• 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.
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")

Not quite sure what you are looking for. Perhaps this will help? Curt Knox is the one quoted, not Amanda Knox

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/lkl.01.html

KNOX: Well, there -- during the time frame in which Meredith lost her life and when Amanda was actually arrested, it was about a 90-hour time frame. During that 90 hours, Amanda was actually questioned and interrogated for over 41 hours, and it culminated in a 14-hour overnight, very aggressive interrogation.

I am not sure when the family started saying this but it was long discredited before he repeated it here, I think

As for the rest of your post: I would amend 5) to include the fact she affirmed the accusation in 2 unprompted written notes: her spontaneous statement at 5:45 on the 6th and her memorandum in the prison on the 7th
 
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?

I have seen 14 hours mentioned in multiple places. Amanda spent at least that amount of time being questioned by the police. She signed declarations at 15:30 on Nov. 2, 14:45 on Nov. 3, 14:45 on Nov. 4, and at 1:45 AM on Nov. 6 and a statement at 5:45 AM on Nov. 6. During the trial she mentioned attending class on Nov. 5 for the first time since the murder.

Here they are talking about Nov. 2:
LG: Thank you. Now, how much time did you spend in the Questura that night?

AK: So much, so much time. I think it was -- heck, it was so long. At least twelve hours.

LG: Until the next morning? Or until midnight.

AK: Yes, until the next morning. And then they asked me to come back later that morning. They told me to go home and sleep, and then to come back.

A bit later about the following days:
LG: How many times did you go to the Questura in the following days, the 3rd, the 4th, the 5th?

AK: I went back every day.

LG: And more or less for how many hours, for how much time?

AK: It depended, but it was always for several hours.

LG: But did you also go to class on those days? You tried to continue your normal life?

AK: Yes. Finally on the 5th, I had time to go to class. And then Raffaele was called.
 
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...

But are they required to present a united defense? Can't they just accuse each other of lying and let the jury decide what is true?
 
But are they required to present a united defense? Can't they just accuse each other of lying and let the jury decide what is true?

I suppose they could do that...but then you must ask yourself: "Self (because that's what we call ourselves), if I were sitting on the Jury and I had these two come in front of me on appeal and they were to start attacking each other - would I believe one of them was innocent and the other guilty or they both are guilty and each is looking at a last-ditch effort to pin it on the other?"
 
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)

The context of what Knox said in her note is rather strange for an affirmation.
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

The context in this is all important.

ETA: It wasn't Amanda's first interview with the police. She had spent hours at the Questura on Nov. 2, 3 & 4.
 
Last edited:
The context of what Knox said in her note is rather strange for an affirmation.


The context in this is all important.

ETA: It wasn't Amanda's first interview with the police. She had spent hours at the Questura on Nov. 2, 3 & 4.

Yes, the context is important. So here is the whole thing

This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else. I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.

I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:

On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.

Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember. I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.

However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time. In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.

One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock. After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).

The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:

1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.

2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true. I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.

Honestly, I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:

1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom. The truth is, I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered. I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

3. I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.

[illegible section]

I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:

1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.

I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.

If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.

This was a spontaneous statement meant to clarify any confusion in her first statement
 
Last edited:
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.


They can't, not when all their experts in the main trial have agreed it was. That all remains on file. If they wanted to go down that road, then they'd have to bring in 'new' experts to argue that it isn't her DNA, but in so doing completely undermine all the testimony of their previous experts. That's not really very good for defence credibility and therefore, not really an option. Remember, lawyers cannot argue those kinds of points, the court does not recognise their expertise on the matter...it has to be done with experts.
 
They can't, not when all their experts in the main trial have agreed it was. That all remains on file. If they wanted to go down that road, then they'd have to bring in 'new' experts to argue that it isn't her DNA, but in so doing completely undermine all the testimony of their previous experts. That's not really very good for defence credibility and therefore, not really an option. Remember, lawyers cannot argue those kinds of points, the court does not recognise their expertise on the matter...it has to be done with experts.

Under the judicial system in the U.S. an appeal just adds additional evidence on to what was already determined in the original trial. I thought under the Italian system the appeal was a brand new trial and that evidence presented in the original trial would not be considered by the new jury unless the defense wished to present it.
 
ETA: It wasn't Amanda's first interview with the police. She had spent hours at the Questura on Nov. 2, 3 & 4.

She did spend a long time at the police station on the 2nd: as did everyone else, and exactly as you would expect.

She was also asked to attend on the 3rd and the 4th: on one of those days she was taken to the flat of the boys downstairs and was asked whether there was anything unusual about the fact there was blood on one of the beds. I am not sure what day that was, nor am I sure how long she spent with the police on any of those occasions: Knox says it was hours but her sense of time is, by her own admission, a wee bit ropy.

I believe the 5th was a Monday, was it not? The Monday after a holiday weekend? I wonder whether classes were actually available on the previous days because on the 5th RS (and AK if she was asked to attend) were free to go at a time of their choosing: I do not see why that would not be true the other days and so I do not think we can infer it was her assistance to the police which prevented her pursuing her studies. (just in case anyone infers that from how she presents it )
 
Last edited:
Under the judicial system in the U.S. an appeal just adds additional evidence on to what was already determined in the original trial. I thought under the Italian system the appeal was a brand new trial and that evidence presented in the original trial would not be considered by the new jury unless the defense wished to present it.

My understanding is that an appeal in the US isn't strictly appealing the court findings, it's appealing the process. As in: new evidence has come to light, procedural problems, etc.
 
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)

I would agree with that. She apparently didn't mention Lumumba as a suspect in her interviews on Nov. 2, 3 and 4.

Here are a couple more points we may be able to agree on:

7) The text message that Knox sent to Lumumba was "Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata" (See you later, Good evening).

8) In his report, Mignini left off the "Buona serata" (Good evening).
 
I would agree with that. She apparently didn't mention Lumumba as a suspect in her interviews on Nov. 2, 3 and 4.

Here are a couple more points we may be able to agree on:

7) The text message that Knox sent to Lumumba was "Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata" (See you later, Good evening).

8) In his report, Mignini left off the "Buona serata" (Good evening).

In 'Italian' they mean EXACTLY the same thing. Don't start channelling Dempsey now.
 
too small to be definitive

They can't, not when all their experts in the main trial have agreed it was. That all remains on file. If they wanted to go down that road, then they'd have to bring in 'new' experts to argue that it isn't her DNA, but in so doing completely undermine all the testimony of their previous experts. That's not really very good for defence credibility and therefore, not really an option. Remember, lawyers cannot argue those kinds of points, the court does not recognise their expertise on the matter...it has to be done with experts.

Fulcanelli,

Do you have a citation for your assertion that the defense agreed it was Ms. Kercher’s DNA?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/04/italy.amanda.knox.evidence/index.html
“Dr. Carlo Torre, a leading forensics expert in Italy, testified that the knife taken from Sollecito's apartment wouldn't have made the wounds on Kercher's body.
‘It doesn't match the size or shape [of the wounds,]’ Bremner told CNN. ‘And Sollecito's knife also doesn't match a bloody outline of a knife left on the bedding.’…Furthermore, Bremner said the jury heard from defense expert Sarah Gino, a geneticist and private coroner in Italy, who said that the DNA sample was too small to be definitive.” (emphasis added)

Chris
 
I would agree with that. She apparently didn't mention Lumumba as a suspect in her interviews on Nov. 2, 3 and 4.

Here are a couple more points we may be able to agree on:

7) The text message that Knox sent to Lumumba was "Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata" (See you later, Good evening).

8) In his report, Mignini left off the "Buona serata" (Good evening).

What do you think is the significance of 8) Kestrel (assuming it is true:I do not know if that is true or not because I have never checked it)
 
bra clasp handling

I would add

9) The bra clasp was not in a secure location and was poorly handled by the forensic technicians.
 
from an article by Tom Rawstorne

The handle and blade were also tested for the presence of blood - but none was found.
The centre portion of the flat edge of the blade was removed for further analysis. Again, no blood was found, but a DNA profile was discovered that was a match to Meredith.
The defence claims this match was at such a low level that if it had been tested in a U.S. laboratory it would have been disregarded as unreliable.
This point is emphasised in an open letter signed by nine U.S. experts in DNA who recently reviewed the evidence presented by Italian police.
Further, if this DNA did not originate from Meredith's blood (no blood showed up in that specific test), the experts conclude it must have originated from some other source.
And the most likely source, they argue, is cross-contamination from other DNA in the laboratory.
It is known that the same laboratory was analysing a large number of samples taken from the crime scene that did contain high quantities of the victim's DNA.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html#ixzz0ezjC7Vck
 
Halides1: there is no point whatsoever in repeating the same thing over and over again. We know what you (and others)think and why you (and others) think it: you know what I (and others) think and why I (and others) think it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom