• 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.
Dan o said:
What is the point of bringing up that the cell phones were turned off except to show a case of premeditation that a crime was going to be committed for which they didn't want to be traced?
Click to expand...

Does that 'crime' specifically have to be murder? Indeed, does it even have to be something that they were aware was a crime?

You presume too much.
 
I realize the issue I’m about to raise may not be important to the case but I would appreciate it if any of the more knowledgeable people posting here could clarify a few points regarding Patrick Lumumba’s alibi. My questions follow the information I have compiled below. All bolding is mine.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
From an interview PL gave to Amanda Hoyle (MailOnline) in November 2007. http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=80

By Tuesday, October 30, his (PL) patience ran out. He told Amanda she could carry on handing out club flyers, but could no longer work in the bar. "She looked at me blankly and walked away," he says. "The club was busy and I didn't see her again that evening."

The next day Amanda attended a Hallowe'en party at the club, knocking back the free red wine. "She was all over two American boys," Patrick says. "There was no sign of Sollecito and I didn't see her leave."
At 3am he locked up and went on to another club, where he bumped into Meredith. "I mentioned the idea of her working for me again," he says. "She smiled sweetly and said she couldn't wait, and she'd bring all her friends back to my club for me." That was the last he heard of either girl, until 6pm on Saturday November 3, when a couple of friends walked into his club.

"They asked me if I'd heard that Amanda's English friend had been murdered. And when they said she was the dark-skinned girl, my heart stopped." He called Amanda, who quietly confirmed that Meredith was dead.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

November 21, 2009 PERUGIA: Public Prosecutor Manuela Comodi outlined today for the court a hypothetical timeline of events for the night Meredith Kercher was murdered. http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=195

20:18 - Amanda Knox, located on Via Ulisse Rocchi, receives a text message from Patrick Lumumba advising her not to report to work that night.

20:30 - Amanda Knox now located on Via Garibaldi, back in the home of Raffaele Sollecito.

20:38 - Amanda sends a text message response to Patrick Lumumba.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPREHENSIVE TIMELINE (PRIMARY) (as posted onPerugiaMurderFile.org) http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2

2018 Patrick sends text message to AK

2030 Patrick's friend, Swiss Professor Roman Mero had a pizza and then went straight to Le Chic. (had originally claimed he was in Le Chic from 2000)

2030 – 2100 (AK “left him (per RS), saying to him that she would go to Le Chic, meet friends while he returned to his house”) “… left the house telling Sollecito that she was going to work, [but she], she was at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana.”

2035 AK text message to PL "Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata". AK' phone is then switched off/remains inactive until 1207 the next day

2038 PL's cellphone pings in the area of MK’s house
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

ANDREA VOGT reporting on MK Murder trail-April 3, 2009. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/404590_knox03.html

On the stand Friday, he (PL) told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity.

The night of the killing he sent her a text message telling her she didn't need to come to work, to which she replied in Italian, "We'll see you later. Good night."
Lumumba said the two did not have an appointment to see one another, but rather, he interpreted the message as the American salutation "see you later," which can also mean"bye."
________________________________________________________________________________________________
AMANDA KNOX TRIAL TESTIMONY, FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2009. http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17358#p17358

AK: I had to give out tickets during the day, and then when I...in the evening, I arrived at ten, and I would give drinks to the people that worked there... er, the people that came there.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

These are my questions:

1. If PL fired AK on Tuesday (Oct. 30) why did he text her not to come in to work on Thursday evening (Nov. 1)?

2. Has the subject of PL’s text to AK at about 20:18 on Nov. 1 been confirmed (i.e., what exactly did his text message say)? The article by Amanda Hoyle implies PL did not have any contact with AK from Oct 30 until Nov. 3.

3. The comprehensive timeline above states that PL’s cell phone received a ping at 20:38 in the area of MK’s house. What was he doing at that location at that time? Shouldn’t he be back at Le Chic with his friend (Roman Mero) who had arrived at the bar at 20:30?

4. On the stand (according to Andrea Vogt) PL states that AK’s position had been limited to handing out flyers. However, since AK was fired as a waitress on the evening of Oct. 30 and she and never worked there again, when was she limited to handing out flyers?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help clarify these points.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Lawyers make their living off of appealing to peoples emotions and unfounded beliefs. The courtroom is a game of playing off the way people process information, presenting evidence in an order to build confirmation bias where people build incorrect opinions that are then difficult to correct. I have no respect for lawyers.
Click to expand...
Is there any existing legal system in the world that you feel behaves appropriately in this respect? I am certainly not aware of any which would demand that the prosecution provide scientific papers to support any trifling matter of everyday experience, like failing to notice the absence of a common object, that they might wish to suggest the jury entertain. If the jury's intuition is refuted by good science, let the defense produce the evidence to show it.

Dan O. said:
Why would you even have an expectation that a person would notice a reading lamp was missing if they had no reason to explicitly look for it. Is your expectation something you had before or were you given that expectation earlier in the thread and have incorporated it into your own belief structure.
Click to expand...
Like I say, I'm not stunned that she didn't find it. I'd expect her to find it, but I'm not amazed that she didn't. The only thing that, to me, makes her failing to report the lamp as missing seem significant is that she later appears to be uncomfortable to explicitly accept that the lamp in Kercher's room is her.

Dan O. said:
If you think this is actually your belief, have you ever tested yourself to measure the rate that you personally would recognize that something was missing from a room? Or did you simply build this belief because at times you have noticed that things were missing or moved; and with no memory of having not discovered something was missing you have built the belief that you would notice something is missing 100% of the time.
Click to expand...
I have said many times now that my expectation is not that one would notice an object was missing 100% of the time, even if it is an apparently obvious thing.

Dan O. said:
Lawyers make their living off of appealing to peoples emotions and unfounded beliefs. The courtroom is a game of playing off the way people process information, presenting evidence in an order to build confirmation bias where people build incorrect opinions that are then difficult to correct. I have no respect for lawyers.
Click to expand...
Is there any existing legal system in the world that you feel behaves appropriately in this respect? I am certainly not aware of any which would demand that the prosecution provide scientific papers to support any trifling matter of everyday experience, like failing to notice the absence of a common object, that they might wish to suggest the jury entertain. If the jury's intuition is refuted by good science, let the defense produce the evidence to show it.

Dan O. said:
Why would you even have an expectation that a person would notice a reading lamp was missing if they had no reason to explicitly look for it. Is your expectation something you had before or were you given that expectation earlier in the thread and have incorporated it into your own belief structure.
Click to expand...
Like I say, I'm not stunned that she didn't find it. I'd expect her to find it, but I'm not amazed that she didn't.

Dan O. said:
How are you reading evasion into her answer? I'll ask you a simple "yes or no" question: Do I have a lamp on my disk right now. Please answer "yes" or "no" and don't lie or try to evade the question.
Click to expand...
I withdraw the assertion that she was being evasive. Having said that your example is either foolish or duplicitous.
 
Dan O. said:
What is the point of bringing up that the cell phones were turned off except to show a case of premeditation that a crime was going to be committed for which they didn't want to be traced?
Click to expand...


Dan O. said:
What's the point of turning off the cell phones if they are going to leave witnesses alive to identify them?
Click to expand...
Other reasons have been suggested. Intending to do something during which they didn't want to be bothered... Fear of accidentally making or answering a call... I'm sure there are others.

Dan O. said:
The prosecutor is building on circumstantial evidence that has an obvious and devistating interpretation once you accept that Amanda and Raffaele went to the cottage.
Click to expand...
Once you accept that they were involved in a murder, the possibility that they brought a large knife with them and, contrary to their normal practice, turned off their phones, speaks to premeditation of some kind (not necessarily to murder). If you don't accept they were involved in a murder then I don't see that the phones are very

Dan O. said:
He doesn't state this interpretation because he cannot prove it; Instead he lets it form in the minds of the judges to build the bias against Amanda and Raffaele.
Click to expand...
It is perfectly reasonable for the judges and jury to consider whether it is a coincidence, or suspicious that they both turned off their phones just before the murder.

Dan O. said:
There is no motive,
Click to expand...
For what? A premeditated murder? Probably not.

Dan O. said:
there is no evidence of intent,
Click to expand...
If they were involved in the murder and the knife in Raffaele's kitchen was involved then taking the knife to the scene and turning off the phones are evidence of premeditation.

Dan O. said:
there is no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were in the cottage that night.
Click to expand...
Yes there is.

Dan O. said:
It's all just common everyday circumstantial trivia that the prosecutor twisted into a fanciful story to get a conviction.
Click to expand...
No its not.
 
Fulcanelli said:
She wasn't specifically looking to see if anything of high value was missing, but if her room had been in any way disturbed like Filomena's room had. Nothing had been stolen from Filomena's room either, yet it didn't stop Amanda and Raffaele noting and reporting various details about it. In Amanda's room, a tiny sparse room, a missing lamp would have been pretty damn hard to miss. Especially when we take into account she not only looked in her room to assess and see if anything was missing, she also went in there to get dressed, she and Raffaele also went in there together for a time after the postal police arrived. And...Amanda's bedside lamp was the only light source in her room, there was no main light. And still...she didn't notice? Wake up.
Click to expand...

So now you are claiming that Amanda's room was tossed like Filomena's and that the sun doesn't shine in Italy?!

Amanda had noted the Filomena's laptop was still in Filomena's room and from that assumed that nothing of value had been taken. She did the same for her own room, noting that her laptop was still there in plain sight. Why didn't Amanda tell Filomena that her reading lamp was still in her room? I'm sure Filomena really wanted to know that after hearing that her room was ransacked. It would have saved her a trip back to the cottage to check for herself.
 
Dan o said:
So now you are claiming that Amanda's room was tossed like Filomena's and that the sun doesn't shine in Italy?!
Click to expand...

I think you need to read what I wrote again.

Dan o" said:
Amanda had noted the Filomena's laptop was still in Filomena's room and from that assumed that nothing of value had been taken. She did the same for her own room, noting that her laptop was still there in plain sight.
Click to expand...

I don't recall Amanda ever stating that she only went looking for laptops. You are doing the same to her as you're doing to me...putting words in her mouth.


Dan o said:
Why didn't Amanda tell Filomena that her reading lamp was still in her room? I'm sure Filomena really wanted to know that after hearing that her room was ransacked. It would have saved her a trip back to the cottage to check for herself.
Click to expand...

Did Filomena even have a reading lamp to begin with? In any case, this argument from you is pure sophistry.
 
Dan O. said:
So now you are claiming that Amanda's room was tossed like Filomena's and that the sun doesn't shine in Italy?!

Amanda had noted the Filomena's laptop was still in Filomena's room and from that assumed that nothing of value had been taken. She did the same for her own room, noting that her laptop was still there in plain sight. Why didn't Amanda tell Filomena that her reading lamp was still in her room? I'm sure Filomena really wanted to know that after hearing that her room was ransacked. It would have saved her a trip back to the cottage to check for herself.
Click to expand...

It's strange to me that we're spending more time on the lamp here than they did in the investigation or at the trial.

Again, the only real consequence of AK's selective memory loss is noticing what she remembers and what she claims to forget. She testifies in agonising detail about how she stepped on the bathmat and wriggled or hopped to find a towel. But she doesn't know if her lamp actually belongs to her.

Her testimony also featured a scintillating insight into AK's definitions of three words: imagination, confusion, and frustration. You should really read it and put yourself in the position of a juror when you do so. Keep in mind that none of this appears in her email just 2 days before. Where were her defence experts to testify that this bizarre psychological affliction of hers exists?
 
Dan O. said:
Back in post 2056, I had asked for an explanation of the timing of events related to the times that the phones had supposedly been turned off. The prosecution and apparently you are claiming that turning a cell phone off is an indication of a plan to commit a crime where they don't want their movements tracked by the police.
Click to expand...

Where did that last part come from? I don't think there was anything particularly suspicious about their turning off of their cell phones. It suggests that they were together and that they didn't want to be bothered by anyone.

There were several claims made by AK and/or RS that were refuted by the cell phone records, though. That includes the timing of their call to the Carabinieri and the fact that they didn't wake up when they said they did.

Why is it that every obvious lie they're caught in is hand-waved away by you? What surprises me about their lies is that they're so easily refuted by the evidence.
 
I am going to say this again in the hope that you will stop assuming that other people are doing what your pet theory predicts.

I do not know if this crime was premeditated. I do not know if any crime was in contemplation.
I do not know why they switched their phones off. I think only they know why they did that.
I do not know if Knox noticed that her lamp was missing. She knows.
And on and on.

What I do know is that Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered.
I know that Guede was at the cottage and in Meredith's room
I know that the forensics state he could not have killed her alone
I know that there are eyewitnesses that AK and RS were in the area
I know that her body was moved after Guede had left
I know that Guede has an alibi for the time when Meredith's body was moved
I know that RS did not tell the truth about where he was that night
I know that AK did not tell the truth about where she was that night
I know that someone faked a break in
I know that someone cleaned up
I know that RS and AK did not tell the truth about the time they woke up the next morning
I know that AK did not tell the truth about what she did that morning
I know that AK lied to Romanelli
I know that RS did not tell the truth about when he phoned the police
I know that AK did not tell the truth about when she phoned her mother
I know that AK misled the police in to thinking it was normal for Meredith's door to be locked
I know that it was only after hearing from Romanelli that the police were truly concerned
I know that it is impossible to say where AK was when she phoned Meredith but on the account she gave in court she did not do so after she returned to the cottage with RS: though they did try to break down the door, it seems
I know that both AK and RS made calls after the police arrived which did not mention them being there
I know that AK seemed to know more than she should have about how Meredith was killed.
I know that RS changed his second account of where they were
I know that shortly after he did this AK changed her own account and accused Patrick Lumumba
I know that when she did so she placed herself at the scene
I know that she reiterated this when not under pressure
I know that both she and her mother knew Patrick was innocent, but did nothing about it
I know that forensic evidence places RS at the scene
I know that forensic evidence shows AK's DNA was mixed with Kercher's blood in several locations, which places her at the scene
I know that the knife had Meredith's DNA on it and also Knox's
I know that AK lied to her friends and family in her e-mail iin several ways
I know that the "interrogation" lasted no more than 3 hours at the very maximum, and that she was offered food, water and toilet breaks
I know that her lawyer denies that the police assaulted her
I know that there is no evidence whatsoever that any one other than these three were there that night
On the basis of these and other facts I conclude that Meredith was murdered by more than one person and that there is no other candidate who could have been involved.

I have no idea why they did it. It is interesting but rather futile to speculate. But on the basis of the facts that I have I would have convicted them.
 
Fiona said:
I am going to say this again in the hope that you will stop assuming that other people are doing what your pet theory predicts.

I do not know if this crime was premeditated. I do not know if any crime was in contemplation.
I do not know why they switched their phones off. I think only they know why they did that.
I do not know if Knox noticed that her lamp was missing. She knows.
And on and on.

What I do know is that Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered.
I know that Guede was at the cottage and in Meredith's room
I know that the forensics state he could not have killed her alone
I know that there are eyewitnesses that AK and RS were in the area
I know that her body was moved after Guede had left
I know that Guede has an alibi for the time when Meredith's body was moved
I know that RS did not tell the truth about where he was that night
I know that AK did not tell the truth about where she was that night
I know that someone faked a break in
I know that someone cleaned up
I know that RS and AK did not tell the truth about the time they woke up the next morning
I know that AK did not tell the truth about what she did that morning
I know that AK lied to Romanelli
I know that RS did not tell the truth about when he phoned the police
I know that AK did not tell the truth about when she phoned her mother
I know that AK misled the police in to thinking it was normal for Meredith's door to be locked
I know that it was only after hearing from Romanelli that the police were truly concerned
I know that it is impossible to say where AK was when she phoned Meredith but on the account she gave in court she did not do so after she returned to the cottage with RS: though they did try to break down the door, it seems
I know that both AK and RS made calls after the police arrived which did not mention them being there
I know that AK seemed to know more than she should have about how Meredith was killed.
I know that RS changed his second account of where they were
I know that shortly after he did this AK changed her own account and accused Patrick Lumumba
I know that when she did so she placed herself at the scene
I know that she reiterated this when not under pressure
I know that both she and her mother knew Patrick was innocent, but did nothing about it
I know that forensic evidence places RS at the scene
I know that forensic evidence shows AK's DNA was mixed with Kercher's blood in several locations, which places her at the scene
I know that the knife had Meredith's DNA on it and also Knox's
I know that AK lied to her friends and family in her e-mail iin several ways
I know that the "interrogation" lasted no more than 3 hours at the very maximum, and that she was offered food, water and toilet breaks
I know that her lawyer denies that the police assaulted her
I know that there is no evidence whatsoever that any one other than these three were there that night
On the basis of these and other facts I conclude that Meredith was murdered by more than one person and that there is no other candidate who could have been involved.

I have no idea why they did it. It is interesting but rather futile to speculate. But on the basis of the facts that I have I would have convicted them.
Click to expand...

Excellent summation, Fiona. Thank you :)
 
Jungle Jim said:
These are my questions:

1. If PL fired AK on Tuesday (Oct. 30) why did he text her not to come in to work on Thursday evening (Nov. 1)?

2. Has the subject of PL’s text to AK at about 20:18 on Nov. 1 been confirmed (i.e., what exactly did his text message say)? The article by Amanda Hoyle implies PL did not have any contact with AK from Oct 30 until Nov. 3.

3. The comprehensive timeline above states that PL’s cell phone received a ping at 20:38 in the area of MK’s house. What was he doing at that location at that time? Shouldn’t he be back at Le Chic with his friend (Roman Mero) who had arrived at the bar at 20:30?

4. On the stand (according to Andrea Vogt) PL states that AK’s position had been limited to handing out flyers. However, since AK was fired as a waitress on the evening of Oct. 30 and she and never worked there again, when was she limited to handing out flyers?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help clarify these points.
Click to expand...

(Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html )

That's the Daily Mail article you're quoting and it's clear that Mr Lumumba dismissed AK from her original position and would only require her for handing out flyers after OCT 30. I cannot find anything to suggest she ever did.

The rest of your questions are probably the same ones Perugia authorities needed answers to before releasing him. All of them imply that he needed an alibi or exoneration by forensic means. Once both of those things came into place, with no help from the others charged, was he released from custody.

AK really put him into an unenviable position.

@Fiona: Excellent statement of position. Would be interesting for Dan O to respond to which ones of those he actually agrees with. If none--well--you can arrive at your own conclusion about why this thread persists long after its expiration date.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Kestrel, this is BASIC case knowledge. Raffaele never spoke to his father that night. Feel free to prove me incorrect, what with the 11 months of the trial and the defence never claiming any such call and the telephonic experts on the stand making it clear NO SUCH TELEPHONE CALL TOOK PLACE. Really, either learn about the case or keep quiet until you do.
Click to expand...

Here is Raffaele's phone log with the Nov 1. 8:42 PM call from his father circled. Click on the image to see a larger version.



The evidence doesn't support your claim that no such phone call took place.
 
Jungle Jim said:
These are my questions:

1. If PL fired AK on Tuesday (Oct. 30) why did he text her not to come in to work on Thursday evening (Nov. 1)?
Click to expand...

He did not exactly fire her, so far as I recall. He decided that he would not allow her to waitress any more; but she could continue to work handing out flyers etc

2. Has the subject of PL’s text to AK at about 20:18 on Nov. 1 been confirmed (i.e., what exactly did his text message say)? The article by Amanda Hoyle implies PL did not have any contact with AK from Oct 30 until Nov. 3.
Click to expand...

No. Knox deleted the message according to her testimony.She said in court that she did so because she has limited space on her phone.She did not delete her reply because she is not so good at deleting outgoing messages

3. The comprehensive timeline above states that PL’s cell phone received a ping at 20:38 in the area of MK’s house. What was he doing at that location at that time? Shouldn’t he be back at Le Chic with his friend (Roman Mero) who had arrived at the bar at 20:30?
Click to expand...

I am not sure about how that was resolved, sorry: time for some digging at PMF if you want to do that. Or perhaps someone else knows

4. On the stand (according to Andrea Vogt) PL states that AK’s position had been limited to handing out flyers. However, since AK was fired as a waitress on the evening of Oct. 30 and she and never worked there again, when was she limited to handing out flyers?
Click to expand...

I believe that it was his intention to change her role, not to fire her completely
 
Last edited:
BobTheDonkey said:
Excellent summation, Fiona. Thank you :)
Click to expand...

Seconded, with emphasis.

stilicho said:
<snip

@Fiona: Excellent statement of position. Would be interesting for Dan O to respond to which ones of those he actually agrees with. If none--well--you can arrive at your own conclusion about why this thread persists long after its expiration date.
Click to expand...


This too. If Dan O's motives are truly to review the data and discuss the case dispassionately and without prejudice he should have no reluctance to begin with such a simple step.

Thanks again, Fiona, for such a clear and straightforward presentation.
 
Dan O. said:
...The prosecutor is building on circumstantial evidence that has an obvious and devistating interpretation once you accept that Amanda and Raffaele went to the cottage. He doesn't state this interpretation because he cannot prove it; Instead he lets it form in the minds of the judges to build the bias against Amanda and Raffaele.

There is no motive, there is no evidence of intent, there is no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were in the cottage that night. It's all just common everyday circumstantial trivia that the prosecutor twisted into a fanciful story to get a conviction.
Click to expand...
Am I misinterpreting you Dan O, or do you reject out of hand any case that rests on circumstantial evidence?
 
By the way, I'm not sure there is anything really common, or every day about the circumstantial evidence. We can all, I'm sure, think of low odds ways in which RS's DNA could have innocently gotten on to the bra strap, but its still a surprising find. Years ago I lived in a large mixed houseshare and if my DNA had turned up on the bra of one of my housemates in many times greater quantities than anybody elses it would be a bit of a surprise. I suspect people would wonder what I had been doing to cause this to happen and would have expected an explanation from me.

That an occasional visitors DNA would innocently turn up in such a way is more surprising. That an occasional visitors DNA would innocently turn up in such a way on part of a bra strap that was believed to have been handled during a murder is more surprising still.

If this result isn't in fact as surprising as it seems to me and others (presumably including the jury), then let the defence show it.

From what I can see, given the evidence, it's still perfectly possible that they are innocent. Perhaps the missing knife will turn up with Meredith's blood on the blade and some escaped lunatics finger prints on the handle. But we aren't talkling about possible doubt, are we? We are talking about reasonable doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom