Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[shuttlt]

Is it not illegal to interrogate a suspect without a lawyer? And wasn't Amanda's interrogation continued after she had become a suspect, again without a lawyer?

Knox insisted on talking to the police again some time after the police terminated the initial interview after she became a suspect. The interview was legal, it's just that in the end it was decided it wasn't admissable. It may be admissable in the case about police brutality.

 

[stilicho]

Except they weren't. The cell phone records and CCTV didn't prove anything. Although the cell phone records 'did' prove Raffaele called the police 'after' they'd already arrived.

The other important aspect of the cell phone records is to establish RS, at least, and AK, probably, as liars. Just as RS's undamaged drive established him as a liar.

 

[stilicho]

Knox insisted on talking to the police again some time after the police terminated the initial interview after she became a suspect. The interview was legal, it's just that in the end it was decided it wasn't admissable. It may be admissable in the case about police brutality.

AK's statements that were called inadmissible against her in the sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and murder trial were not declared inadmissible in the legal actions against her by Mr Lumumba.

Katy is molesting the truth by calling inadmissible statements (in one case, purely) illegal.

 

[shuttlt]

Basically if you look at all the CCTV times (the possible sightings of Guede and Meredith, the definite sightings of the postal police and the carabinieri)

Isn't the available footage of the police/carabinieri arriving anything but conclusive. The camera is only on intermittently and even then only seems to capture peoples feet from what I recall.

I guess the central fact to it all is the carabinieri pictured arriving at 13:22, followed by their phone call asking for directions at 13:29.

Wasn't there more than one car load of carabinieri?

[Incidentally, I don't pretend to be fully on top of the CCTV/phone records, but what you're saying doesn't gell with previous descussions I've read.]

 

[katy_did]

Well, for this common knowledge, perhaps you should satisfy the deficit in your understanding by perusing the Italian legal sites...rather then stomping up to the counter and demanding a burger...with fries.

Failing that, you might perform a search on PMF for posts by the the member 'Yummi', an Italian who has a much respected understanding of Italian law. If that's to tough, join the board, if you haven't already and send him a PM directly to ask him about the issue.

The problem, Fulcanelli, is that by your logic, everyone who ever posts on a forum could make any claim they want to and expect everyone else to go off and check whether their claim is true. Why should I believe you? You're just a random poster on a forum.

I'm afraid I don't have the time to check every single claim you make, and it's unreasonable that you should expect people to. You yourself said that if Amanda makes a claim, she should be able to back it up with evidence or we shouldn't believe her, and that it's not up to anyone else to disprove it.

The judge's report was on the 9th. At the same time, the police are permitted under Italuan law to release 'extracts' beforehand. And why not...the judge will release a full report in any case.

They leaked information to the press. I can't believe this is even in dispute.

Which was completely contrary to my specific instructions. Understand this..the search feature on PMF only includes the specific wording within posts, not within the linked articles. I suggest you renew your seach, in the manner I instructed.

*sigh*

There was no discussion on ANY forum post of anything the police said about 'the scream'. Most of the posts which linked articles reproduced the text of the articles within the posts, and I read all of them. If you have evidence to support your claim that the police contradicted Amanda's account of that particular conversation, then please link to it.

I have no dog in this fight. My only interest in this case is truth..and justice. If that's an agenda, so be it. But, I'm up front about that. What about you?

Well then, we share the same 'agenda'.

Why the concern about the interrogation, since the interrogation wasn't used as evidence aginst her in the trial? At the end of the day, what is it's relevance, in terms of her conviction?

It's relevant in the sense that its contents were widely known and its subsequent influence on the jury. However yes, I agree it is entirely irrelevant and shouldn't be considered in relation to the case.

From two days later. Do you then accept everything else Matteini said? Ir's simply a stage...in a process, one that was completely open, and was refined as it progressed. At the later stages, no judges formed a similar conclusion. Not even Matteini herself, who oversaw Amanda's failed bid for house arrest.

Micheli says nothing about Amanda knowing about the scream before it was known about by the police. Matteini stated that Amanda did not testify that Meredith screamed. This is evidence which supports Amanda's account of how the conversation took place, which is what you asked for. You haven't produced any evidence to discredit it.

Not really. I still see them as interchangeable. I also believe Meredith was moved perhaps more then once to her final position. Who's to say they didn't try 'stuffing' her un the wardrobe? It would be logical to me that they tried, before realising it wouldn't work. I have no evidence or proof for that, it's just something that makes sense to me. Her door was locked, in order to hide the body...to delay its discovery...why not an attempt to hide her in the wardrobe? Since she was murdered right in front of it, they would hardly have had to move her far. Does that make sense to you?

Well, if you see 'in front of the wardrobe' as interchangeable with 'there was a corpse in the closet, shut inside the closet, but there was a foot sticking out', and if you genuinely think the latter could have been a mere slip of the tongue in which Amanda accidentally revealed she knew more about the position of the body than she should have, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[katy_did]

Katy is molesting the truth by calling inadmissible statements (in one case, purely) illegal.

I apologise for that, then; I should have called them 'inadmissible' rather than 'illegal'.

 

[stilicho]

Isn't the available footage of the police/carabinieri arriving anything but conclusive. The camera is only on intermittently and even then only seems to capture peoples feet from what I recall.

You're right.

The idea that the CCTV coverage established an alibi for AK and RS making their calls before their arrival came from a blogger who saw much more in feet and random movements than anyone else has. It was discussed at great length in this thread already.

Please guide Katy and other newcomers to read and digest what's already been covered including the links. You have no obligation to reply to uninformed nonsense.

 

[stilicho]

I apologise for that, then; I should have called them 'inadmissible' rather than 'illegal'.

Yes, you should have. And also understand that they were only declared inadmissible insofar as AK's murder trial. They were declared admissible in the legal actions against her by the innocent man she condemned.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You might want to pay more attention when you're reading people's posts. The issue was that the hook of the clasp would be covered when the bra was fastened, but not after the clasp was cut.

As I said before, this action was demonstrated bt prosecutor Comodi in the court room...with a real bra, the same model as was on Meredith. I'm sure, had her theory have been wrong, it would have been well observed in the packed court room.

Except when it suits you to do so, clearly.

And clearly you missed the part where I said it must always be compared to the evidence,. The evidence, the facts, the truth. The truth will set you free. Cheesy but true.

Excellent. So I guess there's no reason to discuss the 'confession', the handwritten statement or Patrick Lumumba any further.

The handwritten statement was admitted into the trial.

Well hey, maybe if you can support your claims with links, instead of just expecting everyone to believe you without question, I might get more informed.
Is it not illegal to interrogate a suspect without a lawyer? And wasn't Amanda's interrogation continued after she had become a suspect, again without a lawyer?

I guess you quoted a selective portion of my text and cut out the rest.

Yes, it is illegal to interrogate a suspect without a lawyer.

Of course, Amanda Knox Knox was never interrogated as a Suspect, but as a Witness and as such the Witness rules apply. No lawyer is required. Amanda was never questioned as a Suspect until December 2007. Rwo lawyers were present during that time.

Amanda said this in the statement she gave to her interrogators shortly after her interrogation. Are you suggesting she was lying about the interrogation to her interrogators a couple of hours after the interrogation had finished?

Why not...she knew it would be on record. It was in writing.

Did you miss the part where I said he needed to get money together to leave the country? Wonder what he was doing in the nightclub... Some light theft perhaps, or maybe he needed another alibi? Let me guess, you think he just fancied a boogie before he skipped town.

A convenient mechanism...we could then use that to claime he needed to hang around for two days...or even ten. How long to get 'enough' money? How long is a piece of string? But that isn't the point you were trying to make...you were trying to say he was trying to delay Meredith's discovery. For what purpose? To gain time to gather money is not a logical reason and is flawed on many levels. We also need to ask where are the keys? With the phones? No? why not? Anyway, I could write a whole post to trash this idea...I'll spare you.

A theory they oddly came up with only after Amanda was arrested. Strange, that.

I don't believe any of us are in the investigators heads and in a position to claim knowledge of what they knew and when. Do you have an inside angle?

The latch to the front door was broken, so the girls locked the door from the inside with a key to prevent the door blowing open. You didn't know this?

I didn't. And I'll tell you why, because this was never said. It was stated sometimes the door didn't close properly. But never was it stated that the door needed to be locked from the inside. And certainly never was it stated that had to be done with a key.

It was a holiday weekend, and Guede no doubt hoped the rest of the flatmates were away, or that if they returned, they wouldn't notice anything out of the ordinary immediately

There you go again, trying to get in peoplkes heads from afar and then asserting what you divine as fact (don't try it with me, I'm wearing a tin foil hat, got the design off the back mof a cereal packet).

Laura and Filomena were, in fact, away for the weekend.

Really...were they? Did you let Filomena ans Laura know that?

 

[Kestrel]

It's all covered in the trial. The evidence was presented, cross-examined, and weighed by the jurors. And they found RS and AK guilty of murder, among other things, by the mountains of evidence stacked against them.

Its clear you are unable to list the evidence proving the specific points I mentioned, so you simply dodged the question.

 

[katy_did]

Isn't the available footage of the police/carabinieri arriving anything but conclusive. The camera is only on intermittently and even then only seems to capture peoples feet from what I recall.


Wasn't there more than one car load of carabinieri?

[Incidentally, I don't pretend to be fully on top of the CCTV/phone records, but what you're saying doesn't gell with previous descussions I've read.]

There were more than one car load of carabinieri, yeah, but Battistelli's testimony didn't mention that any other members of the carabinieri had arrived at the time he took the phone call about directions. It would be safe to assume the carabinieri were also in radio contact with one another, so wouldn't have needed to call for directions if one of the cars had already arrived.

It is possible that the carabinieri on the footage weren't the first to arrive, but that would mean the first ones (who made the call) arrived even earlier, making the CCTV clock even more than the estimated 8-12 minutes slow, which seems unlikely. The camera isn't especially clear, but as I understand it the postal police accepted they were the ones seen on screen (they only disputed the time) and the carabinieri car is definitely theirs since you can read 'carabinieri' on the side.

I have to admit it's not an issue I've ever thought was particularly important and for me has zero bearing on their guilty or innocence, but I couldn't see any flaw in the argument the poster thoughtful put forward on PMF.

 

[katy_did]

You're right.

The idea that the CCTV coverage established an alibi for AK and RS making their calls before their arrival came from a blogger who saw much more in feet and random movements than anyone else has. It was discussed at great length in this thread already.

Please guide Katy and other newcomers to read and digest what's already been covered including the links. You have no obligation to reply to uninformed nonsense.

No, in fact it came from a presentation Sollecito's lawyer Bongiorno made in court prior to the summer recess, in which she compared the CCTV and cell phone records and proved the postal police arrived at 12:56 at the earliest.

Perhaps it's you who should read up a little on this topic.

 

[stilicho]

Its clear you are unable to list the evidence proving the specific points I mentioned, so you simply dodged the question.

I just don't find your protestations as amusing as I used to. I am pleased the three who were responsible are in prison and unable to repeat their offenses any time soon.

Dodge that.

 

[katy_did]

Of course they did. It doesn't require taking into the lab...just as the wardrobe wasn't...they swab it down for DNA then send the samples back. Again, this is basic. It was near the clasp because they moved it there, having earlier recorded it's position and testing it.

Do you have a link supporting this, or are you just making assumptions?

 

[dudalb]

It would be really nice if people could at this case without having it distorted by ideology.

 

[stilicho]

No, in fact it came from a presentation Sollecito's lawyer Bongiorno made in court prior to the summer recess, in which she compared the CCTV and cell phone records and proved the postal police arrived at 12:56 at the earliest.

Perhaps it's you who should read up a little on this topic.

This has all been covered before too. I told you where to find the devil's advocate position at the PMF site.

We know that the Polizia arrived before RS called his sister and then their version of 911.

Next.

 

[stilicho]

It would be really nice if people could at this case without having it distorted by ideology.

Which ideology? It's being distorted by liars, not something as noble as philosophy.

 

[katy_did]

This has all been covered before too. I told you where to find the devil's advocate position at the PMF site.

We know that the Polizia arrived before RS called his sister and then their version of 911.

Next.

No one on PMF was able to present a logical argument in response to Thoughtful's posts; there is, simply, little room for argument as to the fact that the carabinieri appear on CCTV at 13:22, and call for directions at 13:29.

And your position appears to be 'it is so because I say it is', which isn't a particularly logical argument either. If you're not familiar with the Bongiorno presentation, perhaps you should look it up? That, too, is on PMF.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The problem, Fulcanelli, is that by your logic

Trust me, I'm not the problem

I'm afraid I don't have the time to check every single claim you make, and it's unreasonable that you should expect people to.

I'm not unreasonable, I gave you a map. I don't serve fast food or spoon feed. That's the compromise.

They leaked information to the press. I can't believe this is even in dispute.

Such as what? And who is 'they'? Quantify.

*sigh*

There was no discussion on ANY forum post of anything the police said about 'the scream'. Most of the posts which linked articles reproduced the text of the articles within the posts, and I read all of them. If you have evidence to support your claim that the police contradicted Amanda's account of that particular conversation, then please link to it.

Sigh back. I'm not referring you to discussion, but where the links to the articles on it are. Ut's in their testimony, it's in the linked to articles. And no, they didn't say 'what Amanda says is crap'. What they said is their version of events and that version completely contradicts Amanda's version that she gave later on the stand.

Well then, we share the same 'agenda'.

I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Micheli says nothing about Amanda knowing about the scream before it was known about by the police. Matteini stated that Amanda did not testify that Meredith screamed. This is evidence which supports Amanda's account of how the conversation took place, which is what you asked for. You haven't produced any evidence to discredit it.

I suppose you need to read the reports..do you want the links? Those...I have close to hand.

It's relevant in the sense that its contents were widely known and its subsequent influence on the jury. However yes, I agree it is entirely irrelevant and shouldn't be considered in relation to the case.

And your evidence for its influence on the 'jury' is?

What jury?

There was no jury.

Well, if you see 'in front of the wardrobe' as interchangeable with 'there was a corpse in the closet, shut inside the closet, but there was a foot sticking out', and if you genuinely think the latter could have been a mere slip of the tongue in which Amanda accidentally revealed she knew more about the position of the body than she should have, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

How many times was Meredith moved after her death and where to...do you know?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Its clear you are unable to list the evidence proving the specific points I mentioned, so you simply dodged the question.

This from one who runs a dodgem track ride on a travelling fair. Ha! It's the way you tell 'em Kestrel!