Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[odeed]

Hate to double quote from a post

From Amanda’s testimony:

“LG: Then, at midday, or one o'clock, we don't know exactly, they brought you a
paper called an arrest warrant. When they served you this warrant, it must
have been around twelve, one o'clock. Do you remember?

AG: So, all papers they brought me to sign, at that point, they were all the same
to me, so I can't even say what I had to sign, arrest warrant, declarations,
whatever, because at a certain point, I just wanted to sign and go home.” (emphasis added)

These words are almost eerily similar to what people who have made false confessions say, as reported by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/weekinreview/08SAUL.html

What happens over time is that the suspect gets tired, and there is an intensification of techniques. The suspect is getting the message that denial is not the escape, so they offer something else."
Professor Kassin said that when false confessors are later asked why they confessed, the No. 1 answer is "something like `I just wanted to go home.' "

From what I know, Knox made the Lumumba statement after only 2 hours 45 minutes, and was intelligent, the article on nytimes website was addressing confessions of youths of below average intelligence being interrogated for 14 to 30 hours.

From the same article

Suspects who are young or mentally ill are particularly vulnerable to pressure.

"There are legions of cases of people without disabilities who have falsely confessed over time as a result of highly coercive police interrogation techniques," Professor Drizin said.

Also is this where the media got the 14 hours interrogation from in the Knox case?

 

[stilicho]

Calling it a "deliberate accusation" is splitting hairs. I noticed that you are on of those who believe that Knox mentioning a scream is a sign of guilty knowledge. Please reconsider that position if you are interested in the truth. Because that is a not a credible argument.

No, it's not splitting hairs. There has not been a single cited example, in any of these 71 pages, of a false confession actually turning out to be a false accusation of murder and sexual assault against an innocent party. If you have one, let's take a look at it and see how it compares.

When AK talked and wrote about her involvement in the cottage on the night of Meredith's murder, she was not only talking about a scream. She placed herself at the crime scene--time and place--since otherwise she would have been unable to present herself as a witness against Mr Lumumba. And, if that had happened, the authorities would have believed her boyfriend and not her. Her boyfriend, after all, had just told the police that AK was not with him all night.

AK needed an alibi and needed it quick. She needed one that focused the police upon someone else while she could straighten RS out. She even writes about it in her "gift", calling her boyfriend a liar three times.

I hope that helps you to understand the serious nature of her accusation and why the scream is simply one small portion of a much greater story.

 

[lector]

There also would have to be considerably less evidence against her. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think you have this a little backwards. I would say instead that for AK to have been found not guilty in spite of the evidence would have taken both a susceptible jury and an incredible feat of law-smithing.

I don't pretend to have a huge grasp on all of the evidence. (Not implying that you are pretending either!) I know that I haven't put in as much time on it as you have, let alone others who've followed the case for two years. I don't have that much free time.

The evidence that I do understand is not favorable to AK & RS. The arguments I've seen in favor of their innocence strike me as generally weak & lacking a plausible narrative. There seem to be a lot of missing-forest-for-trees arguments, & the trees usually prove illusory.

The case is frustrating for me because part of the evidence that I view as critical was presented in closed court sessions. It will remain forever hidden to outsiders. It comes down to faith that the jury understood that evidence, considered all arguments fairly and reached a reasonable conclusion, which is unsatisfying. However, I've seen no compelling arguments that the jury was incompetent.

At this point, I still don't understand exactly what the evidence of the cleanup was; nor do I have a good grasp on the totality of DNA & fingerprint evidence that was found vs. what was not found & what that might imply. Because I don't have an endless supply of time to devote to these details, I've chosen to wait for the Massei report to see what light that may shed, rather than pursue the details via discussion & hours of searching other sources.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Can you provide a reference for these claims?

Thanks.

I have it from an inside source in Perugia, who I will not reveal, who has been following the case from the beginning on an 'active' level, that Ms Bene never said any of that to Spezi, Preston or anyone else.

Let me see...what else. Oh yes, Preston's claim that the Seattle media, such as the Seattle PI relied upon 'stringers' for their news who essentially got their stories via regurgitating other media stories. This is patently false. Andrea Vogt for example, has been following the case in person and attending each trial in person, as well as interviewing those involved in the case first hand. This is a blatant untruth from Preston.

Next, okay, Preston maintain's Mignini was present when Amanda and Raffaele were first interviewed on the night of the 5th, steering proceedings in both interviews from behind two way glass. Again, this is completely false and made up. It's fantasy. Preston was never there. Amanda and Raffaele were questioned by the police alone. Mignini didn't arrive at the station until past 3 am and only because Amanda insisted on being heard again. As a 'Suspect', under Italian law, she cannot be heard by the police, it has to be by the investigating judge. That's why Mignini was dragged out of his bed, because Amanda refused to wait until the morning.

If that's not enough, Preston went on US television just before the verdict and claimed the evidence against Knox had been 'fabricated'. He supported it with nothing and not even the defence lawyers of any of the parties claimed any evidence had been fabricated.

And if you think Preston's an honest chap, a brief glimpse of how he operates will enlighten you. PMF created a powerpoint that covered the input of the FOA and in particular, Preston's involvment. Preston took the powerpoint and then doctored pages and changed texts in it, posted it up on his site under the claim that this was the original powerpoint. If that's not an outright lie, then I don't know what is. And if he is willing to put words that were never spoke in the PP creator's mouth and present it as an original work, then that tells me that it's highly unlikely that the creator of the PP and Ms Bene are the first victims of his fabrications.

 

[Fulcanelli]

For a better understanding of good old Doug Preston (large file, but worth it):

RAILROAD FROM HELL

PS: This is the file Preston doctored on his site and deliberately misrepresented.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Calling it a "deliberate accusation" is splitting hairs. I noticed that you are on of those who believe that Knox mentioning a scream is a sign of guilty knowledge. Please reconsider that position if you are interested in the truth. Because that is a not a credible argument.

She applied what she deemed to be an innocent role to herself (passively standing in the kitchen and taking no part), while at the same time accusing a completely innocent man of raping and murdering Meredith. How is that anything but a false accusation??? To try and call it a false confession is nothing but spin. I suggest you save it for those looking to buy a bridge.

 

[Fulcanelli]

She may have been lying beside the closet, but I highly doubt she was ever stuffed into the closet with her foot sticking out. And this wasn't a slip of the tongue - Knox didn't say "She was found in the closet - um I mean lying on the floor". She told people the body was stuffed into the closet, because that is what she had understood from the bits and pieces Sollecito had translated for her, based on second-hand information of what the others had seen.

She wasn't murdered beside the wardrobe, she was murdered right in front of it 'or in it' to phrase it a different way. It was hours after her death that she was stripped and then moved 'next' to it.

'Others' didn't see Meredith in front of the wardrobe. That's because she wasn't in front of it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Of course, had the police released an audio recording or the full, unedited transcript of the interrogation there would be no need to take Amanda's word for it; as it is, that is all we have to go on (unless the police are now claiming they also 'lost' the transcript, too?).

Under Italian law the police are not 'allowed' to release the recordings of suspects and witnesses. The witness thing is moot in any case, since police don't record witness statements. Amanda was questioned as a witness. It wasn't recorded.

Her statement is certainly not contradicted by the evidence; when the police wrote up the formal statement, they could easily and very likely would have interpreted the conversation she describes as 'I was covering my ears to block out Meredith's screams'.

Actually it is contradicted by the evidence. 7 officers and translators testified on the stand completely contradicting Amanda's claims. Moreover, The investigating magistrate opened a full investigation into her claims and found they were without substance.

Finally, it is Amanda making the accusations. It is up to the individual making the accusations to support them with evidence. Glib statements such as 'the evidence doesn't contradict her evidence' doesn't cut it. If you make an accusation, you have to make a case. 'Because I say so' is not a case.

 

[katy_did]

She wasn't murdered beside the wardrobe, she was murdered right in front of it 'or in it' to phrase it a different way. It was hours after her death that she was stripped and then moved 'next' to it.

'Others' didn't see Meredith in front of the wardrobe. That's because she wasn't in front of it.

Come now, 'in front of the wardrobe' is somewhat different to 'stuffed in the wardrobe with the door closed and a foot sticking out', is it not? The latter is most certainly phrasing the former in a radically 'different way', I'll grant you that.

And you haven't addressed the fact that Knox didn't 'accidentally' tell anyone the body was in the wardrobe, she stated as fact that this is where it was found. Is your theory that the last time she saw the body it was stuffed in the wardrobe with a foot sticking out, and that someone (Sollecito?) went back into the room at a later point and moved it without Knox knowing - hence, as far as she was concerned, it was still stuffed in the wardrobe with a foot sticking out?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Come now, 'in front of the wardrobe' is somewhat different to 'stuffed in the wardrobe with the door closed and a foot sticking out', is it not? The latter is most certainly phrasing the former in a radically 'different way', I'll grant you that.

In front of, in the wardrobe are interchangeable, next to the wardrobe, in the wardrobe is not.

And you haven't addressed the fact that Knox didn't 'accidentally' tell anyone the body was in the wardrobe, she stated as fact that this is where it was found.

Amanda always did have a big mouth. And as we've seen many times over the last two years, her brain is often not in gear when she operates it. She doesn't have a talent for dropping herself in it. Rather, she just can't help herself.

Is your theory that the last time she saw the body it was stuffed in the wardrobe with a foot sticking out, and that someone (Sollecito?) went back into the room at a later point and moved it without Knox knowing - hence, as far as she was concerned, it was still stuffed in the wardrobe with a foot sticking out?

My theory? My theory is Amanda saw Meredith's body in each of its positions. That's because she helped put it in each one. It seems I'm not alone in believing that. At least 8 judges agree with me.

 

[katy_did]

Under Italian law the police are not 'allowed' to release the recordings of suspects and witnesses. The witness thing is moot in any case, since police don't record witness statements. Amanda was questioned as a witness. It wasn't recorded.

In the first place, I don't believe for a second the police 'forgot' to record the most important interrogation of the entire case, part of which WAS, presumably, carried out when she was a suspect (I'm assuming that if she became a suspect as soon as she admitted being at the scene, any subsequent questions should, legally, have been recorded).

And even in the highly unlikely event that the interrogations were not recorded, there would most certainly have been someone typing the questions and answers into a computer - this is, after all, the basis for statement which Amanda signed - and this full, unedited transcript presumably still exists.

The prosecution had no legal difficulty leaking highly selected extracts from the transcript, so I'm assuming there would be no difficulty in them releasing the full, unedited version.

Actually it is contradicted by the evidence. 7 officers and translators testified on the stand completely contradicting Amanda's claims. Moreover, The investigating magistrate opened a full investigation into her claims and found they were without substance.

Finally, it is Amanda making the accusations. It is up to the individual making the accusations to support them with evidence. Glib statements such as 'the evidence doesn't contradict her evidence' doesn't cut it. If you make an accusation, you have to make a case. 'Because I say so' is not a case.

Do you have a citation for the information in your first paragraph - i.e. a specific denial from the police that the questions about the scream were put to Knox in the way that she claims, and that the investigating magistrate opened up a full investigation into that same issue? That seems somewhat odd, since nothing Knox states there is illegal nor even particularly controversial.

What evidence would you suggest Amanda produce to prove those accusations? What evidence COULD she possibly produce, unless she had herself secretly recorded the interview? A full transcript would clear things up, one way or another. The police have steadfastly refused to release one, and I have to think there's a reason for that.

 

[katy_did]

In front of, in the wardrobe are interchangeable, next to the wardrobe, in the wardrobe is not.

Erm, no. 'In front of the wardrobe' is not interchangeable with 'stuffed in the wardrobe' nor even 'in the wardrobe'.

Amanda always did have a big mouth. And as we've seen many times over the last two years, her brain is often not in gear when she operates it. She doesn't have a talent for dropping herself in it. Rather, she just can't help herself.

My theory? My theory is Amanda saw Meredith's body in each of its positions. That's because she helped put it in each one. It seems I'm not alone in believing that. At least 8 judges agree with me.

I'm sorry but you're not addressing the point I raised here: Amanda deliberately stated as fact that the body was found stuffed into the wardrobe with a foot sticking out. To treat that as some 'accidental' revelation that she knew the body had previously been in that position (even though it hadn't) is a somewhat radical interpretation of the text.

 

[Fulcanelli]

In the first place, I don't believe for a second the police 'forgot' to record the most important interrogation of the entire case, part of which WAS, presumably, carried out when she was a suspect (I'm assuming that if she became a suspect as soon as she admitted being at the scene, any subsequent questions should, legally, have been recorded).

Well first of all, this is all about facts and law, not faith. Second of all, 'if' the police recorded anything, they are only allowed, under Italian law, to use those recordings for their own records and their investigation. They cannot be presented in court and defence teams do not have any legal right to them. The Italian legal system is based on texts, written data, not media.

Do you have a citation for the information in your first paragraph - i.e. a specific denial from the police that the questions about the scream were put to Knox in the way that she claims, and that the investigating magistrate opened up a full investigation into that same issue? That seems somewhat odd, since nothing Knox states there is illegal nor even particularly controversial.

Review their testimony on PMF, it's all preserved there. Simply go back in the main discussion to the dates they testified.

What evidence would you suggest Amanda produce to prove those accusations? What evidence COULD she possibly produce, unless she had herself secretly recorded the interview? A full transcript would clear things up, one way or another. The police have steadfastly refused to release one, and I have to think there's a reason for that.

Well, you'd think that from the testimony from 7 different individuals, at least something would support her version of events. It doesn't. Neither did the investigation by the magistrate. But it seems to me, the basis of your argument is that because it's impossible for her to prove it, we should believe her. Some would term that as a sympathy shag. You don't get those when you're accused of a violent sex murder. But, it's not even about proof. Just some evidence would be nice, something aside from just her word. A word which, let's face it, doesn't mean very much.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Erm, no. 'In front of the wardrobe' is not interchangeable with 'stuffed in the wardrobe' nor even 'in the wardrobe'.

Amanda didn't use the word 'stuffed'.

 

[Moss]

Just prior to the above testimony http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=31515 (also LG is Knox defense):



From what I can tell, the whole incident incriminating Lumumba in the statement came about because Sollecito said Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder, so she had to come up with a story.

Why exactly did she have to come up with a story like that at that point? I see no reason to tell that kind of story unless she was indeed at the crime scene and needed to come up with something to rationalize why she was there.
Also if what Raffaele told the investigators was wrong, why didn't she point that out?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why exactly did she have to come up with a story like that at that point? I see no reason to tell that kind of story unless she was indeed at the crime scene and needed to come up with something to rationalize why she was there.
Also if what Raffaele told the investigators was wrong, why didn't she point that out?

Excellent questions!

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

I have it from an inside source in Perugia, who I will not reveal, who has been following the case from the beginning on an 'active' level, that Ms Bene never said any of that to Spezi, Preston or anyone else.

I do appreciate your reply, but I have to admit that I feel that your original statement is a misrepresentation. An unrevealed secret "inside source" does not equal "common knowledge." You originally said:

"it's common knowledge that the reporter he is quoting never made that statement to him..."

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, it's common knowledge as in it's known by a lot of people...mostly those closely involved in the case. I agree though, it isn't 'public' knowledge.

No need to embellish the source with the term 'secret' though. All inside sources by definition are 'secret', that's why they are inside sources. Various media use them all the time. In this case, there's nothing cloak and dagger about them. In an emotive case such as this, where anyone who sticks their head above the parapet comes under vicious attack...it's understandable why some would not want to be known. Others, don't want to compromise their professional positions. That's quite understandable in my book.

 

[stilicho]

Also if what Raffaele told the investigators was wrong, why didn't she point that out?

Bingo!

By noon of the sixth of November, 2007, AK herself figured out that her accusations against Mr Lumumba were not going to serve her interests. An oft-forgotten part of her admissible "gift" is the several times she strongly suggested that her boyfriend was lying. This is what she means by saying, at the end, that she only wants to "help".

She has it all narrowed down for the "stupid policemen". It was either Mr Lumumba who did it and she was there, or Raffaele is a liar. Really simple from AK's perspective.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If you had been completely innocent, and been in Amanda Knox's shoes during her police interrogation, it wouldn't have frightened you if somebody had hit you?

Wouldn't that make almost everybody afraid?

And you wouldn't be terrified in court, testifying for your innocence?