Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlie Wilkes said:
...The real question is, what happened that night? Do you believe the latest official story, that Amanda and Raffaele slipped off to his room to have sex while Rudy sat on the toilet, and then Rudy decided to rape Meredith, and instead of helping her, Amanda and Raffaele decided to help Guede?

I don't find that narrative believable. But what is more important is that it is pure speculation...
Click to expand...


Well, to the extent that it is speculation, I wouldn't exactly call it "pure". Dubious and biased might be a more appropriate description.

However, at least they've taken a step towards plausibility by making Guede the instigator of the violence against Miss Kercher.

After that, though, the story reverts to demanding one accept a most improbable scenario at the expense of one exceedingly more likely and common. And, as such, rational people thinking critically should be highly suspect of it.
 
Does a scenario hypothesis matter? Or is it the evidence that shows they were there and committed the actual murder that matters?


We all know the answer.
 
From my point of view, what actually happened does matter, yes.

I realize the culties and Guede groupies have a different perspective.
 
lane99 said:
From my point of view, what actually happened does matter, yes.

I realize the culties and Guede groupies have a different perspective.
Click to expand...

From your personal point of view yes, from all our points of view certainly and from the Kercher's point of view absolutely. However, the how/why can only ever be a dressing on top of a verdict..an addition to it, no matter how important it may be to us others. A verdict must always start from 'did' they do it or not. The answer to that doesn't depend on a scenario, as much as we may want one. The evidence is central...not the scenario. And the evidence always leaves room for a variety of scenarios. That's just the nature of things. The only people that know for sure and 'can' know for sure are those that were there. Nobody's talking...so we're left with a 'best guess'. That's life.
 
And you're not a cultie of Amanda Knox, Lane99? You seem to be somewhat of a fanatic, as shown by your condescending tone and borderline abusive comments. Are you one to think that the Kerchers are wrong for believing that the murderers of their sister and daughter are where they should be? All three of them?
 
Dan O. said:
"half of Italy" would simply an exaggeration to make the point.
Click to expand...

Just like:
- 53 hours of interrogations is an exaggeration,
- drugs didn't have anything to do with the evening is an exaggeration,
- Amanda never set eyes on Rudy is an exaggeration,
- illegalities were committed in the investigation is an exaggeration,
- Rudy could have made this 23 cm long footprint is an exaggeration,
- Amanda and Meredith got on great is an exaggeration,
- Amanda did the bathmat boogie is an exaggeration,
- it's obvious that "drifter" Rudy with his previous "criminal record" is an exaggeration ....

those and many more examples are FOA lies, to make a FOA talking point.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
We know that Patrick was there. There are a few images of the gathering and you may recognize one of them in the crowd. I wouldn't blame them for not showing up. If you've ever been to such an event you would know how tough it can be emotionally for the closest acquaintances and that they may be better off staying away.
Click to expand...


Why would Patrick being in attendance matter? Amanda hadn't fingered him as of yet (that happened later that very night, as a matter of fact). So unless you'd like to argue that what she testified to concerning Patrick was already in her head/thoughts (and thus not a falsely injected memory as you've copiously argued before), she would have zero reason to avoid him.
 
lane99 said:
Well, to the extent that it is speculation, I wouldn't exactly call it "pure". Dubious and biased might be a more appropriate description.

However, at least they've taken a step towards plausibility by making Guede the instigator of the violence against Miss Kercher.

After that, though, the story reverts to demanding one accept a most improbable scenario at the expense of one exceedingly more likely and common. And, as such, rational people thinking critically should be highly suspect of it.
Click to expand...

Why does Rudy-as-instigator sound more plausible to you than Amanda-as-instigator or Raffaele-as-instigator?

The common link among all five involved in the murder case (the three convicted plus Meredith and Patrick) was not Rudy. It was Amanda.

If you try an almost sociological approach (leadership roles, strength of relational links, time factors, etc) then really you could argue that without Amanda none of what happened makes any sense at all.

It's anecdotal but I mentioned once on the PMF that there was something startling about Amanda's behaviour in court video clips that you don't get from the still photos. I generally stay clear of the video clips because I don't usually feel they add anything you can't relate in a paragraph or two or still photos accompanying a news story.

But there is a real sense of "connection" that Amanda conveys in the way that she moves and acknowledges people in the courtroom. And that's at her own murder trial. She is the focus; she is the connection; she is the star.

None of this observation affects my view of the evidence or the justice meted out. It doesn't make her any more or less guilty than performing cartwheels in the Questura or eating pizza with her boyfriend instead of attending Meredith's vigil. Discounting Amanda as the instigator is not in line with her observed behaviour in a social setting--even if that was in a courtroom at her own murder trial.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Why would Patrick being in attendance matter? Amanda hadn't fingered him as of yet (that happened later that very night, as a matter of fact). So unless you'd like to argue that what she testified to concerning Patrick was already in her head/thoughts (and thus not a falsely injected memory as you've copiously argued before), she would have zero reason to avoid him.
Click to expand...
.
Don't try to analyse Dan O.'s partial suggestive distractions. We're still waiting to hear about rotated slides 17 and 66 for which he heaped disdain upon us.

If the idea is that had Amanda gone to the vigil she could have suffered some sort of emotional breakdown upon seeing a black man who later appeared in her police station interview "visions", forget it.

Amanda had already spoken to Patrick that day (something about an interview with a foreign news outlet, I think), in front of the Foreigners' University, and she didn't have an allergic, psychotic reaction to the poor fellow.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Did you take a break to eat, or did you just chow down on plenty of pizza before you started?
Click to expand...

No food. No water. No bathroom breaks.

As we all know, both RS and AK broke down within a couple hours of this allegedly gruelling interrogation. I wasn't at either of them, of course, but I have attended questioning sessions before although I'd rather not go into exactly how, when, or why.

It probably took a half hour just to get everyone in place. This is likely what Amanda talked about when she was referring to people coming and going and "confusing" her. In her specific case, they also had to locate a translator. I'll go out on a limb but I would guess that there was the primary questioner, the "bad cop" (who ordinarily remains quiet and sits across from the suspect--oops--witness), and the translator, who would have to sit fairly close to her.

After that, it would likely take at least another half hour just to get through the formalities of a genial interview. Name. Place of birth. Date of birth. Nationality. Relationship to the victim. Relationship to the other witnesses (and there were dozens of them).

That's probably about an hour right there and possibly more if you consider they had to have every question and answer translated. Now it's almost 01:00 on 06 NOV 2007.

Then come the real questions. Where were you? Was Raffaele there? What time was it? What were you doing?

And then back over the same details. The police wouldn't spring on Amanda that Raffaele didn't support their alibi. They would be asking for precise details about her own story. How long would that take? Maybe another half hour. They would go back and forth over her own details to detect any inconsistencies in them first since they already know that Raffaele has told them she wasn't with him.

It really sounds like Amanda had about fifteen minutes of real questioning (if that) after discovering that Raffaele had thrown her under the bus. Probably the most shocking five to fifteen minutes of her life. After all their promises to one another and all their contempt for the "stupid policemen", Amanda was confronted with Raffaele's cynical betrayal.

She did what she could under the circumstances. Blame someone else. In likely less than fifteen minutes of truly understanding that the police were not nearly as stupid or as easy to manipulate as she'd thought, Amanda gave them the first thing that came to mind. She thought that would get her out of the Questura and back to Raffaele's apartment with him to ask him what the hell he was thinking by telling them they weren't together. She kept on trying all that day, too, demanding pen and paper to write out a "gift".

So that's really about five to fifteen crucial minutes of an alleged 53 hour interrogation in which Amanda implicated herself in Meredith's murder.

Now I think I'm ready for breakfast.
 
stilicho said:
So that's really about five to fifteen crucial minutes of an alleged 53 hour interrogation in which Amanda implicated herself in Meredith's murder.
Click to expand...
.
Stilicho, I think your estimate is about right, give or take 30 seconds.

It's clear that, like a house of cards, an alibi falls apart very quickly if any key element is shown be weak, or poorly or impossibly integrated.
 
The figure may be about right, but I think we want to be a little careful about putting out figures that can't be supported. Amanda says the intense period of her interrogation began in the early hours, so 1 hour 45 minutes or less of 'intense interrogation'. Clearly it's going to be quite a bit less, but how much less seems to me like a hard to to say for sure. Can we really be sure it wasn't 45 minutes, or an hour? Not that that's long when you're inducing false memories, but still...
 
According to Amanda, they started the questioning in the other room by the elevator where Amanda was waiting. It will be a while before the interpreter arrives but a couple of the officers start off questioning Amanda about the boys that visited the apartment. The formalities have all been covered in the previous sessions so there is no point in repeating them unless they just want to get it on tape.

Their intent that night was to break Amanda and that's exactly what they got. The breaking point came when the police implied that Patrick was the murderer. "It's him, it's him, he did it!" is not pointing a finger of blame, it's the sudden realization that her kind gentile boss murdered her friend and flat mate. Notice that she doesn't have to state the name. The police already established who "Him" is with the text message exchange.

Why would you think that the Perugia police have tried so hard to cover up the recording of the interviews that night? The tapes prove exactly what happened in those interviews and can't be spun like the recollections of the officers involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom