Meredith Kercher case

[Ally]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-false-confession

http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf

That one is a bit of a hard slog to go through, but you might find the section titled "Interrogative Suggestibility" on page 24 interesting. It matches fairly closely with what Knox reported.

John

John thanks for the link, I was looking for something similar and was coming up empty.

Just out of curiosity do you have a link somewhere to the pathology report by Lalli (translated of course). I had it a long while ago and can't remember where I got it from.

[caz]

I'm not talking about other weird cases, Ally, where people incriminate themselves and 'confess' to all sorts under pressure.

I'm talking about this one, and why Knox did her best to help seal her own fate by putting herself in the murder house while her housemate was being murdered, and hearing the screams. One can hardly blame the police for taking this at face value initially, and wanting to know what else she knew about what was going on, especially when she seemed to be confirming that a certain 'man of interest' was in the house with her and possibly responsible for those screams.

As soon as that man was able to prove he was elsewhere, the police could then hardly be blamed for demanding to know why she had lied and who she was covering for. The first thing they are going to think (in any country, at any time, about any crime) is NOT that the poor lamb was making up the bit about hearing the screams in addition to slandering her boss, because people under pressure have on occasion been known to do and say some mighty outlandish and eccentric things.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

But Caz,

Saying we are not talking about other cases but this one is impossible to accomplish. How do we know why Knox rolled any more than we know why those four navy men rolled. You somehow expect her to have a stronger psyche than anyone else on the planet and resist interrogation techniques that work to elicit false confessions in reported dozens of people?

Why would she do it? Why wouldn't she? If it works well enough that four men are capable of confessing and describing beating and raping a woman when it never happened, why would a woman be able to hold out in a foreign country with rudimentary knowledge of the language when she didn't even have an airtight alibi and had a hazy memory of the night in question due to being stoned?

Why would she confess? Because she's weak. Just like about 85 percent of the population.

In the case I mentioned every single man's confession contained details that the cops KNEW were untrue. They described beating the woman's face in and she had no facial bruising. They were proven liars by the physical evidence and their confessions were demonstrably NOT true but when a cop believes what he believes sometimes it doesn't really matter what the evidence says.

[Admin]

Posters are asked to keep this thread on topic. We do not wish to receive any more reports from this thread.

Posters are asked to refer to the Rules which are in place:

8. Do not engage in trolling behavior. For the purposes of these forums, trolling is defined as any behavior designed to disrupt a thread.

and

1. Don't hijack threads with theory bias or with other off topic commentary.

Thank you.

[caz]

Fair enough, Ally.

If Knox's horrendous experience makes weak-willed students everywhere, with only a rudimentary knowledge of the language concerned, think twice before going abroad to study, it will probably be a good thing. Not for Knox, obviously, but for pretty much everyone else.

We all live and learn.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

Fair enough, Ally.

We all live and learn.

Love,

Caz
X

I've always said is that if there were more serious consequences to being stupid, maybe people would quit being stupid. Hopefully it will work in Knox's case.

And so I am clear because I don't think I have been previously, I don't let Knox off the hook for her false confession. While I understand totally that it does happen, and even how it happens, and give some leeway to young people who have been trained to be submissive to authority figures, in the end, she was still responsible for her choices and for part of what happened to her.

I just don't believe that what she was undoubtedly guilty of: bad judgment, rank immaturity and gross stupidity was deserving of life imprisonment for murder.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Everyone,

Knox served time, in my opinion, for being her own worst enemy. She seemed to do everything in her power to put people's backs up. It shouldn't have made any difference to the professionals involved - the police, the lawyers, the forensic scientists et al - but even they are human, and juries are all too human. I'm not excusing anyone here, nor am I blaming Knox for being convicted of murder in the face of insufficient and/or flawed evidence.

But I still can't see why or how she dropped that innocent man in the poo, even under huge pressure to agree with what the police were suggesting about his involvement. You see, if she was not in the house that night and only found out what had happened to her housemate the morning after, she could not logically have testified that any specific individual was present, let alone involved. She totally dropped herself in the poo along with her bar boss, by saying she had heard Meredith screaming. If she had stuck to the 'truth' about not being there at all, but with her boyfriend in his flat all night, she could also have said, truthfully and logically, that she obviously had no clue as to who could have been involved, or how many, or if her boss had gone to that house or stayed in the bar.

Hearing the screams was the weirdest and daftest lie of all to tell, and absolutely not necessary, if she had no involvement whatsoever because she wasn't there and had no idea who was.

Any ideas, apart from the usual 'flustered and confused stoodent' argument?

Love,

Caz
X

False confessions/accusations under duress during interrogations are a known fact. This was a witchhunt from the start.

[caz]

Well at least she's not serving life now, is she? But it was a close enough thing for her to have learned a few of life's harsher lessons.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

And of course, hopefully we in the world have learned a few lessons about buying into the media hype and continuing to cling to it, long after the evidence has proved otherwise.

I doubt it though.

[Garry Wroe]

I've always said is that if there were more serious consequences to being stupid, maybe people would quit being stupid. Hopefully it will work in Knox's case.

The difference being that Knox's stupidity will almost certainly lead to a million dollar book deal.

[Ally]

Yeah but considering that her parents apparently spent somewhat close to that in her defense and flying back and forth to Italy to be with her, renting an apartment, the father lost his job, etc...I don't think they are actually going to come out financially ahead.

[Garry Wroe]

That's a fair point, Ally. But then, the Kerchers couldn't afford to attend the appeal hearing in full. Hence they turned up only as it reached its conclusion.

Personally, I wish Amanda and her family well, and will continue to do so as long as they remain half as dignified as the Kerchers. Only time and the lure of big bucks will provide the answer to that one.

[Ally]

Well if the Knox family does cash in, they will be just as classy as Kercher's family, since they are apparently planning to sue Amanda for 8 million pounds. And of course it will succeed because it's happening over in England where Amanda is the she-devil killing whore who turns cartwheels...never mind the lack of any actual evidence.

The lure of big bucks can bring even the classy down.

[Ally]

Honestly, this was my favorite quote from Kercher's father:

This cult of celebrity is demeaning to Meredith's memory, disrespectful. I don't think Amanda Knox has actively sought out celebrity status; I think that has been created for her. But then again, she hasn't actively rejected it," he continued.

REALLY?? She hasn't actively rejected it? How the heck does on "actively reject" it? She's been in prison. When has she ACTIVELY sought a camera since her release? She isn't out there giving interviews to everyone who asks, like the Kercher family appears to be doing, but she's the one who is seen as not actively rejecting the media circus?

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/228177/20111010/amanda-knox-meredith-kercher-suing-8-million-father-death-murder-rudy-guede-raffaele-sollecito-lumum.htm

[Errata]

She isn't out there giving interviews to everyone who asks, like the Kercher family appears to be doing, but she's the one who is seen as not actively rejecting the media circus?

This where I have to disagree. Not with your assessment, which is correct, but with your outrage. The Kercher family should not be pursuing this lawsuit, but it's hard for me to blame them. They are doing what hurt, bereaved and angry people do, and in a way I admire their restraint for waiting until after the trials.

I agree that it's wrongheaded. But I don't feel outrage. I see it as a somewhat natural reaction of having absolutely no closure despite years of trials. And I feel terrible for them. My attitude may change the farther they take this, but at the moment, I completely understand that state of mind.