Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[capealadin]

Thank you for the welcome. A confused and coerced statement? A couple of smacks to the back of the head (already proved to be a lie) a false accusation made (only when her boyfriend says she wasn,t at his place between 9.00pm and 1.am) and, the boyfriend wasn,t *slapped*, denied food.) Seemingly almost perfect recall of the events prior to leaving Raffaele's place (even after smoking (according to them, lots of *spinell*)and then confusion, memory loss).And then again, perfect recall of events in the early hours of the morning. Unfortunately, with this perfect recall, came untold further lies. Of course, it makes sense. When your partner in crime has just destroyed your alibi, panic is bound to set in. Further stupid mistakes are made. * I ****ed up so bad, Madison*.

 

[Mary_H]

Thanks, Bruce. You betcha (as Sarah Palin would say).

Hi Bob. Thanks for responding. You make a reasonable point about the meaning of night interrogations. The place and time in which Solzhenitsyn was writing did not have the 24-hour economy we have today. It's a little irrelevant, though -- I seriously doubt the police set their interview schedules to fit the times that were convenient for the 86 people they interviewed.

I don't have the details about when Amanda and Raffaele were summoned versus the time they arrived at the police station. If what you say is true, my take would be that given they had been talking to the police every day since Nov. 2nd, they probably just figured this would be more of the same type of informal interview. The question arises, though, of why, once Amanda and Raffaele got there, the police didn't just tell them to go on home and they would see them tomorrow. Like Lumumba, they had given no signs of leaving town; in fact, they had been cooperative in the days leading up to the interrogations. In other words, if the police had not wanted to do the interrogations at night, they didn't have to.

I haven't heard before that the police felt blown off by Raffaele. If true, that raises questions about whether the police started out their interrogations with feelings of annoyance and irritation with the two students.

I don't know what time Lumumba was taken into custody. I seriously doubt, though, that he was not on the police's radar before Amanda "accused" him, so the question remains of why they did not interview him. They certainly should have. In my opinion, they waited to arrest him in a dramatic way in order to make a big splash for the media and announce "case closed," the next morning. They just used Amanda as a sort of double-check.

People say Amanda spontaneously "brought up" Patrick's name before the police did, but I find it very hard to believe that the group of officers allowed Amanda to control the direction of the interrogation. I believe they were prepared with a line of questioning when they took her in.

 

[capealadin]

Well, Charlie, sure they knew she was lying about being in her bofriend's apartment. So, when she told them she was ACTUALLY with Patrick, they had an admission. I believe testing tissues, cigarette butts, etc, would have taken some time. Time they didn,t have, with a murderer on the loose. Amanda admitted to being in the cottage at the time of the murder, and I believe her.

 

[Fiona]

The police care. They are trained to do this sort of work at night. In The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn made a list of 31 techniques used by prison interrogators. Questioning suspects at night is Number One on the list:

Well it makes a change from Godwinning a thread, I suppose. It has no bearing at all on this case, however

<snip>

It was for this very reason the Perugian police arrested Patrick Lumumba at night. Not only did it render Patrick virtually helpless, it also made the arrest much more dramatic and hence more newsworthy.

Once again, mere assertion: they arrested Patrick as soon as they had got the appropriate warrants etc after Knox accused him. What else would you expect them to do? As I have said to you before, any police force would do the same. The risk of leaving a murderous sexual predator free in a town full of vulnerable citizens is not defensible and if something else happens (another murder; or the suspect fleeing the police would be be rightly pilloried)

It has been reported that, in the days following the murder, the Perugian police interviewed 86 various people who were acquainted with Meredith Kercher. They did not interview Patrick Lumumba, a well-known, local businessman who was also the employer of one of their prime suspects. Why not?

Why should they?

It also has been reported the police were observing Patrick's cell phone activity -- they were aware he had switched either cell phones or sim cards in the days following the murder. If true, what possible reason could they have for not interviewing him calmly, during the day, in the presence of a lawyer, before Amanda's interrogation -- especially about Amanda?

I am not aware that they were doing that before he was arrested but you may well be right. Who else were they doing that with? I see no evidence that they thought he had relevant information nor that they had any reason to suspect him. They seem to have been quite busy. If they interviewed 86 people in 4 days then they presumably interviewed them in order of importance as they saw it based on what they knew at the time. I do not see any signficance to what you are saying at all

When the police stormed out to arrest Patrick in the middle of the night, he was at home, where he had slept every night since the crime was committed. In other words, they had no evidence he was planning to leave town. What was the rush?

The rush was that they had reason to believe he was a murderous sexual predator. Do you think that the public/press etc would have been balanced if he had happened to kill again while they were being "fair"? I think the proposition is fairly silly

 

[Dan O.]

A lie? Where?

What was the prosecutor claiming in presenting the shoe print evidence to the judge?

 

[Fiona]

What was the prosecutor claiming in presenting the shoe print evidence to the judge?

Ah well. No apology then.

Never mind: anyone can read the whole post you quoted, Dan_O. Anyone can see you dishonestly misrepresented it. I will let that post speak for itself

 

[Dan O.]

A couple of smacks to the back of the head (already proved to be a lie)

Where is this proof? They burned whatever recordings were made of the interrogation. The officers involved of course won't admit to such behavior, There was no investigation beyond saying they already heard the testimony of some of the officers in court. Case closed.

 

[Kermit]

... my take would be that given they had been talking to the police every day since Nov. 2nd, they probably just figured this would be more of the same type of informal interview.

Thank you Mary H.

This comment is the first one in two and a half years by someone who is supportive of Amanda, where the police interviews of Nov. 2, 3 and 4 (a good part of the 50+ hours of torture which some FOA types and the Entourage refer to) are presented as simply routine, informal interviews.

The question arises, though, of why, once Amanda and Raffaele got there, the police didn't just tell them to go on home and they would see them tomorrow.

Because not all murders are solved between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., especially when you have a sex murderer on the loose and he (she?) could strike again.

People say Amanda spontaneously "brought up" Patrick's name before the police did, but I find it very hard to believe that the group of officers allowed Amanda to control the direction of the interrogation.

The only manner in which Amanda "controlled" the direction of the questioning was by giving answers to some questions, which would lead to further questions.

If you find it difficult to believe how Amanda brought up Patrick's name, please read her trial testimony, where she admits that she did indeed bring it up.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Where is this proof? They burned whatever recordings were made of the interrogation.

Cite? Or is this just more conspiracy crap?

 

[Mary_H]

Oops, when I posted my reply I didn't realize there was another whole page following. I have to agree with Matthew, Bob; I was thinking more in terms of the police deliberately scheduling the "interviews" at night. However, if the two were scheduled to come in earlier, then I will have to adjust my claims.

The question no one ever seems able to answer, though, is why did the police neglect to interview Patrick? Fiona asks, why should they? Patrick seems to me to be more well-connected to the case than some of the other people who were interviewed. I'm sure that over the course of the four days leading up to the interrogations, Amanda must have told the police several times that she was scheduled to go to work that night but it was canceled so she stayed at Raffaele's instead. If they had really begun suspecting Amanda, it would only have been sensible to ask Patrick about her alibi.

 

[Fiona]

What would Patrick have known about her alibi?

 

[Mary_H]

Amanda knew him, worked for him. Who would know his character better?

And vice versa.

 

[Dan O.]

It has never been claimed that Knox's shoeprint was on the pillow, so far as I recall.

That is a pretty bold lie.

Perhaps you think the world of yourself and the only claims that matter are the ones you make. I showed you a case where the prosecutor was presenting the claim that Amanda's shoe print was on the pillow. The claim wasn't solid but the judge still bought it. That one just happened to be evidenced in this thread and posted by you. But you bold claim "It has never been claimed" is open ended. There is no restriction clause to yourself, this thread, all of the posters at PMF; it has universal scope. You should never make such broad claims because there are always exceptions. (Yes, I did that on purpose)

 

[Mary_H]

She claimed to be an eyewitness, not only under interrogation but afterward when she was no longer under duress. All that happened before Lumumba was arrested.

Sorry, Bob, I can't agree. There is no time when you are under arrest that you are not also under duress. In fact, Amanda may have been under even more duress when she offered the police an additional statement in the morning, since by that time she had been informed she was a suspect (we hope). She also knew she did not have the freedom to leave, which alters one's feelings of autonomy and self-possession. Accordingly, the tone of the statement she gave the police is one of absolute bewilderment.

It's not as if once they stopped interrogating her, she suddenly felt okay and was back to her old self; that would be impossible for anyone. At what point after the interrogation do you think she consciously believed they did not want any more information out of her?

 

[Fiona]

Bruce Fisher it might help if you read this thread. It has never been claimed that Knox's shoeprint was on the pillow, so far as I recall. I do remember saying that there was a smaller shoeprint which did not match Meredith's and did not match any of Amanda's shoes either and that the police did not attribute it.That was very early on and I do not recall that ever being challenged.

It seems to me that you were stating that there were five prints unambiguously matched to guede's. I do not think that is correct and I thought that was what the discussion was about. But if you feel you have won a point in saying that knox's shoeprint cannot be shown to be there then it really has been a waste of time because nobody said it was.

Perhaps you think the world of yourself and the only claims that matter are the ones you make.

And perhaps your nasty insinuations are persuasive to some people: but that doesn't make them true or relevant.

I showed you a case where the prosecutor was presenting the claim that Amanda's shoe print was on the pillow.

I missed that: can you post it again? It is certainly no part of the current exchange so it would be helpful if you quoted it, or at least gave a post number. It will be interesting.

But it has nothing to do with what we were talking about because a claim by the prosecutor,even if it exists, is not a claim which has been made on this board so far as I am aware. I wondered if the fact that I was talking about this thread was perhaps unclear: but I cannot see how it can be, given that I talked about this thread and then immediately about the lack of any such claim. Normally that sequence establishes the context of what is being said. Do you have any reason to do it differently this time?

The claim wasn't solid but the judge still bought it.

Well I did not see that claim being made. That is why I said what I did (it was not attributed). But I await your cite of the claim.

That one just happened to be evidenced in this thread and posted by you.

Which one? Are you suggesting this is not a separate post you are talking about but mine? If you are then I cannot help you because it is impossible to participate constructively in a text based board if you have very poor reading skills. Sorry Dan_O but your problem is beyond my capacity to assist

But you bold claim "It has never been claimed" is open ended. There is no restriction clause to yourself, this thread, all of the posters at PMF; it has universal scope. You should never make such broad claims because there are always exceptions. (Yes, I did that on purpose)

See above

 

[Fiona]

Sorry, Bob, I can't agree. There is no time when you are under arrest that you are not also under duress. In fact, Amanda may have been under even more duress when she offered the police an additional statement in the morning, since by that time she had been informed she was a suspect (we hope). She also knew she did not have the freedom to leave, which alters one's feelings of autonomy and self-possession. Accordingly, the tone of the statement she gave the police is one of absolute bewilderment.

It's not as if once they stopped interrogating her, she suddenly felt okay and was back to her old self; that would be impossible for anyone. At what point after the interrogation do you think she consciously believed they did not want any more information out of her?

Ah. Back to the idea that the police should not ask anybody any questions, or should not rely on any of the answers. We have been here before. We will need to abandon the whole idea of criminal justice: but as I said the last time this was mooted: it will save a lot of money on police forces and jails and so that is a plus

 

[Kermit]

Keep in mind, Kermit agrees 100% with the conclusion of my presentation. Kermit agrees that Amanda's shoe print is not on the pillow.

Yet Kermit keeps repeating endlessly; "show me the 5 perfect matches Bruce"

He doesn't like one sentence that I put on an article comment section on the daily beast.

Let me remind you, he agrees 100% with my conclusion.

.... Keep in mind, Kermit agrees 100% with my conclusion.

.... Kermit uses this "perfect match" sentence from the daily beast to try and discredit me.

Keep in mind, Kermit agrees 100% with my conclusion.

The entire time, Kermit agreed with my conclusion regarding the shoe prints on the pillow.

.... Not one person on this thread disagreed with his tactics.

.
Bruce, maybe you need a break.

1) You say that I "agree 100% with the conclusion of your presentation". Which presentation? The Vinci presentation? I'm not sure that I've agreed with you on much, if anything. However you repeated several times that I agree 100% ... I'm intrigued to know with what.

2) As I pointed out a couple of times yesterday, I DON'T agree that Amanda's shoe print is not on the pillow. Why do you repeat falsehoods? You are actually a very poor spin doctor. If you yourself estimate that 90% of the people on this thread are not pro-Amanda (a thread which was created with the name: "Amanda Knox guilty-all because of a cartwheel"), it is quite likely because of readers seeing through (in fact, by their own admission in some cases, laughing through) your posts. I say very seriously, that maybe Mr. Marriott should take you aside for a chat.

3) If I rejected your affirmative conjecture that there are five "perfect matches" between the stains on the pillow and Rudy's Nike sole, it's not because I reject evidence that Rudy was in the murder room and he stepped on the pillow. He is justly imprisoned for his participation in Meredith's murder. What I reject is your constant use of affirmative conjecture to present your suppositions as fact. With just two "perfect matches", Rudy is toast. Why stretch the truth? (By including further specks of blood, maybe you could get it up to 17 "perfect matches"!!)

 

[capealadin]

@ Mary H. And vice versa: Yes, Patrick did know her charachter. That's why he demoted her. And said she was extremely jealous of Meredith.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
Bruce, maybe you need a break.

1) You say that I "agree 100% with the conclusion of your presentation". Which presentation? The Vinci presentation? I'm not sure that I've agreed with you on much, if anything. However you repeated several times that I agree 100% ... I'm intrigued to know with what.

2) As I pointed out a couple of times yesterday, I DON'T agree that Amanda's shoe print is not on the pillow. Why do you repeat falsehoods? You are actually a very poor spin doctor. If you yourself estimate that 90% of the people on this thread are not pro-Amanda (a thread which was created with the name: "Amanda Knox guilty-all because of a cartwheel"), it is quite likely because of readers seeing through (in fact, by their own admission in some cases, laughing through) your posts. I say very seriously, that maybe Mr. Marriott should take you aside for a chat.

3) If I rejected your affirmative conjecture that there are five "perfect matches" between the stains on the pillow and Rudy's Nike sole, it's not because I reject evidence that Rudy was in the murder room and he stepped on the pillow. He is justly imprisoned for his participation in Meredith's murder. What I reject is your constant use of affirmative conjecture to present your suppositions as fact. With just two "perfect matches", Rudy is toast. Why stretch the truth? (By including further specks of blood, maybe you could get it up to 17 "perfect matches"!!)

Do you believe that a shoe print on the pillow belongs to Amanda Knox?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html