Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

We won't agree because you do not understand Italian law. And understand this...the defence are not appealing it on the basis of legal grounds (she should legally have been a suspect when she actually was legally a witness'...instead, they are offering it as an 'argument' to 'explain' Amanda's false accusation of Patrick and self incrimination, e.g. 'They had her as a witness, but really in their minds she was a suspect and they therefore treated her as a suspect. It was this harsh treatment that caused her to falsely accuse another and incriminate herself'. They can't make a legal claim, because they don't have a legal case. If they try and make it they will fail, but that's not why they are making it, they know that will fail, but they will make it simply to get the opportunity to impress upon the appeal judge that she was 'under pressure'.

Comprehend, under Italian law Amanda was not a suspect until police made her one. They could not make her one without evidence. As soon as they got evidence, they indeed made her a suspect. The law was complied with fully on this particular matter.

I know, I simply do not understand. You are the final word.

What was the new evidence that the acquired about Amanda during the interrogation giving them the needed "evidence" to make her a suspect?

She was in the kitchen? Was that it?

They worked around the law to continue to interrogate her. She should have had an attorney.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The police treated her as a suspect. They did not formally make her a suspect so that they could avoid dealing with an attorney.

The police don't have to deal with an attorney. Once someone is made a suspect the police can never question them again, attorney or not, at least not for that offence. Did you not know that?

Only judges can question suspects.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What was the new evidence that the acquired about Amanda during the interrogation giving them the needed "evidence" to make her a suspect?

She was in the kitchen? Was that it?

That she admitted to meeting the killer, bringing him to Meredith's home so he could have Meredith and then standing by doing nothing as he raped and murdered her. Then, not helping the victim afterwards and withholding it from the police for days having given them nothing but lies until then.

Yes, I'd call that legal grounds both for making her a suspect and for her arrest.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They worked around the law to continue to interrogate her. She should have had an attorney. Keep trying to hold some higher authority on the matter. It won't work with me. I am not easily trained.

You are getting hysterical. Calm down.

 

[Kermit]

I think you are simply shocked that I will not bow to your authority like many of your loyal followers.

.
Then look into it yourself and learn the difference between witness and suspect in Italy, and stop your jabberwocky.

What was the new evidence that the acquired about Amanda during the interrogation giving them the needed "evidence" to make her a suspect?

Amanda's constitutional protection prevents us from having a quality, complete copy of her different statements from Nov. 5-6.

But, if up until then she had been denying any relation to the crime, and now she was able to finger Patrick, she was stating that she was there.

In one of the variations I saw in the press, she cowered in the kitchen. In another variation, she was with Raffaele, and both "couples" retired to respective bedrooms.

Meredith had apparently bled to death. Without the autopsy reports, and on the basis of the initial evidence, it could well have appeared to be also a case of not offering assistence to a person in mortal need.

Also, the apparent crime staging.

Keep in mind that - as is the case in Europe - the actual charges aren't made until the end of the investigation.

They worked around the law to continue to interrogate her. She should have had an attorney.

They asked her to whom she had sent an SMS. She broke down and said something to the effect of "It's Patrick, it's him!!!"

It's about now that you say that she wasn't given food (in spite of having had a pizza supper) nor bathroom breaks.

 

[shuttlt]

Bruce,

I wrote a reply and then noticed you'd said the following:
"This will be addressed on appeal. I am not making this up. This is listed in Amanda's appeal."

Could you quote the section you are talking about, this sounds interesting.
+++++++++++++++
This isn't a complaint about stuff from the 1:45am interrogation making it into the trial via defamation of Lumumba thing, is it?

 

[Jungle Jim]

Obviously, by the time she was in court she would have been referring to him by name.

Prior to that, she only knew him by sight.

Clearly you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say "This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Fulcanelli writes:

No doubt because none of those profiles were found in or on Meredith, in her room, mixed with her blood around the cottage, on the murder knife, or anywhere else it shouldn't be. And also because all the people you mention had rock solid alibis and didn't act suspiciously afterwards.

Whether the DNA should or should not be there, or whether it was left by someone with a solid alibi, depends entirely on whose it is. For all anyone knows, it could have been someone else who was involved in the murder. After all, Amanda didn't leave any DNA in Meredith's room, and yet there she supposedly was, assaulting Meredith with the big kitchen knife she supposedly carried around in her purse, saying, "now you'll be forced to have sex, you prissy girl!" Of course, I realize that the learned Massei has rejected the Prissy Girl motive in favor of the Reefer Madness motive, i.e.:

You may assume that this choice of evil began with the drug use that occurred that evening, as stated by Amanda. The effects of drugs of the kind used by Amanda and Raffaele as hashish and marijuana, was heard prof. Cut the which, while underlining the strong inter-subject variability (p. 211, ud. 17.7.2009) stated that the use of these substances affects cognitive ability, and determining the changes in perception (p. 201 and 207) and understanding of the situation (p. 218). In turn prof.Cingolani which together with prof. Umani Ronchi and to Professor in April had also occupied the appearance toxicology (see expert report filed on 15/4/2008 pagg.26 and following), answering questions by asking him whether the use of drugs lowers inhibitions replied: "This is beyond doubt"

 

[Bruce Fischer]

The police don't have to deal with an attorney. Once someone is made a suspect the police can never question them again, attorney or not, at least not for that offence. Did you not know that?

Only judges can question suspects.

Are you being serious? You explain all of this needless information when you knew exactly what my post was saying. What a complete waste of time.

No longer being able to talk to Amanda would be the reason that the police would not want her to get an attorney. This is pretty clear.

I know it's just a game for you but why waste time with this nonsense?

 

[shuttlt]

Charlie,

Aren't Cingolani and Ronchi defence experts?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

You are getting hysterical. Calm down.

I am actually very calm. I am very pleased with the direction this case is going and I am confident that this injustice will eventually be corrected.

 

[shuttlt]

Didn't like my own post, so deleted it.

 

[shuttlt]

Fulcanelli,

Are you able to provide a cite for your statement about the police not being able to interrogate suspects?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Didn't like my own post, so deleted it.

Would you be okay with your daughter being interrogated through the night without an attorney in a foreign country?

This has no relevance to Amanda's case, I am simply interested in your opinion on the matter.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Whether the DNA should or should not be there, or whether it was left by someone with a solid alibi, depends entirely on whose it is. For all anyone knows, it could have been someone else who was involved in the murder. After all, Amanda didn't leave any DNA in Meredith's room, and yet there she supposedly was, assaulting Meredith with the big kitchen knife she supposedly carried around in her purse, saying, "now you'll be forced to have sex, you prissy girl!" Of course, I realize that the learned Massei has rejected the Prissy Girl motive in favor of the Reefer Madness motive, i.e.:

But no foreign DNA was found anywhere it shouldn't have been except for Amanda's, Raffaele's and Rudy's, except for perhaps two partial profiles that were found on the clasp that were so partial, they could never be matched to anyone anyway. Therefore, what purpose would having other people's DNA serve?

As far as I could see, Mignini wasn't offering 'Reefer madness', in fact he wasn't specific about what drugs were consumed (we only have the word of the convicted that it was only hash and alcohol) and was quite happy to accept there could have been any sort of drugs. But he wasn't claiming drugs were the cause, rather that they lowered their inhibitions and restraint from something that they did because they WANTED to. Understand, Mignini wasn't blaming drugs, he was blaming THEM.

I still don't understand why Amanda 'had' to have left DNA in Meredith's room, or why it's absence is being touted as proof of innocence. Since when is the absence of DNA regarded as proof of innocence in any court. I'm also wondering why, if Amanda's DNA hadn't got into Meredith's room in the space of a whole two months of her living there, why it HAD to be in there as a result of her being on the room for only 30 to 40 minutes.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Are you being serious? You explain all of this needless information when you knew exactly what my post was saying. What a complete waste of time.

No longer being able to talk to Amanda would be the reason that the police would not want her to get an attorney. This is pretty clear.

I know it's just a game for you but why waste time with this nonsense?

It does not matter what the police do or do not 'want'. What matters is the legal criteria that they are compelled to fulfil. I don't know how many times you need telling this, but the police cannot simply make someone a suspect, even if they wanted to. The legal mechanism demands they have evidence before they can do so. To make a someone a suspect without evidence is ILLEGAL.

Now, you can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and sing 'la la la la la la' all you want, but it makes you no less wrong. If you think you are right, prove that you are so, go and research Italian law, go and speak to Italians who understand Italian law, instead of Americans who have as little understanding of it as you do. You never know, you might actually learn something along the way.

 

[shuttlt]

Would you be okay with your daughter being interrogated through the night without an attorney in a foreign country?

It depends what you mean by "OK". Do you mean would I be unhappy about it? Certiainly. I would be unhappy if my daughter was interrogated by police who suspected her of murder regardless of what country it happened in, or how long it went on for. If by OK, you mean, would I feel it is correct and appropriate that the police should interrogate my daughter through the night, I think that is a harder and more complicated question. Parents are not necessarily the most rational people in judging how it is right to treat their children.

If my daughter had been murdered, and the police suspected someone, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with them having to answer a lot of questions and having a horrid stressful time. I think the price for that is that, if somebody elses son or daughter is murdered and the police suspect my child, then I have to put up with my child having a horrid and stressful time with the police. I wouldn't have to like it though.

This has no relevance to Amanda's case, I am simply interested in your opinion on the matter.

I agree. Certainly the "interrogated through the night" part is not important since Amanda doesn't claim that happened, and in any case everything that was important that occurred in the police station last night had been said and done by 1:45am.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Would you be okay with your daughter being interrogated through the night without an attorney in a foreign country?

This has no relevance to Amanda's case, I am simply interested in your opinion on the matter.

I don't really call 1 hour and 45 minutes through the night. And who cares whether it was day or night time? And police question witnesses all the time, in your country as well as in Italy and yes, they question them without a lawyer.

And I will point out, murder is not a 'comfortable' thing. That is why it destroys lives and is such a serious crime. Quit criticising the police for treating it seriously. If it was your daughter lying dead with her throat slashed, would you want the police to be treating it seriously? You bet! So, stop the whining.

 

[Juror]

Would you be okay with your daughter being interrogated through the night without an attorney in a foreign country?

This has no relevance to Amanda's case, I am simply interested in your opinion on the matter.

Putting aside all the legal technicalities, I believe this point connects with people. The answer is of course not.

It will be interesting to see how the new jury sees it. If I try and picture how I would react if I was on the jury, I don't see myself giving any credence to anything related to the Nov. 5-6 interrogation given the context that it happened. Even it if was "legal", I just don't see the output being reliable.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

Are you able to provide a cite for your statement about the police not being able to interrogate suspects?

Here:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17394#p17394