's and RS' guilt. So I'll assume you are talking about other people somewhere "out there" who feel an emotional connection to the defendants.

<modsnip>



Because LE formed a theory first and then coerced testimony to support it. This is hardly the first case where that has happened.



You have no way of knowing how upset AK was or was not. As for failing to "withdraw," how could she? She was at the police station more than 10 hours each day.



Up to a certain point, perhaps. But an active 20-year-old might well fidget after awhile. I've taught kids that age and after an hour and a half of sitting still for a lecture, they start to bounce off the walls.



BBM: and so we have the real defense of the verdicts: "It was simply obvious."

AK is guilty of murder because she looks guilty to some people, and that seems to be the bottom line.

I'm confused here....I read over Jade's posts and I have seen her offer her opinion, but I haven't seen her diagnosing people...

 

[Nova]

"Dr. Ursula Ordonez at Seattle University’s School of Psychology"

Isn't it important to know what people in the neighborhood think?

There is no such person, otto. The entire article is a parody.

 

[flourish]

if you know enough about forensic pathology medicine and the half lives of TCH and cocaine and the metabolites, as well as the diff between water soluable vs fat soluable you dont need my opinion :giggle:

but my answer to the above is no

I don't know enough about forensic pathology. I never said my degree(s) were in criminology or forensic pathology or substance abuse prevention, I said I'd taken classes and I explained what I remembered from those classes. Hence the question. Thanks for the answer anyway.


ETA: I don't know your credentials, either. Neither of us has claimed to be experts in any fields, or else I reckon Tricia would be asking us for some confirmation for that I ask you these questions because you have answered my questions in the past and you seem to know things that are relevant to my questions.

(Plus, we did have that great night in Perugia with all that red wine, right? )

 

[Nova]

I didn't choose the times. The witness interview began at about 11:30, and was over at about 1:30 or 1:45 ... at which point the witness became a suspect. At about 3:30, she asked for pen and paper, and at about 5:45, she had prepared her gift statement for the police.

I'm not "tired" of anything. I have said that false confessions have no relevance in this case.

As you know perfectly well, the two hours you are talking about took place three or four days after the discovery of MK's body. AK and RS had talked to the police numerous times in the interim. For how many hours, I don't know for sure at this point, but it was more than 2.

Declaring that evidence re coerced testimony has no relevance in a case where coerced testimony has been alleged--and false testimony is undeniable--is rather a rhetorical surrender, don't you think?

 

[otto]

At 1:45 her status changed from witness to suspect. But her witness statement couldn't be used so Mignini was called in to get a new statement from her as a suspect, to which they got her to sign relatively the same statement at 5:45. Hours later while waiting to be transported to Capanne prison she asked for a pen and paper and wrote the "gift" letter doubting the statements which she handed to one of the officers.

We agree on that. At the time that her status changed, the questioning stopped, and that constitutes a 2 hour period of questioning as a witness.

 

[Malkmus]

We agree on that. At the time that her status changed, the questioning stopped, and that constitutes a 2 hour period of questioning as a witness.

That wasn't what I was arguing. I think my point in my response to you was clearly about the distinction between her "gift" letter and 5:45 statement. I have never argued that the time until her first statement wasn't 2 hours.

 

[otto]

The "2 hours" tally seems to be yours alone, based on a beginning and ending time that you, and you alone, chose. Although the total number of hours of interrogation vary according to source, none of the links provided arrives at your total of 2.

As for physical coercion, you don't know whether AK was hit; I don't know whether AK was hit. Nobody who has criticized the verdicts has claimed to know whether she was hit. Coerced, false testimony is not always a result of physical abuse.

But since you are tired of evidence re coerced testimony, perhaps you'd like to provide us with evidence that liars are always killers, since that seems to be the crux of your argument against AK...

That 2 hour time period is not mine alone, and is in fact the length of time that Amanda was questioned on the night that she falsely accused an innocent man of murder.

 

[Nova]

I'm confused here....I read over Jade's posts and I have seen her offer her opinion, but I haven't seen her diagnosing people...

Perhaps my use of the word "diagnosis" was unfair. Certainly, Jade is entitled to form an opinion as to AK's character.

I used the word "diagnosis" because Jade uses a particular, albeit obsolete, psychiatric term to describe AK, not the more general character references made by others in this thread. It seems more a "diagnosis" to me than an opinion, much as if I were to announce that Mignini is a paranoid schizophrenic (another term which is probably obsolete by now).

None of this would matter, except that, as I understand her, Jade believes AK's sociopathy is proof that AK was certain to behave improbably, and therefore examination of the likeliness of actions attributed to AK is irrelevant. (This all started in response to my skepticism that anyone would run around Perugia with a 12" steak knife.) Again, this seems more the territory of diagnosis than mere judgment of character.

In short, to say AK was self-focused is a judgment of character (and one with which I'd probably agree: it's not an uncommon trait among 20-year-olds). To say AK is a sociopath is more in the nature of a diagnosis.

Or so it seems to me. Either way, of course, Jade is entitled to post her opinion and I'm entitled to disagree or, more precisely, opine that we are "diagnosing" AK without following the appropriate diagnostic procedures.

 

[otto]

Perhaps my use of the word "diagnosis" was unfair. Certainly, Jade is entitled to form an opinion as to AK's character.

I used the word "diagnosis" because Jade uses a particular, albeit obsolete, psychiatric term to describe AK, not the more general character references made by others in this thread. It seems more a "diagnosis" to me than an opinion, much as if I were to announce that Mignini is a paranoid schizophrenic (another term which is probably obsolete by now).

None of this would matter, except that, as I understand her, Jade believes AK's sociopathy is proof that AK was certain to behave improbably, and therefore examination of the likeliness of actions attributed to AK is irrelevant. (This all started in response to my skepticism that anyone would run around Perugia with a 12" steak knife.) Again, this seems more the territory of diagnosis than mere judgment of character.

In short, to say AK was self-focused is a judgment of character (and one with which I'd probably agree: it's not an uncommon trait among 20-year-olds). To say AK is a sociopath is more in the nature of a diagnosis.

Or so it seems to me. Either way, of course, Jade is entitled to post her opinion and I'm entitled to disagree or, more precisely, opine that we are "diagnosing" AK without following the appropriate diagnostic procedures.

The concept of sociopath is not obsolete, and is still used by both laypersons and professionals do describe people with sociopathic personalities. The newer term has only been used for a couple of years.

Amanda's absence of emotional reaction to the murder of her roommate most certainly raises the question of whether she is sociopathic. That point is reinforced by her cold, callous story telling about rape and murder.

Within about an hour after Meredith's body was found, Meredith's friends said that they hoped Meredith hadn't suffered (an expression of empathy). Amanda's response was "she f-ing bled to death" (complete absence of empathy and sympathy). That's a very cold comment.

 

[Nova]

We agree on that. At the time that her status changed, the questioning stopped, and that constitutes a 2 hour period of questioning as a witness.

This is often stated as fact, that "the questioning changed" when her status changed. And I'm sure that is technically true in the legal sense. (It would be technically true here in the States anyway.)

But do we know that the nature of the questioning actually changed? The implication seems to be that the police were questioning AK gently until the moment she was declared a suspect, and then--and only then--LE went to "Defcon 5", high-intensity interrogation mode. (Yet we know for a fact, for example, that Jessie Miskelley was interrogated just as rigorously before and after he became an official suspect in the minds of the West Memphis police.)

Lacking a transcript or video, however, how do we know what really happened? (Many of us will remember from the O.J. Simpson murder case how detectives "played" with concepts such as "suspect" and "not a suspect", and used those concepts however best suited their purposes.)

 

[trillian]

If there was no questioning of AK between 1:45 (when she became a suspect) and 5:45, then why do the statements not match? Why are there very different details in the second one?

If you have the important details at 1:45, you include them. If you translate them into English, nothing more would be added. Am I missing something?

Looks obvious to me that she was questioned overnight.

 

[otto]

This is often stated as fact, that "the questioning changed" when her status changed. And I'm sure that is technically true in the legal sense. (It would be technically true here in the States anyway.)

But do we know that the nature of the questioning actually changed? The implication seems to be that the police were questioning AK gently until the moment she was declared a suspect, and then--and only then--LE went to "Defcon 5", high-intensity interrogation mode. (Yet we know for a fact, for example, that Jessie Miskelley was interrogated just as rigorously before and after he became an official suspect in the minds of the West Memphis police.)

Lacking a transcript or video, however, how do we know what really happened? (Many of us will remember from the O.J. Simpson murder case how detectives "played" with concepts such as "suspect" and "not a suspect", and used those concepts however best suited their purposes.)

The questioning didn't change when her status changed to suspect, it stopped. She was a suspect, and entitled to a lawyer.