Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Dan O.,

Could you possibly post something that explains your position on the whole the police suspect someone/someone is a formal suspect issue so tha t we can move on. This whole pretending you are unaware of a distinction thing is getting really old. If you've got a point to make in regard to the issue, please make it.

Dan_O is under the firm belief that innuendo is all that's required when accusing the ILE of wrongdoing (or Rudy Giede for that matter). For him, evidence and proof are only required when accusing Amanda and Raffaele of anything. And in that event, no evidence or proof is good enough.

 

[quadraginta]

.
Quadraginta, I think you've been following FOA speeches too much ... you're starting to think like them!

<snip>

Arrgghh! The cruelest cut of all.

Surely you know that if something is said loud enough, long enough, and often enough it must be true.

 

[Kermit]

Arrgghh! The cruelest cut of all.

Surely you know that if something is said loud enough, long enough, and often enough it must be true.

.
That's why FOA and Entourage comments after articles at The Daily Beast are so successfully convincing ....

 

[stilicho]

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.

Why would you think this?

There are good reasons for the police to establish a fresh rapport with Amanda at the outset of a new session. After noting all of Raffaele's details they would definitely want Amanda to repeat hers. In fact, she specifically claims the police were repeating questions. I have no reason to disbelieve this and it is reinforced by what I know about police interrogation techniques.

You have still never come up with a convincing reason the police would suggest Patrick to her. If they were to suggest anyone it would be Raffaele since he'd already told them she wasn't in his apartment at the time of the murder.

 

[Malkmus]

You have still never come up with a convincing reason the police would suggest Patrick to her. If they were to suggest anyone it would be Raffaele since he'd already told them she wasn't in his apartment at the time of the murder.

Suggesting Patrick makes much more sense than suggesting Raffaele. The police were interrogating Raffaele first. They got him to break and say that Amanda had left his apartment that night. Now they needed to move on with that line of thinking, so they questioned Amanda next with the intent of finding out why she left Raffaele's. So they went through her texts and saw the message to Patrick saying "see you later". Bingo. Raffaele says she left his place, there's a text saying she would see Patrick later, so she must have left Raffaele's to see Patrick. At that point, they were convinced they'd figured it all out. Wasn't it the next day they announced "Case closed"?

 

[Alt+F4]

So they went through her texts and saw the message to Patrick saying "see you later". Bingo. Raffaele says she left his place, there's a text saying she would see Patrick later, so she must have left Raffaele's to see Patrick. At that point, they were convinced they'd figured it all out. Wasn't it the next day they announced "Case closed"?

This makes sense but did the police go through her text messages at that time?

 

[Malkmus]

This makes sense but did the police go through her text messages at that time?

According to Amanda:

And they said
"We're sure you're protecting someone." Who, who, who, who did you meet when
you went out of Raffaele's house?" I didn't go out. "Yes, you did go out.
Who were you with?" I don't know. I didn't do anything. "Why didn't you
go to work?" Because my boss told me I didn't have to go to work. "Let's see
your telephone to see if you have that message." Sure, take it. "All right."
So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept
on yelling "We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?"
But I kept saying no, no, I didn't go out, I'm not pro-pro-pro---

 

[BobTheDonkey]

According to Amanda:

And they said
"We're sure you're protecting someone." Who, who, who, who did you meet when
you went out of Raffaele's house?" I didn't go out. "Yes, you did go out.
Who were you with?" I don't know. I didn't do anything. "Why didn't you
go to work?" Because my boss told me I didn't have to go to work. "Let's see
your telephone to see if you have that message." Sure, take it. "All right."
So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept
on yelling "We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?"
But I kept saying no, no, I didn't go out, I'm not pro-pro-pro---

Oh, so, you mean that because her story and Raffaele's story didn't match, she was asked more questions/became a suspect?

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

And of course the next day the Police claimed "case closed". They had both an eyewitness placing Patrick at the scene of the crime and the eyewitness herself.

 

[lane99]

...A verdict must always start from 'did' they do it or not. The answer to that doesn't depend on a scenario...The evidence is central...not the scenario. And the evidence always leaves room for a variety of scenarios...

It's somewhat amusing that you are not even coherent enough to understand the basis of your own beliefs. And to suggest the evidence speaks for itself in this case is, at best, incompetent.

Have you ever heard of the term "circumstantial evidence"? That's what this case is based on. Know what it means? It means the evidence can not DIRECTLY prove the charge. But, rather, that guilt can potentially be determined- indirectly- if a scenario persuasive enough can be presented that would allow reasonable people to INFER guilt.

So, in fact, the turn of this case (and all circumstantial cases) essentially depends ENTIRELY on whether a scenario compelling enough to reason- and, crucially, mutually exclusive of any reasonable alternative scenario- can be presented.

 

[stilicho]

Suggesting Patrick makes much more sense than suggesting Raffaele. The police were interrogating Raffaele first. They got him to break and say that Amanda had left his apartment that night. Now they needed to move on with that line of thinking, so they questioned Amanda next with the intent of finding out why she left Raffaele's. So they went through her texts and saw the message to Patrick saying "see you later". Bingo. Raffaele says she left his place, there's a text saying she would see Patrick later, so she must have left Raffaele's to see Patrick. At that point, they were convinced they'd figured it all out. Wasn't it the next day they announced "Case closed"?

Raffaele was presented with the inconsistencies in his alibi. His response was to blame Amanda. Amanda was presented with the inconsistencies in her alibi. Her response was to blame Patrick.

This is the last thing the police would have expected. They would have expected her to blame Raffaele and almost certainly would have asked why she was protecting him and not Patrick--who was never even interviewed before Amanda said he was the murderer.

Why would the police be naming someone they had no evidence against? Are they just diabolically insane? Wait--don't answer that.

 

[Malkmus]

Oh, so, you mean that because her story and Raffaele's story didn't match, she was asked more questions/became a suspect?

Since I never once used the word "suspect", I'm not sure what meaning you're trying to insert in to my post about it.

And of course the next day the Police claimed "case closed". They had both an eyewitness placing Patrick at the scene of the crime and the eyewitness herself.

Actually, I think the natural procedure would at least be to question the suspect about his whereabouts on that night first before declaring the case closed.

 

[lane99]

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?

No, I'm not. I have a passing interest in this case. As I've had a passing interest in numerous cases over the years.

Apart from the non-sequiturs about the Kercher family (which don't require a response) your comment is otherwise unclear to me.

Exactly what is it that you're opining that I'm being "somewhat of a fanatic" about?

 

[Kermit]

Suggesting Patrick makes much more sense than suggesting Raffaele. The police were interrogating Raffaele first. They got him to break and say that Amanda had left his apartment that night. Now they needed to move on with that line of thinking, so they questioned Amanda next with the intent of finding out why she left Raffaele's. So they went through her texts and saw the message to Patrick saying "see you later". Bingo. Raffaele says she left his place, there's a text saying she would see Patrick later, so she must have left Raffaele's to see Patrick. At that point, they were convinced they'd figured it all out. Wasn't it the next day they announced "Case closed"?

Maybe you didn't see the whole discussion we had a week or so ago about how Patrick's name got into Amanda's questioning on 5 November 2007.

Amanda herself is the one who said that Amanda named Patrick without his name being suggested by the police in the 6/9/14/40/50 hour (I believe that's where it's at now) interrogation on that night.

Here's Amanda's courtroom testimony. The asterisks replaces a discussion between lawyers and prosecutor, Judge Massei steps in to direct the testimony.

(GCM= Judge Massei GM= Prosecutor Mignini AK= Amanda Knox)

GM: ..... my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick, or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?
***********
GCM: .... What was the "suggestion", because I thought I had understood that the suggestion consisted in the fact that Patrick Lumumba, to whom the message was addressed, had been identified, they talked about "him, him, him". In what terms exactly did they talk about this "him"? What did they say to you?

AK: So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message --

GCM: You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?

AK: To the person I had written to, precisely .... there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying "Maybe you don't remember, maybe you don't remember, but try," and other people were saying "Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing "Remember, remember, remember," and then there was this person behind me who -- it's not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me...

GCM: "Remember!" is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory. Suggestion is rather...

AK: But it was always "Remember" following this same idea, that...

GCM: But they didn't literally say that it was him … just remember, remember …

AK: No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him."

GCM: So, these were the suggestions.

AK: Yes.

===============================

So, in the trial Amanda admitted that there was no suggestion of Patrick's name on the part of the police, only that they kept asking her to remember.

This testimony has to be read in its entirety to understand how Amanda’s defence claims of undue pressure evaporated. Read the whole translated testimony on PMF

If you want, I think I can dig up the audio of this testimony (in Italian).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Actually, I think the natural procedure would at least be to question the suspect about his whereabouts on that night first before declaring the case closed.

Does it 'matter' what they 'declared'? They obviously hadn't closed the case for they continued the investigation for over 6 months.

 

[Fiona]

I think it is quite usual for the police to call press conferences and to state that they believe they have murderers in custody if that is what they do believe: it reassures the public, who are generally very uneasy if there is a brutal murderer on the loose. Especially in a small town where murder is very rare. I cannot really see anything wrong with it so long as they continue the investigation

 

[quadraginta]

It's somewhat amusing that you are not even coherent enough to understand the basis of your own beliefs. And to suggest the evidence speaks for itself in this case is, at best, incompetent.

Have you ever heard of the term "circumstantial evidence"? That's what this case is based on. Know what it means? It means the evidence can not DIRECTLY prove the charge. But, rather, that guilt can potentially be determined- indirectly- if a scenario persuasive enough can be presented that would allow reasonable people to INFER guilt.

So, in fact, the turn of this case (and all circumstantial cases) essentially depends ENTIRELY on whether a scenario compelling enough to reason- and, crucially, mutually exclusive of any reasonable alternative scenario- can be presented.

You started this post off poorly (either your grasp of what "circumstantial evidence" really means is weak, or you are being deliberately disingenuous) but you finish with a total fail.

It is not only possible, but outside of TV dramas quite common for circumstantial evidence to suffice to establish beyond reasonable doubt who is responsible for a crime without in any way providing an unimpeachable or even probable storyline of exactly how and why the crime evolved and was committed.

Here's a quiz. The prosecution shows that the defendant owns a gun. That the gun has been recently fired. That the bullet found in the victim came from that gun. That powder residue compatible with that gun was found on the defendant's hand shortly after the crime was committed. That the defendant's fingerprints were found on the gun. That they were found on the victim. That the gun was found at the defendant's house. Tire tracks identical to the defendant's car were at the victim's house. They were fresh. Soil compatible with the victim's yard was in the tread of the defendant's car. It was fresh. The defendant claimed to be home watching TV at the time of the crime. His neighbors says the car wasn't there at the time the crime was committed, and they saw him drive it off immediately before, and drive it back immediately after the time of the crime.

How much of that evidence is "circumstantial"? How much of it is direct? (Hint: expressed as a percentage the answer to the second question would be very small)

How much more do we need to know to go beyond reasonable doubt?

How much of a scenario have you got so far.

The fact is that most evidence is circumstantial. All forensic expert testimony, for example. Almost all witness testimony that isn't "I saw him do it." About the only "direct evidence" offered by anyone involved in the Knox case was when Knox accused her boss of the killing. She said she saw him do it.

All that it is needful to establish (beyond reasonable doubt) is that the defendant committed the act in question. It really doesn't matter if their mother's uncle's scoutmaster's second cousin's granddaughter played contra-bassoon in the same marching band as the victim's chihuahua. Real life is often unlike TV.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's somewhat amusing that you are not even coherent enough to understand the basis of your own beliefs. And to suggest the evidence speaks for itself in this case is, at best, incompetent.

Have you ever heard of the term "circumstantial evidence"? That's what this case is based on. Know what it means? It means the evidence can not DIRECTLY prove the charge. But, rather, that guilt can potentially be determined- indirectly- if a scenario persuasive enough can be presented that would allow reasonable people to INFER guilt.

So, in fact, the turn of this case (and all circumstantial cases) essentially depends ENTIRELY on whether a scenario compelling enough to reason- and, crucially, mutually exclusive of any reasonable alternative scenario- can be presented.

First of all, the evidence isn't circumstantial alone, but a mix of both circumstantial and hard evidence. The evidence is enough to establish they were there, involved and staged the scene afterwards. A scenario is a luxury not a requirement.

Second of all, legal systems have their own rules and procedure, not the ones you arbitrarily set for them.

Finally, you have a hard time separating the concepts of scenario and motive, instead classing them as one and the same.

Here's the scenario:

The pair met up with Rudy and took him back to the cottage. An attack began on Meredith and this escalated, resulting in her murder. Rudy left and afterwards Amanda and Raffaele staged and partially cleaned the crime scene.

That's a scenario, that's all that's required. To embellish it further is to stray into motive (they attacked Meredith 'because') and not a requirement but a luxury.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think it is quite usual for the police to call press conferences and to state that they believe they have murderers in custody if that is what they do believe: it reassures the public, who are generally very uneasy if there is a brutal murderer on the loose. Especially in a small town where murder is very rare. I cannot really see anything wrong with it so long as they continue the investigation

And especially where many parents had sent their children off to study, a town in which said children appeared to be the target.

 

[Malkmus]

So, in the trial Amanda admitted that there was no suggestion of Patrick's name on the part of the police, only that they kept asking her to remember.

This testimony has to be read in its entirety to understand how Amanda’s defence claims of undue pressure evaporated. Read the whole translated testimony on PMF

If you want, I think I can dig up the audio of this testimony (in Italian).

I agree, the whole trial transcript does need to be read in order to ascertain what really happened. If you had done so, you would have realized that when LE went through her phone and saw the message to Patrick, they didn't know who it was to, and so they asked her to identify the recipient. This is clearly indicated in the transcript where Mignini reads back the minutes concerning his cross-examination of her (The part you cited):

GM: [reading] She said: "I accused Patrick and no one else because they were
continually talking about Patrick." Suggesting, to use Amanda's words.
I asked: "The police, the police could not suggest? And the interpreter,
was she shouting the name of Patrick? Sorry, but what was the police
saying?" Knox: "The police were saying, 'We know that you were in the
house. We know you were in the house.' And one moment before I said Patrick's
name, someone was showing me the message I had sent him." This is the
objection. There is a precise moment. The police were showing her the message,
they didn't know who it was--

And from the part you cited yourself:

AK: So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message --

GCM: You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?

AK: To the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me that I knew,
and that I didn't want to tell. And that I didn't want to tell because I
didn't remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about
this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying "Look
what a stupid liar you are, you don't even remember this!" At first, I
didn't even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter
next to me who kept saying "Maybe you don't remember, maybe you don't
remember, but try," and other people were saying "Try, try, try to remember
that you met someone, and I was there hearing "Remember, remember, remember,"
and then there was this person behind me who -- it's not that she actually
really physically hurt me, but she frightened me...

If you're going to ascertain that LE were not the ones to bring Patrick in to this then you also have to completely eliminate the questioning of the text message from the interrogation, which no one during the trial ever denied. It's very evident that Patrick was named because LE had a keen interest in the text message to him because it fit with Raffaele's claim immediately prior that Amanda had left his apartment. The fact that they needed Amanda to name him as the recipient of the message is irrelevant. It also doesn't fit with the MO of someone who is lying.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It is also the fact that Amanda had previously lied to them by telling them that she'd sent or received no phone calls/texts on the night of the murder. And then they found her sent text message on her phone. It also appeared as though the text was arranging a meeting for later that evening. What with in addition, Raffaele dropping her alibi and saying she went out to go to Le Chic, the police were naturally suspicious.