Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
quadraginta said:
Since everyone but Knox was in on the conspiracy against Knox no one's testimony except for hers can be relied upon, and even then you have to pick the right testimony, because of fatigue ... and injected memories ... and visions ... and drugs ... and stuff like that.

Certainly the logic behind this should be obvious.
Click to expand...

So we can absolutely trust Amanda except where we can't trust Amanda.

BTW did I miss where Dan O explained what the pictures and rotating 900 was supposed to mean?
 
Malkmus said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is a bit of leap from asking AK to remember who she had left RS's apartment to meet and her telling the police that she was in the cottage while Patrick was murdering her roommate. The name was not suggested to her by the police and they did not suggest to her that she was in the cottage or that he was the killer.

You cannot bring yourself to believe that she arrived at all that scenario entirely on her own. This is one of several times where an entire scenario was woven by the accused to explain away inconsistencies. AK's 04 NOV 2007 email comes to mind. So does Sollecito's "pricked hand" story. RG was not immune from this either since he too placed himself in the cottage at the time of the attacks.

These scenarios are in line with what is expected from ordinary police interrogation techniques. They may present alternate scenarios to the interviewee and they typically follow the one that the subject asserts as most likely. Amanda was a very easy interview too. She likes to talk and she likes to write. Compared to the taciturn Sollecito, she was a gold mine of information.

The main point of Amanda's court testimony is that she freely admitted that she was asked to remember what happened. She was not asked to dream up a scenario. She admits to being frustrated and confused by their asking simple questions to refresh her memory. This is also in line with standard police interrogation tactics. They don't want the interviewee to think but to remember. That is indeed confusing and frustrating for a subject who just wants out of the room and back to their flat to rearrange their fables.
 
Malkmus said:
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.
Click to expand...

?

Can you explain again why a question about an outgoing text message is a problem?

She said she had not sent a message: a message was there on the phone. They asked who it was to. That means they wanted a name, certainly. I see nothing unreasonable at all in the police asking that question. I see no difficulty at all in answering it. It seems to be true that the wording in Italian means she was intending to meet him later that day. It seems to be true that is not what she meant and the problem was linguistic. I do not see why it is hard to explain that. I certainly do not see how that sequence of events leads to an accusation of murder against an innnocent man. The "explanation" is ridiculous, as I read it.
 
Fiona said:
Can you explain again why a question about an outgoing text message is a problem? She said she had not sent a message: a message was there on the phone. They asked who it was to. That means they wanted a name, certainly. I see nothing unreasonable at all in the police asking that question. I see no difficulty at all in answering it.
Click to expand...
.
And what is strange is that instead of saying "Oh, that's Patrick Lumumba, my boss at the bar where I work", she broke down crying - according to police officers present - and exclaimed in emotional tones something to the effect of: "It's him, it's him" and went into the accusation against Patrick.
 
Perhaps everybody has seen this already, but Charlie was kind enough to mail me the following frame from a video of Raffaele's knife draw:



Looking at that, and assuming it represents the draw as the police saw it minus the knife they took to test, I can see why they took the knife they took.
 
Shuttit said:
Looking at that, and assuming it represents the draw as the police saw it minus the knife they took to test, I can see why they took the knife they took.
Click to expand...

Exactly...the only other knives that are there are a set of table knives and a honking great bread knife.

That's interesting, considering that on numerous occasions in the past the FOA have made a big stink as to why the police officer 'just selected that knife at random'. Not so random then...it was the only viable candidate there.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Exactly...the only other knives that are there are a set of table knives and a honking great bread knife.

That's interesting, considering that on numerous occasions in the past the FOA have made a big stink as to why the police officer 'just selected that knife at random'. Not so random then...it was the only viable candidate there.
Click to expand...
Charlie indicated that this was the only picture he had of the contents of the draw, though he may have the footage it came from I suppose. The only source I'm aware of who may have more is Dr Waterbury.
 
shuttlt said:
Charlie indicated that this was the only picture he had of the contents of the draw, though he may have the footage it came from I suppose. The only source I'm aware of who may have more is Dr Waterbury.
Click to expand...
.
Keep it up Charlie!! We now have 32 Kb of the 2 Gb.!!!

(why don't you load up your files in two or three blocks to a place like MediaFire, that would make it easier on all)
 
Kermit said:
.
Keep it up Charlie!! We now have 32 Kb of the 2 Gb.!!!

(why don't you load up your files in two or three blocks to a place like MediaFire, that would make it easier on all)
Click to expand...
Points to Charlie though for sharing such an interesting 32Kb. If I have a criticism of him it's that he waits for people to ask for a specific thing. He's had this picture for ages, knowing that it was relevant but waiting for someone to ask for it. Again though, a couple of minutes after I asked him about it there it was in my Inbox.
 
I'm having a dig to see who's said what about the contents of the knife draw:

Above picture is Patricia Stefanoni, the woman who magically found the DNA of Meredith Kercher's on a kitchen knife police found in a drawer in Raffaelle Sollecito's apartment. Coincidentally, no other knives in the drawer were tested.
Click to expand...
http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/2009/08/amanda-knox-and-rafaelle-sollecitto.html

Not a major thing, but still it seems to give a misleading impression. I'm trying to work out where the claims about the contents of the knife draw came from. My impression is that a lot of people are reading a little more than they should into a Dr Waterbury article in which he is arguing that other knives from the draw should have been tested. He isn't arguing that it's suspicious because the police had no reason to choose this knife above the others, rather for reasons of controling for contamination.
 
shuttlt said:
I'm having a dig to see who's said what about the contents of the knife draw:


http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/2009/08/amanda-knox-and-rafaelle-sollecitto.html

Not a major thing, but still it seems to give a misleading impression. I'm trying to work out where the claims about the contents of the knife draw came from. My impression is that a lot of people are reading a little more than they should into a Dr Waterbury article in which he is arguing that other knives from the draw should have been tested. He isn't arguing that it's suspicious because the police had no reason to choose this knife above the others, rather for reasons of controling for contamination.
Click to expand...

It IS misleading. For many months now, the FOA has been giving the impression that the knife was selected from a draw full of murderous deadly knives and therefore the fact that the ILE just happened to select a knife at random and hit the jack pot is serious grounds for suspicion of shenanigans. So when we finally see the actual contents of the other items in the draw, what do we see? Some blunt table knives and a bread knife!
 
Fulcanelli said:
It IS misleading. For many months now, the FOA has been giving the impression that the knife was selected from a draw full of murderous deadly knives and therefore the fact that the ILE just happened to select a knife at random and hit the jack pot is serious grounds for suspicion of shenanigans. So when we finally see the actual contents of the other items in the draw, what do we see? Some blunt table knives and a bread knife!
Click to expand...

That is certainly the impression I got from the way Amanda supporters told the story.
 
Fulcanelli said:
It IS misleading. For many months now, the FOA has been giving the impression that the knife was selected from a draw full of murderous deadly knives and therefore the fact that the ILE just happened to select a knife at random and hit the jack pot is serious grounds for suspicion of shenanigans. So when we finally see the actual contents of the other items in the draw, what do we see? Some blunt table knives and a bread knife!
Click to expand...
But again, points to Charlie for producing it when requested. I confess I can't make out what he's about.
 
shuttlt said:
Charlie indicated that this was the only picture he had of the contents of the draw, though he may have the footage it came from I suppose. The only source I'm aware of who may have more is Dr Waterbury.
Click to expand...

Well, we don't need to see more do we? We know that the police removed only one item from the draw...the kitchen knife. So all that we see in that pic is 'all' that was originally there aside from the kitchen knife.
 
SeattlePI:
Armando Finzi, an assistant in the Perugia police department's organized crimes unit, first discovered the knife in Sollecito's kitchen drawer. He said the first thing he noticed upon entering the place was a "strong smell of bleach." He opened the drawer and saw "very shiny and clean" knife lying on top of the silverware tray.

"It was the first knife I saw," he said. When pressed on cross-examination, said his "investigative intuition" led him to believe it was the murder weapon because it was compatible with the wound as it had been described to him. With gloved hands, he placed the knife in a new police envelope, taped it shut with Scotch tape, then placed it inside a folder, he said. There were smaller and bigger knives in the drawer, but no others were taken into evidence from the kitchen, he said. A small knife was taken into evidence from Sollecito's bedroom, along with other items.
Click to expand...
 
Dan O. said:
SeattlePI:
Click to expand...
The breadknife and the table knives are smaller and bigger. It's a pity she doesn't explain where she gets that information from. It could be that other knives were taken from the drawer before Charlie's film was taken. If so, we don't know about it.... again Dr Waterbury's data may say.
 
Alt+F4 said:
It seems more than likely that they were. How many households have no steak knives at all?
Click to expand...
Possibly. It could be that those knives are kept elsewhere. Equally, do we know how much cooking Raffaele actually did?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom