Griffinmill refuses to acquaint himself with the actual source material so his arguments are not coming from any form of logic employed outside of the guilter circles. Let's look at some of the factual errors of his in just the last page of posts:
You obviously know her signed statement contains these details. If you wanted to be a little honest, you could at least say, "I know Amanda said these things in her signed statement, but I believe the police coerced her into saying it."
Those statements were written by the police, in Italian, using police terminology and phrasing. We know that Amanda was asked to sign them just as she was asked to sign the summaries of her previous interviews. We don't know if she read them.
It sounds like you're pretending that statement didn't happen and prefer the 5am voluntary confession where she "stands by" the same signed statement (of rape and murder) made only a few hours earlier, but also "doubts the veracity" of it.
The "stand by" was not in the 5:45 statement. That was what she wrote the next evening:
"And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I
said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house."
She is standing by the statements she made, not the interpretation that the police wrote up that she probably didn't even read. Could she have made it any more clear that those events seem more unreal to her than what she had been saying up until that night that she had stayed at Raffaele's house.
Esposito's confession came after an 18 hour interrogation, not 90 minutes. And it was eventually shown he had a verifiable alibi. So I'm guessing it's not even remotely analogous.
Where does griff get 90 minutes from? Amanda's interrogation that evening begins at 22:32. For this we have a time stamped audio recording that was presented in the trial. And that's not counting the many hours that she spent in the presence of the police in the preceding days.
We also have the alibis. Raffaele provides an alibi for Amanda saying she was with him that evening. Raffaele's computer shows that he was home till at least 21:26. The Swiss professor and several students provide alibis for Patrick saying he was at his pub. And if that's not enough, there is Toto saying Amanda and Raffaele were at the basketball court all night from 9pm till almost midnight.
I think we covered this. In Amanda's first statement, which she signed, she said Lumumba had sex with Meredith, followed by screams, and that she 'vaguely' remembered Lumumba murdering her.
Now this is simply bizarre. How does one "vaguely" remember a murder? But Amanda offers an insite into how that portion of the interrogation proceeded in her testimony:
CP: Signorina Amanda, listen. On the evening of November 1, 2007, did you hear Meredith, poor Meredith, scream?
AK: No.
CP: In the interrogation of November 6, 2007, at 5:45, you declared that before she died, you heard Meredith scream. How could you know that Meredith screamed before she was killed? Who told you?
AK: So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream. I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."
All the talking points well laid out. The alternative, more likely scenario, is that the police asked her to elaborate, she swore she couldn't remember any more details, and they took her statement.
But admittedly, this is my total speculation countering your total speculation. The difference is my speculation includes an outrageous, offensive lie by AK, whereas your speculation requires a belief in a vast conspiracy by the police.
The reality is that Italian law sets very strict guidelines in the interrogation of suspects. As soon as the police thought Amanda was saying that she was present at the time of the murder, the law says the interrogation must end immediately and her status as a suspect and her rights must be explained. The cops did stop the interrogation but then proceeded to write up their summary and have Amanda sign it. The Italian Supreme Court quite rightly declared that the statements were inadmissible against her but here griffin is using it.
Yet Amanda never told the police the truth that Lumumba wasn't invlved at any time. I know, she was confused and pressured, villified and scapegoated. But during her victimhood, she never once told the truth about Lumumba. I guess she remained confused until well after he was released.
There is her hand written statement from that very same day in which she says: "but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.". How is it that griffin doesn't accept this as a retraction of any claim that Patrick was the murderer?
