Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

Do you disagree with part of it or all of it?

I do not think that it was honest to put it forward as possibly agreed. I think it is rather typical of your approach here halides1 and I am not prepared to discuss it on those terms

 

[Jungle Jim]

Quote:
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have the time at the moment to comment on each point, but in the main it comes across as pure bulls**t. Not in the least bit convincing.

 

[Kestrel]

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)

The message "See you later" could be interpreted as an agreement to rendezvous later that night. It's really hard to interpret "See you later, Good evening" that way. An indication that even in official reports, Mignini is willing to shade the truth to fit his theories.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

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

That's not slanted. Not at all, not one little bit.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

In general, in U.S. law, an appeal is limited very strictly to a review of the legality and propriety of the process of the trial. New evidence is extremely difficult to present as a part of the appeal and mostly not permitted. Some more extraordinary action is generally required, such as the granting of a new trial, or some executive action which supersedes the trial judgment. With rare exceptions the trial court decides issues of fact and the appellate court decides issues of law.

ETA: Usually it is needful for the defendant to establish that any new evidence would have been unavailable at the time of his original trial. A failure of his defense to unearth evidence is not often considered new evidence if reasonable diligence would have supplied it.

 

[Mr.D]

What an odd note (whatever the context).

Thanks for the clarifications. Unless there any objections, I think we can banish the "fourteen hour continuous interrogation without food, water or restroom access" meme as a canard. (Maybe somebody embelished a story or miscommunicated something, but whatever the case, it really shouldn't be brought up again as it has no real relevance)

How about some new wording (and renumbering) for these:

4) Prior to her interview with the police on the 6th, there is no credible reason why Amanda Knox would believe Lumumba was involved in the crime.
5) On the 6th, Knox accused Lumumba of the crime.
6) On the 7th, Knox wrote an unprompted memo in which she acknowledged that she accused Lumumba of the crime the previous day.

'Sokay?

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

This seems to be agreed upon.


As to Kestrel's proposed 8) In his report, Mignini left off the "Buona serata" (Good evening);

Let's try looking at it from this angle: Keeping in mind her fluency level, do any of the likely (transl/interpret)ations ("See you later tonight" vs. "See you some other day, goodbye for today") reflect significantly on Knox's guilt or innocence?

If not then I'll submit that it doesn't really belong on this list of agreed upon facts at this time (later on when we try to expand the list out maybe.)


halides1 suggested 9) The bra clasp was not in a secure location and was poorly handled by the forensic technicians.

How about this less interpretive language instead:

9) Kercher's bra clasp was not collected during the first round of evidence collection.

 

[Dan O.]

Whew.

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

You should have stayed in the safe confines of the CT forum.

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")

The earliest reference I've found (in a quick search) dates from August 18, 2008 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008120524_amandaknox17m0.html

Knox also appeared to incriminate herself with a rambling statement — signed at 5:45 a.m. after a 14-hour interrogation.

In this thread, the first to explicitly state 14 hours was [Post 275] though there were previous references to ranges that included the 14 hours.

Knox alleged that she was interrogated for 14 hours straight with no opportunity to get food, and that she was physically abused by the police.

14 hours would fit if one were to ignore the 10:29pm phone call to Filomena which sets the actual time that Amanda arrived at the station. This call lasts for 3 minutes and ends with: "Oh, right now somebody wants to talk to me. Ciao bella". So it looks like the questioning may have started at 10:32pm on the 5th. That limits the interrogation to about 7+ hours less the break after 1:45am.

 

[Dan O.]

What an odd note (whatever the context).

5) On the 6th, Knox accused Lumumba of the crime.
6) On the 7th, Knox wrote an unprompted memo in which she acknowledged that she accused Lumumba of the crime the previous day.

Knox signed 2 statements making the accusation against Lumumba on the 6th at 1:45 and 5:45. The unprompted memo that acknowledges the statements was made in the late morning of the 6th. On the 7th she starts her prison diary.

 

[lane99]

A rough police interrogation might explain AK's accusation of Patrick Lumumba but it doesn't explain her lies before and after that interrogation.

Once in jail they freely wrote their police dairies, they wrote what they wanted.

Appreciate your openminedness. We agree that a rough interrogation might explain her accusation of Patrick.

I would go further to say the circumstances suggest that is the most LIKELY explanation. And that the arguments presented which attempt to show the statements in question were deliberately calculated lies will not ring true with impartial observers.

 

[Kestrel]

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

This seems to be agreed upon.


As to Kestrel's proposed 8) In his report, Mignini left off the "Buona serata" (Good evening);

Let's try looking at it from this angle: Keeping in mind her fluency level, do any of the likely (transl/interpret)ations ("See you later tonight" vs. "See you some other day, goodbye for today") reflect significantly on Knox's guilt or innocence?

It doesn't depend on Amanda's fluency level or memory of what was sent. The actual text of the message was in Amanda's cell phone which the investigators had during the interrogation.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The message "See you later" could be interpreted as an agreement to rendezvous later that night. It's really hard to interpret "See you later, Good evening" that way. An indication that even in official reports, Mignini is willing to shade the truth to fit his theories.

Rubbish. I love how non-Italian speakers are so quick to rush in and state what certain words translate as into Italian. The wording, in Italian, translates as an arranged meeting later that night.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Rubbish. I love how non-Italian speakers are so quick to rush in and state what certain words translate as into Italian. The wording, in Italian, translates as an arranged meeting later that night.

Ok, so can we add the point that she was no master at the Italian language?


All the text message did was provide a(nother) link to Lumumba and increase the suspicion that he was involved. He wasn't, so this point is, relatively, mute.


Moving on?

 

[Fulcanelli]

14 hours would fit if one were to ignore the 10:29pm phone call to Filomena which sets the actual time that Amanda arrived at the station. This call lasts for 3 minutes and ends with: "Oh, right now somebody wants to talk to me. Ciao bella". So it looks like the questioning may have started at 10:32pm on the 5th. That limits the interrogation to about 7+ hours less the break after 1:45am.

Hardly, she was doing cartwheels in the waiting room at 11 pm. Do you imagine she was carthweeling while they were questioning her? Her questioning started at 12 midnight.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Hardly, she was doing cartwheels in the waiting room at 11 pm. Do you imagine she was carthweeling while they were questioning her? Her questioning started at 12 midnight.

OOoh...

Thank you for using the term "questioning". I find "interrogate" to be a little more...a la military PoW camp...rings of torturous methods of extracting intel, not likely the incredibly mild, relatively, questioning that was done with Amanda.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Appreciate your openminedness. We agree that a rough interrogation might explain her accusation of Patrick.

I would go further to say the circumstances suggest that is the most LIKELY explanation. And that the arguments presented which attempt to show the statements in question were deliberately calculated lies will not ring true with impartial observers.

It's as pathetic excuse and a poor one at that. Amanda knew exactly what she was doing. Nobodu was pressuring her for her to insist on making her voluntary statement at 5:45. Nobody was was pressuring her when she wrote in her cell the next day the two page note that repeated her accusation of Patrick (despite the fluff she added to it in order to try and cover her backside).

Therefore, your conclusion is the LEAST likely explanation. Not that I expect you to change your mind. You've had it hammered in stone in your mind since at least last June.

 

[Fiona]

The message "See you later" could be interpreted as an agreement to rendezvous later that night. It's really hard to interpret "See you later, Good evening" that way. An indication that even in official reports, Mignini is willing to shade the truth to fit his theories.

Well that can't be true, Kestrel. The police saw the actual text and it meant that she was meeting someone that evening. I have asked someone who speaks some Italian and he agrees. Italian speakers at PMF who do translation for a living agree.

I do not know if your dislike for Mignini is blinding you, but i know your italian is as good as mine because you use google translate as well. So where did you get this idea?

 

[Mr.D]

You should have stayed in the safe confines of the CT forum.

No kidding. At least there I knew who my fellow shills were . Errr. Nevermind

The earliest reference I've found (in a quick search) dates from August 18, 2008

I had thought the original such claim came from Knox herself, which may have led in a fruitful direction towards establishing other true, relevant and more useful points of agreement.

Since the claim did not originate with her, barring any new primary sources, it seems the "14 hour" meme should be dropped altogether and anyone bringing it up again without primary sources should be slapped silly (preferably with a fish ala Monty Python).

 

[Mr.D]

Knox signed 2 statements making the accusation against Lumumba on the 6th at 1:45 and 5:45. The unprompted memo that acknowledges the statements was made in the late morning of the 6th. On the 7th she starts her prison diary.

D'oh. I'll rewrite these when I get the chance (probably tomorrow)

 

[Fiona]

I had thought the original such claim came from Knox herself, which may have led in a fruitful direction towards establishing other true, relevant and more useful points of agreement.

Since the claim did not originate with her, barring any new primary sources, it seems the "14 hour" meme should be dropped altogether and anyone bringing it up again without primary sources should be slapped silly (preferably with a fish ala Monty Python).

I am not so sure about that, really. Frank Sfarzo is the host Perugia Shock, a blog which is strongly supportive of Knox. The report of Knox's application to be released from prison from that site includes that claim attributed to Amanda in June 2008

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/06/fight-for-freedom-1.html

Amanda vs Claudia

Part 1 - The 'confessions' and the 'memoir'

Amanda

First, recall that after the facts of November 1, 2007 I was heard 3 times and then, on November 6 alone, twice. The last time lasted more than 13 hours and led me to a state of extreme exhaustion.
Because I was certain of my non-involvement in the crime, I fell into a state of depression which may be irreversible.

ETA: it may or may not be important that she did not raise this in her Q&A session about these various statements in April 2008, at least as that is reported at PerugiaShock. Possibly it was not considered relevant and it was omitted: but the June 08 statement quoted above is the earliest reference I can find

 

[Dan O.]

Hardly, she was doing cartwheels in the waiting room at 11 pm. Do you imagine she was carthweeling while they were questioning her?

That's the way I heard it reported. The police want to get her in a relaxed talkative mood so they use the opportunity to discuss her flexibility and move into gymnastics and thus the cartwheels. So yes, the cartwheels were done while they were questioning her.

If they had taken Interrogation Methods 101, they would know to maintain the momentum of this athletic display and get her to start talking. As you keep pointing out, she is only a witness and doesn't have to talk to them. At any moment she could feel insecure being alone and call Raffaele. If that happens, they could both walk out and the next interview would be with the lawyers.

Is there any evidence that shows Amanda was not being questioned from immediately after the phone call up to moving into the interrogation room?

Her questioning started at 12 midnight.

The only evidence we have seen supporting that is one witness who joined the interrogation around midnight. That witness didn't address the questioning that took place prior to her arrival. If you have something else, please provide it.