Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

This makes it absolutely clear there were two interrogations of Amanda during the night of Nov 5-6.



Read a bit further and you will find the 5:45 interrogation included the Public Minister.

This is the interrogation where Amanda claims to have been hit by the police.



The handwritten memorandum you were talking about was written by Amanda sometime later on Nov. 6. While she was in a cell and not an interrogation room.

Kestrel, you are completely, totally and utterly wrong in your assertions.

1. It was the 1:45 session in which Amanda claimed to have been hit by police.

2. The 5:45 VOLUNTARY STATEMENT Was not an 'interrogation', an interrogation implies questioning, she wasn't questioned, it was a statement.

3. The police were not even involved in the 5:45 statement since the police are not allowed to either question or take statements from suspects, only the prosecutor can do that.

4. Where is your evidence to support your assertion that the prosecutor was present when she claimed (the claim having since been found to be false) she was being hit?

 

[shuttlt]

If he were guilty but trying to cover his tracks, he might as well put the call into the police without calling his sister first. I find this more important than whether his call to the police was before or after the arrival of the postal police.

I find it difficult to see how he could innocently speak to his sister with her colleagues already present, not tell her that they were present and then follow her instructions and call the police without telling them that the police were already there. Phoning the police with the police already there seems to me an incredible thing to do unless he was trying to create some kind of false impression in the minds of the police about Knox and himself by appearing to have been the one to summon the police in the first place.

As for what he said to her, I don't see that that is disputed is it? We are taking his and her word for it, aren't we? Perhaps more incriminating things were said but we will likely never know.

 

[shuttlt]

halides1,

Surely the safest way to falsely establish that he had called the police prior to them having arrived would be to call his sister and get her to do it. If he called the police he might get stuck on the phone with them and have to deal with the police already in the house. If the police on the other end of the phone said, "but the police are already at the house", or attempted to contact the police already dispatched to the house he would be in trouble. If they say it to his sister it can perhaps be put down to a misunderstanding, or the police having arrived after he hung up. Far safer to call his sister. The problem is he can't tell her that he can't call the police himself because he clearly can, so 1 minute later he's back where he started.

 

[Kestrel]

Kestrel, you are completely, totally and utterly wrong in your assertions.

1. It was the 1:45 session in which Amanda claimed to have been hit by police.

2. The 5:45 VOLUNTARY STATEMENT Was not an 'interrogation', an interrogation implies questioning, she wasn't questioned, it was a statement.

3. The police were not even involved in the 5:45 statement since the police are not allowed to either question or take statements from suspects, only the prosecutor can do that.

4. Where is your evidence to support your assertion that the prosecutor was present when she claimed (the claim having since been found to be false) she was being hit?

My post you responded to included quotes from the trial. If you had actually read them, you would have seen that Amanda says she was hit during the 5:45 interrogation.

 

[Fulcanelli]

My post you responded to included quotes from the trial. If you had actually read them, you would have seen that Amanda says she was hit during the 5:45 interrogation.

Show us! Show us where she says she was being hit during the statement signed at 5:45.

Show us also where she says Mignini was present while she was being hit.

 

[Kestrel]

Kestrel I do not understand whether you are agreeing or disagreeing. Perhaps it is me but I do not find what you say straightforward and clear. Let me ask you again

Do you agree that in her testimony Knox is referring to the statement she made at 5:45 on the 6th November. If not, why not?

Do you agree that she says more than once that she made it at her own request? If not, why not

Do you agree that the her second spontaneous declaration was made in prison on the 7th: and again if you do not can you say why?

The post you just read included a statement from Amanda about the 5:45 AM interrogation. She claims to have been hit. If you look back at the quotes where she is talking about the handwritten memorandum, she states that the police were not pressuring or hitting her. The 5:45 declaration and the handwritten memorandum are clearly separate documents resulting from separate events.

 

[Fiona]

My post you responded to included quotes from the trial. If you had actually read them, you would have seen that Amanda says she was hit during the 5:45 interrogation.

No. She really didn't Kestrel.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Show us! Show us where she says she was being hit during the statement signed at 5:45.

Show us also where she says Mignini was present while she was being hit.

Just to add. Well done Kestrel. You just caught Amanda lying her backside off. The police weren't involved in the second session, Mignini took the statement. She also earlier in her testimony claimed all of that happened in the 'first' session. Now you can begin to see why she was convicted and why she is facing a new charge of criminal slander. If you are right that is. Fiona doesn't seem to think you are. So, which is it...are you wrong, or is Amanda a liar?

 

[Fiona]

The post you just read included a statement from Amanda about the 5:45 AM interrogation. She claims to have been hit. If you look back at the quotes where she is talking about the handwritten memorandum, she states that the police were not pressuring or hitting her. The 5:45 declaration and the handwritten memorandum are clearly separate documents resulting from separate events.

You really are wrong about this Kestrel. I urge you to read the whole testimony again.

 

[shuttlt]

My post you responded to included quotes from the trial. If you had actually read them, you would have seen that Amanda says she was hit during the 5:45 interrogation.

Kestrel, I've just read the full transcript that you quoted at PFM. It seems really odd to me. She's talking about how she followed their suggestions and "n [her] confusion, under the pressure of the police, [she] had to follow a reasoning that they had suggested to [her]". But surely all the things that she's talking about... naming Patrick, saying she was there when it happened all happened at the session that ended at 1:45am?

I'm confused.

 

[shuttlt]

Just to add. Well done Kestrel. You just caught Amanda lying her backside off. The police weren't involved in the second session, Mignini took the statement. She also earlier in her testimony claimed all of that happened in the 'first' session. Now you can begin to see why she was convicted and why she is facing a new charge of criminal slander. If you are right that is. Fiona doesn't seem to think you are. So, which is it...are you wrong, or is Amanda a liar?

Perhaps it's a simple confusion of 5:45 and 1:45?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Perhaps it's a simple confusion of 5:45 and 1:45?

Yes, but some want to be confused by that kind of thing...or at least, want others to be.

 

[Kestrel]

Kestrel, I've just read the full transcript that you quoted at PFM. It seems really odd to me. She's talking about how she followed their suggestions and "n [her] confusion, under the pressure of the police, [she] had to follow a reasoning that they had suggested to [her]". But surely all the things that she's talking about... naming Patrick, saying she was there when it happened all happened at the session that ended at 1:45am?

I'm confused.

What makes you think the conditions of the interrogation ending at 5:45 AM were not similar to the one ending at 1:45 AM?

 

[Fulcanelli]

What makes you think the conditions of the interrogation ending at 5:45 AM were not similar to the one ending at 1:45 AM?

Because a 'statement' is not an 'interrogation', moreover under Italian law only the prosecutor is allowed to take a statement from a suspect. Suspects can only be heard by an investigating judge. Witnesses can be questioned by police. Once they become suspects, they must be handed over to the judge.

 

[Fiona]

The problem is one which has bedevilled the whole thread. Real live speech is not linear: it dots about and people are less than precise: and of course in this case there is also the difficulty of translation. There are a number of errors: I wonder if you think there are none?

For example when she said that Migini was pressuring her in her first interview do you think she made a mistake? CP pointed out that Mignini was not there then and of course he was not.

CP......On
November 6, 2007, at 1:45, you said that you went to the house in via della
Pergola with Patrick. Did you go?

AK: The declarations were taken against my will. And so, everything that
I said, was said in confusion and under pressure, and, because they were
suggested by the public minister.

CP: Excuse me, but at 1:45, the pubblico ministero was not there, there
was only the judicial police.

AK: Ha. They also were pressuring me.

Knox talked about these statements in several parts of her testimony. In most of it she agreed with the police about the sequence of events: for example the police testified that they stopped the interview at 1:45 when she became a suspect: Amanda agreed with this in court and this was shown earlier in the thead. My post above shows several other points at which she and her lawyer acknowledge this. She also says that while she was in the questura she asked for pen and paper in order to make a statement of her own volition. And she did so. Mignini was called in and did not arrive before the end of her first interview at 1:45. But he did take the statement she asked to make and he described himself as a "scribe" in doing so. This statement did nothing to help the police, as Shuttit has said, and it was not intended to. It was her own idea and its intent was to "clarify" her earlier statement, or so she said

In the part which has caught Kestrel's attention you have to exclude the other parts of her statements and those of her lawyer in order to read it the way he does

However another reading is obvious, and given the whole context it is far more natural

She had to account for why she included her accusation against Lumumba in her spontaneous declaration, and this was not easy because her case is that she wrote it to clear up confusion: it certainly did not do that for him and nor did her second voluntary statement made in prison on the 7th.

She was being asked about that failure specifically. What can she say? She has embarked on an explanation which founds on "confusion" arising from duress. Away from any source of pressure she repeated her accusation and she needs to account for that.

Look at her words:

CP: Why at 5:45am on November 6 did you state that before she died you
covered your ears?

AK: In my confusion, under the pressure of the police, I had to follow
a reasoning that they had suggested to me,

Or what, one wonders? Or her spontaneous statement would have been at odds with the one she gave at 1:45 and would have exonerated Patrick.

Knox has never claimed two interrogations that night, Kestrel. Nor have her lawyers. All are agreed that she was questioned till she became a suspect at 1:45. And all are agreed that she asked for pen and paper and made a voluntary statement at around 3:30. All are agreed she wrote a second spontaneous statement on the 7th.

You have misunderstood this single part of the testmony because once again you are homing in on a tiny part and ignoring the bulk of it.

 

[Fiona]

Further to that; and merely to illustrate the difficulty if you focus on one piece of her testimony, take this example

CP: How did you come to decide to delete Patrick's message?

AK: I had a limited amount of space in my phone, and whenever I received a
message that I didn't need to remember something for, I deleted them.

CP: Why didn't you delete your own when you answered him?

AK: Umm, I'm not used to deleting those. I just delete the ones that I receive,
I believe.
[The interpreter does not translate the first part of this
answer.]

CP: Listen, Miss...[an interruption, someone wants her to repeat the answer
to the question and hear the complete translation.]

AK: I wasn't used to deleting the ones that I sent out, but just the ones
that I received.

CP: But I thought I heard her say that there was limited space in her cell
phone. [The interpreter puts this in English for Amanda. She is asked to speak
up into the microphone.]

AK: I'm not a technical genius, so I only know how to delete the ones that
I receive when I get them.

CP: And you don't know how to delete those that you send?

AK: I didn't even think about doing those.


<snip> [now talking about the first interview which ended at 1:45}

They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through
my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message,
they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn't remember doing.

The message from Patrick was deleted, as she says in the same exchange: now she says the found the message and asked if she had "sent one back". This clearly implies it was the incoming message from Patrick which they found: yet she has just said she deleted it. Same mistake the interpreter made.

What are we to make of this? I would suggest a simple error because in the same answer she says

They were putting this telephone in front of my face going "Look, look, your message, you were going to meet someone".

which is in line with what she said first but at odds with the middle bit.

It is this kind of thing which necessitates looking at the whole context. Don't you think?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The message from Patrick was deleted, as she says in the same exchange: now she says the found the message and asked if she had "sent one back". This clearly implies it was the incoming message from Patrick which they found: yet she has just said she deleted it. Same mistake the interpreter made.

An excellent example Fiona. This shows exactly why her testimony must be viewed in context. She is constantly contradicting herself. And this is her after having had a year and a half to think about it.

 

[Alt+F4]

It is Meredith Kercher's DNA. ALL of the experts for the prosecution, for Raffaele Sollecito, for Amanda Knox, for Rudy Guede and for the Kercher family agree on this FACT.

Oh, I bet that will change during the appeal. While RS can't distance himself from the DNA due his prison diary, AK's lawyers will probably argue this time that it's not MK's DNA.

 

[Mr.D]

Whew.

I knew I was stepping in a minefield by joining in this thread but sheesh.

Can anyone provide the provenance of the "fourteen hour interrogation" meme? Is there a direct quote or a second hand attribution? An exaggerated report from a third party? (or alternately, is everyone willing to accept as true that Knox at one point claimed to have been the subject of a "fourteen hour interrogation with no food, water or restroom access")


Attempting to move forward with some common factual ground; Are these statements acceptable?:

4) During her first interview with the Italian police, Knox accused Lumumba of committing the crime.
5) Later on, Knox affirmed the accusation with an unprompted written note.

(Note: Neither statement makes any statement on coercion, nor is any conclusion regarding the veracity of the accusation or Knox's state of mind implied)

How about this one:

6) There is no credible reason why prior to the interview with the police, Knox would believe Lumumba was involved in the crime.

(Again Note: this statement is solely about Knox's knowledge and state of mind _BEFORE_ the police interview and nothing is to be inferred about the interview or her state of mind after the interview from this statement)

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Oh, I bet that will change during the appeal. While RS can't distance himself from the DNA due his prison diary, AK's lawyers will probably argue this time that it's not MK's DNA.

Unfortunately for the duo, they're being tried together. I imagine this would make it difficult, therefore, for one side to deny the prison diary of the other...