• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alt+F4 said:
Is there any provision in Italian law that would allow a reduction in sentence if they confessed? If so, might AK and RS serve 10-15 year sentences, MK's family and friends would finally know the entire truth (which might help them heal) and the Italian justice system would save quite a bit of money.

Their will almost certainly lose their appeal and attempts to get U.S. officials to intercede with the Italian government is a big mistake, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

There is no such provision. Even if a suspect confesses at an early stage the prosecution still have to build a case as they would if there was no confession. In this country there is often a reduction in sentence if the accused cooperates: in the USA there may be such a provision though I think the more usual route is plea bargaining there ( I may be wrong but that is my impression): in Italy they achieve the same end by the use of the "fast track" option which Guede chose. If you go that route you relinquish some of your rights in return for a percentage reduction in the sentence imposed.

But it is too late for Knox and Sollecito to take that option
 
Dan O. said:
Has anybody bothered to look at how the police got that statement from Amanda that Lumumba was involved? Does it really make any sense that she would finger somebody for the murder placing herself at the scene at the same time? Especially when that person is very well known and so would probably be with others that can establish his alibi. Amanda had nothing to gain by fingering Patrick. If Amanda was that murderous fox that you are trying so hard to portray, she would have just kept quiet and let the police do their job and find the crap left at the cottage to convict Rudy.

Let's see the tapes and transcripts of those interrogation sessions and find out what really transpired. What have the italian police got to hide by not releasing all of the evidence?
Click to expand...

How can you even ask that question if you have read this thread, Dan_O? The lies about how that statement was obtained (14 or 41 hours of interrogation without food or drink or sleep or toilet breaks) were discussed at length. Is this groundhog day?
 
The Italian presumption that suspects will lie appears to be well founded from what I'v seen of Italians here and in their press.

The whole story of a cleanup and buying bleach is one such lie. The luminal tests prove that there was no cleanup with bleach at the cottage. Who here knows what happens when luminal is sprayed on bleach? Who in this thread has been repeating the lie there was a cleanup?

Why did the Italian authorities feel it was necessary to prove Amanda and Raffaele's guilt by releasing lies to the press before the trial? Lies about bloody shoe prints matching Raffaele's blood covered shoes, lies about a bathroom covered in blood. Who in this thread has been repeating those lies?

Saying that Amanda and Raffaele were only witnesses on the first days is simply a legal lie so the police don't have to give them the legal protections that suspects are entitled to under the law. The police were treating them as suspects from day 1. Who here has been repeating the lie that the kids were only witnesses?

The claim that Amanda willfully fingered Patrick is a lie. She was physically and mentally exhausted since the trauma of having her friend and house mate murdered in her house only a few days before and then being interrogated into the wee hours on multiple occasions. The idea that Patrick was involved was initiated by the police after they saw the "See you later" text on Amanda's phone. The police initiated the suggestion that Amanda had a rendezvous with Patrick. The police initiated the suggestion that Patrick was to have sex with Meredith. Amanda was in no condition to deny these suggestions and the police sealed it by denying her food, drink and sleep until she signed the statement. Who here has been repeating the lie that Amanda willfully fingered Patrick for this crime?
 
Dan O. said:
The Italian presumption that suspects will lie appears to be well founded from what I'v seen of Italians here and in their press.
Click to expand...

I see. So in other countries murderers just 'fess up? :confused: Your xeonophobia is showing again, Dan_O. Make yourself decent.

The whole story of a cleanup and buying bleach is one such lie. The luminal tests prove that there was no cleanup with bleach at the cottage. Who here knows what happens when luminal is sprayed on bleach? Who in this thread has been repeating the lie there was a cleanup?
Click to expand...

I say there was a clean up. I say it because of the evidence I have read. I do not say that it was with bleach because I do not know, and that was discussed quite recently in this thread. What is it about that evidence that you are disagreeing with? It would help if you avoided assertion and laid out the facts which have led you to your conclusions.

Why did the Italian authorities feel it was necessary to prove Amanda and Raffaele's guilt by releasing lies to the press before the trial? Lies about bloody shoe prints matching Raffaele's blood covered shoes, lies about a bathroom covered in blood. Who in this thread has been repeating those lies?
Click to expand...

Again this is assertion. So far as I am aware most of the "leaks" to the press came from the defence. Do you deny this? If you do then why do you? Do you call a press conference a leak? Do the police not talk to the press at all in high profile murder cases where you are? Press conferences are fairly common here

Saying that Amanda and Raffaele were only witnesses on the first days is simply a legal lie so the police don't have to give them the legal protections that suspects are entitled to under the law. The police were treating them as suspects from day 1. Who here has been repeating the lie that the kids were only witnesses?
Click to expand...

I have been saying that at the outset they were witnesses because that is the truth. Show your evidence that this was not the case instead of making assertions which are pure smear and innuendo.

The claim that Amanda willfully fingered Patrick is a lie. She was physically and mentally exhausted since the trauma of having her friend and house mate murdered in her house only a few days before and then being interrogated into the wee hours on multiple occasions. The idea that Patrick was involved was initiated by the police after they saw the "See you later" text on Amanda's phone. The police initiated the suggestion that Amanda had a rendezvous with Patrick. The police initiated the suggestion that Patrick was to have sex with Meredith. Amanda was in no condition to deny these suggestions and the police sealed it by denying her food, drink and sleep until she signed the statement. Who here has been repeating the lie that Amanda willfully fingered Patrick for this crime?
Click to expand...

I certainly spy lies: but they are not lies of mine or of the police. They did not originate with you either.
 
Fiona said:
How can you even ask that question if you have read this thread, Dan_O? The lies about how that statement was obtained (14 or 41 hours of interrogation without food or drink or sleep or toilet breaks) were discussed at length. Is this groundhog day?
Click to expand...

Who are you going to believe, the born to lie Italian police or the video tapes? Oh, that's right. They didn't record this because they were only interviewing a witness. Well, the instant there was any mention of Amanda being present at the time of the murder you cannot pretend that she was just a witness.

Have you got any evidence about what went on in those interrogation sessions except the lying reports of the Italian's conducting them?
 
Well we have the evidence on the length of the interview: that shows conclusively that there was no "14/41"hour interrogation. We have the evidence of her testimony in court that she was offered food and drink etc. We have the evidence of her testimony in court that she offered her voluntary statement with no pressure etc.

We have been through all of this, Dan_O. If anyone was "born to lie" it is the americans in this case. But such a statement is ridiculous, is it not? Your bigotry is wearisome
 
Dan O. said:
Who are you going to believe, the born to lie Italian police or the video tapes? Oh, that's right. They didn't record this because they were only interviewing a witness. Well, the instant there was any mention of Amanda being present at the time of the murder you cannot pretend that she was just a witness.

Have you got any evidence about what went on in those interrogation sessions except the lying reports of the Italian's conducting them?
Click to expand...

Well, interestingly enough, as soon as Amanda's witness statement implicated her (whether by being complacent in the kitchen or whatever), the officers stopped the interview.

That is fact. As soon as she was considered a suspect, the interview was stopped. This has been discussed many times in this thread.



Your bare assertions are wearing thin, Dan. Not a single one of your FOA talking points has stood the test of evidence (not that you've bothered to look for/present any of that, so I can't really fault you for not knowing...it's the fact that even after your arguments/talking points have been refuted, you insist that you're right) in this thread...but I suppose you're too busy throwing around bare assertions in the hope that something, anything will stick to realize the futility of your efforts.

I have no wish to further discuss this case with you as you are being as disinginious as Halides and Kestrel before you.
 
Fiona said:
Well we have the evidence on the length of the interview: that shows conclusively that there was no "14/41"hour interrogation. We have the evidence of her testimony in court that she was offered food and drink etc. We have the evidence of her testimony in court that she offered her voluntary statement with no pressure etc.
Click to expand...

Prove it then. Show me the timelines of all the interrogations of Amanda. Show the statement she made in court about when they offered her food and drink. You keep saying how often this has been covered so it should be documented somewhere with complete references.
 
Fiona said:
I suggest you read the thread.
Click to expand...

[Post 199]
Author : stilicho
Date : 6th December 2009 03:07 AM

After thirty hours with no sleep, food, and under constant harsh questioning, you'd probably blurt out whatever came to mind just to make it stop so you could eat and sleep and stop the suffering.

The length of the interrogation by Perugia police is certainly disputed. I have seen it, in the sympathetic Seattle press, variously set at six, fourteen, and more than 24 hours. Which was it? I've noticed that her defenders nearly always set it as long as possible. Why?

[Post 204]
Author : Philip
Date : 6th December 2009 04:40 AM

Here is a transcript of Knox's statement that she signed after her interrogation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

[Post 206]
Author : Philip
Date : 6th December 2009 06:22 AM

See my previous post about the interrogation. I've heard conflicting reports about the length of the interrogation too. The shortest length I've heard is fourteen hours. It is clear from Knox's written statement that it was a minimum of overnight and long enough that she was sleep-deprived and confused. If the police had actually made an audio recording we'd know more.

[Post 228]
Author : Brainster
Date : 6th December 2009 11:30 AM

Also, on the claims of marathon interrogation sessions, note this from the Vanity Fair piece (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/perugia200806?currentPage=4):

Simultaneously, in a separate room, Raffaele, too, was questioned by police. Like Amandaís, his version of events seemed to change whenever things got rough. And judging by his second interrogation, which lasted from 10 one night till 4 the next morning, the grilling was pretty exhausting.

[Post 293]
Author : stilicho
Date : 7th December 2009 12:21 AM

"The police interrogation wasn't even valid under Italian law and the accusation of character defamation lawsuit you claim was concluded has only been charged. No trial on this has occurred.

You're quite correct on the last part. I was under the impression she had already lost that case beforehand. You score!

[Post 343]
Author : Fiona
Date : 7th December 2009 11:52 AM

Further to the coercive interrogation

In the context of Knox's appeal to the Supreme Court for release (1/4/09), this exchange is reported at PMF

Amanda
They used the statements I made at 1.45 am on November 6 when I didn't not have the presence of an attorney to defend me.
I was questioned again at 5.45 am and gave "spontaneous statements,...

The 1.45 time is in line with the evidence given by the senior police officer, Faracca, in her testimony: that is when she said she stopped the interview and alerted the judicial authorities.

[Post 440]
Author : Fiona
Date : 8th December 2009 02:42 PM

I've looked at those posts and I can't see where Knox has admitted that she lied. What were her exact words when she did this?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3216708/amanda_knox_the_interrogation_in_her_own_words/

This is what Knox said happened in her interview, with accompanying commentary. She says a police officer hit her. She alleges threats and bullying. She says that she gave them a name because she was confused. The commentary says that the interrogation lasted 14 hours, with a very strong implication that that was continuous: and paints a very touching picture of her concern for Lumumba after she implicated him.
...
I think it is perfectly clear that Knox lied about the circumstances of her "interrogation". I think her admission in court about the fact she was indeed offered food and drink; and that the questioning did indeed stop at at 1.45 am etc, while not saying the words "I lied" is a tacit admission that she did

[Post 448]
Author : Solnishko
Date : 8th December 2009 05:18 PM

The initial interrogation lasted 4 hours. Four hours being questioned... that's a LONG time, even if she was allowed food and bathroom breaks.

[Post 1834]
Author : Dan O.
Date : 10th January 2010 03:54 PM

Or was it the confession that the police tricked out of Amanda after hours of interrogation with physical abuse and deprivation of sleep; though not so much a confession as the implanting of false memories in a young girl who immediately corrected the error when she woke up with a clearer head?

[Post 1836]
Author : Fiona
Date : 10th January 2010 05:54 PM

And so we come nearly full circle: Knox was convicted because of a cartwheel and that is the beginning and the end of the story. What a shame.

[Post 2016]
Author : Dan O.
Date : 16th January 2010 12:01 AM

Let's see the tapes and transcripts of those interrogation sessions and find out what really transpired. What have the italian police got to hide by not releasing all of the evidence?

[Post 2018]
Author : Fulcanelli
Date : 16th January 2010 03:00 AM

Thinking is not your strong suit Dan o.

1) There are no tapes to release. The interviews were not taped. That's because Amanda was a Witness (as was Raffaele), at the end of which she became a Suspect. Later, as a Suspect, she made a spontaneous voluntary statement which again, Italian law doesn't require be recorded. Only a Suspect under interrogation must be recorded. Then in her cell the next day she wrote a statement and handed it to police as a a 'gift'. That wasn't recorded either as it was written, but the written version has been fully published.

[Post 2022]
Author : Fiona
Date : 16th January 2010 07:07 AM

How can you even ask that question if you have read this thread, Dan_O? The lies about how that statement was obtained (14 or 41 hours of interrogation without food or drink or sleep or toilet breaks) were discussed at length. Is this groundhog day?

[Post 2028]
Author : Dan O.
Date : 16th January 2010 08:26 AM

Prove it then. Show me the timelines of all the interrogations of Amanda. Show the statement she made in court about when they offered her food and drink. You keep saying how often this has been covered so it should be documented somewhere with complete references.

[Post 2029]
Author : Fiona
Date : 16th January 2010 08:28 AM

I suggest you read the thread.

​

There you go. Your turn.
 
Dan O. said:
Prove it then. Show me the timelines of all the interrogations of Amanda. Show the statement she made in court about when they offered her food and drink. You keep saying how often this has been covered so it should be documented somewhere with complete references.
Click to expand...


Monday 5th Nov, 2007

Morning/Afternoon Amanda and Raffaele in classes. Amanda writes her letter in class where she states she wants her mother to take her shopping

1400 - 1600 Rosa Natalia Guman Fernendez de Calle, RS' cleaning lady, cleans RS' apartment for the last time. She worked for him for about 2 months and would come every Monday from about 2-4pm to clean his apartment. She stated that she used only "lysoform" which is like a general household cleaner like Mr. Clean. She would vaccum, mop the floor, clean the bathroom, kitchen, etc. They kept the cleaning products under the kitchen sink like in most homes, and there were usually about 5-6 different cleaning products as well as cleaning supplies. But she was told to ONLY use "lysoform" to clean. RS and AK were there. She went under the sink to get the cleaning products and noticed a bucket with water in it and wet mop rags. She asked why the wet rags and the bucket, and he said there'd been a leak. The bucket had water in it and it was clear. When asked if she ever used bleach in his home she said absolutely not. When asked if there was bleach among the cleaning products, she said she could not say either way.

2000 Meredith's vigil held in Perugia, sans Amanda and Raffaele

2215 After having dinner, Amanda and Raffaele arrive at the police station

2230 Raffaele, being questioned at this point, breaks and begins to change his story

2239 Amanda is on the phone to Filomena, asking her if they are still going to live together

2300 Amanda, still in the police waiting area is told off by a senior police officer for inappropriate behaviour - splits, cartwheels and back bends

2400 Beginning of Amanda's questioning, which begins informaly as Amanda's official status is one of 'Witness', in the waiting area (Michael: later migrating at some point to an interview room?)


Tuesday 6th Nov, 2007

0145 Whilst Raffaele is still being questioned in a room elsewhere, Amanda changes her story and accuses Patrick Lumumba. At this point, all questioning is halted and Amanda is informed of her new status as 'Suspect'. The statements from this session could not be used against Amanda, as she was a 'Witness', but could be used against others. This signed statement is one page long

0330 At Amanda's request, questioning is resumed (the 'sponateous statement'), this time under the officiial status of 'Suspect' and in the presence of Prosecutor Mignini who has been called in, as there is no lawyer present for Amanda. Here, Amanda repeats her accusation of Patrick Lumumba, but this time with a full story and details. The High Court would later rule that this statement could be used neither against Amanda or others, as she was a 'suspect' and no lawyer was present. This statement is five pages long

0545 Amanda's questioning is halted and her statement signed. She is formaly under arrest at this point. At some point shortly after this time, Amanda is taken for breakfast, after which she is retained in custody, as is Raffaele

Early Morning Patrick Lumumba is arrested and taken into custody as a 'Suspect' on the back of the testimonies provided by Raffaele and Amanda

Daytime Amanda requests a paper and pen, where she writes and signs a two page statement confirming her previous statements, although here she phrases it as a 'vision'. This is handed in to police officers as a "gift". This statement is legally defined as 'Spontaneous' (voluntary), reffered to as the 'Memoir', 'Memorial' or 'Two Page Note' and can be used against both Amanda and others. This document has been ruled admissible in the trial. Amanda and Raffaele are later transfered to Capanne prison to await their hearing to confirm their legal 'Suspect' status


COMPREHENSIVE TIMELINE (PRIMARY)


AMANDA KNOX TRIAL TESTIMONY

Stop whining.
 
Dan O. said:
Who are you going to believe, the born to lie Italian police or the video tapes? Oh, that's right. They didn't record this because they were only interviewing a witness. Well, the instant there was any mention of Amanda being present at the time of the murder you cannot pretend that she was just a witness.

Have you got any evidence about what went on in those interrogation sessions except the lying reports of the Italian's conducting them?
Click to expand...

From where I've sat, it's Amanda and Raffaele that have been telling all the lies. Did you miss them?

What are you trying to say. That the legal rules that apply to Suspects should apply to Witnesses merely because police suspect them? Is that how it works in America...if they arrest you and read you your rights those rights apply before they arrest you if they happen to suspect you before your arrest? No. Therefore why are you talking complete drivel and screaming to impose rules on the Italians that don't even apply in your own country?!
 
Fiona said:
Well we have the evidence on the length of the interview: that shows conclusively that there was no "14/41"hour interrogation. We have the evidence of her testimony in court that she was offered food and drink etc. We have the evidence of her testimony in court that she offered her voluntary statement with no pressure etc.

We have been through all of this, Dan_O. If anyone was "born to lie" it is the americans in this case. But such a statement is ridiculous, is it not? Your bigotry is wearisome
Click to expand...


Considering just immediately before going to the police station Amanda and Raffaele were out laughing it up over a pizza meal (instead of going to Meredith's memorial ceremony) they got to the police station after having just had the meal at 10:15. They'd been fed for the night. As it was, Amanda was given cakes and drinks out of the police vending machine. In the morning she was taken down for a full breakfast in the police canteen. How much more feeding did precious need? What do people imagine a police station is, a 24 hour all you can eat buffet? I wouldn't mind, Amanda wasn't even supposed to 'be' there. She'd insisted on going with Raffaele when they only wanted to speak to him.

What meal would I get down an American police station after 10:15 at night?
 
Fiona said:
Nicely cherrypicked, Dan_O. Well done :)
Click to expand...

You should learn what the buzzwords mean before using them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
Click to expand...

I selected the segments from this thread that discussed the time of the interrogation. I don't think the moderators would have been pleased if I were to have reposted the whole thread.

Now it's your turn to show evidence that my post was cherrypicked.
 
Dan O. said:
You should learn what the buzzwords mean before using them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking


I selected the segments from this thread that discussed the time of the interrogation. I don't think the moderators would have been pleased if I were to have reposted the whole thread.

Now it's your turn to show evidence that my post was cherrypicked.
Click to expand...

And still we wait for you to get to the point.
 
Oh I know what it means, Dan_O. It means what you did there.

You did indeed select some segments from this thread that dicussed the time of the interrogation: and you did indeed select some quotes from those selections.

But I see that Fulcanelli has answered these points (again). So I will leave it there
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom