Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuttlt said:
Thankyou so much for your kind suggestion. If you feel this stuff is important and want to dig into it you are welcome to do so. If you think there is any likelihood of the internet providing answers to these questions I have no idea what you are wasting your time bothering me for. Off you go and crack this case wide open.
Click to expand...
Hi Shuttlt,
From reading your many posts, I admire your tenacity to find answers to qestions that interest you by digging deep, and I just feel, somehow, that you, Shuttlt, might help answers some of those questions I wrote of...
Have a good rest of the day,
RWVBWL
 
Fulcanelli said:
That's because the police didn't ask him about Raffaele, they only asked him about Amanda.

He recognised Amanda because he'd seen her before with Sollecito. But her didn't know it was she that had been arrested for murder until he saw it in the paper days later. He didn't come forward because he didn't think it important as the police had only asked him about Raffaele.
Click to expand...

I dont follow this. Might need to edit?
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Shuttlt,
From reading your many posts, I admire your tenacity to find answers to qestions that interest you by digging deep, and I just feel, somehow, that you, Shuttlt, might help answers some of those questions I wrote of...
Have a good rest of the day,
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

Why not do it yourself? Shuttit and others have done loads of work on this thread and these are questions which interest you so...
 
Mary H said:
The journalist who published the book containing the whole diary, including the "unhelpful bits," lost the lawsuit brought by Amanda's lawyers against publication. I don't think they would have given her the diary and then sued her for publishing it.
Click to expand...

Just because someone gives you something, it doesn't mean you're allowed to publish it. On PMF for example, we get sent things in confidence.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Actually, they would have asked her the day right after the murder if she had contacted anyone and vice versa the previous evening.
Click to expand...

Good point. Obviously, they didn't ask her about it at those times because they did not yet suspect her. If they did suspect her at those time and they didn't ask her about it, they weren't being very thorough, were they?

Why would she not remember? She wouldn't recognise the number when they showed it to her? But hey, she seemed to remember it was Patrick when she blurted out "It was him, he's bad, he did it!"
Click to expand...

Do we even know for a fact that Amanda repeatedly said she did not remember? Amanda testified that the police asked her who she was protecting. That is not a question about memory.

I already explained why she wouldn't remember. It happened four days earlier and she had no doubt communicated with a lot of people since then. Recognize the number? I couldn't tell you offhand the cell phone numbers of 90% of the people in my cell phone contact list.

She only made statements about Patrick after the police had given her reason to believe he was involved in the crime.
 
Mary H said:
Good point. Obviously, they didn't ask her about it at those times because they did not yet suspect her. If they did suspect her at those time and they didn't ask her about it, they weren't being very thorough, were they?
Click to expand...

Your comprehension is off. they DID ask her. She told them she'd contacted nobody and nobody had contacted her that evening.

Mary H said:
Do we even know for a fact that Amanda repeatedly said she did not remember? Amanda testified that the police asked her who she was protecting. That is not a question about memory.
Click to expand...

Why would they be telling her to remember unless she told them she didn't remember?

Mary H said:
I already explained why she wouldn't remember. It happened four days earlier and she had no doubt communicated with a lot of people since then. Recognize the number? I couldn't tell you offhand the cell phone numbers of 90% of the people in my cell phone contact list.
Click to expand...

They would have asked her on the 2nd!! The night of the 5th was not the first time they asked her. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Amanda would have had a very short list of telephone numbers. And how the hell would she have been able to text Patrick if she didn't know his number?
 
Mary H said:
The only possible reason they could have for allowing the journalist to have parts of Amanda's diary that she didn't want published would be to purposely cause a scandal and ask for the trial to be thrown out because of it. In fact, they did ask for the trial to be thrown out because of the book, but purposely causing such a scandal seems to me to be an extremely dangerous gamble that they were likely to lose. I also can't believe Amanda was on board for the whole world knowing about her sexual history.

I can't find anything that says Amanda's lawyers and the journalist, Fiorenza Sarzanini, had some kind of arrangement that she violated. If they gave it to her with the sole purpose of causing a scandal, then why would they bother to sue her? Do you think they just asked her to go through with the suit and then they gave the settlement money back to her in secret?

Claim filed:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...published.html

Claim settled:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...M6sWmQhGZlkpYM

Here is an article about the luridly editorial aspect of the book:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5258040.ece
Click to expand...

You forget it was not only Amanda's lawyers who had access to the diary. Raffaele's lawyers also had access, as did Patrick's.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
stilicho - your comment is more ridiculous that the 53 hour interrogation claim. Amanda was under a lot of pressure. It was coming from multiple people and she was scared. In fact, the interrogators lied to her and scared the hell out of her.
Click to expand...

Lied to her about what?
 
Fiona said:
What reason would that be?
Click to expand...

Knox claimed the police then pressured her into implicating former bar owner Patrick Lumumba in the murder.

"I didn't expect to be interrogated ...When I got there I was sitting on my own doing my homework when a couple of police officers came and sat with me," Knox testified. "They began to ask me the same questions they'd been asking me all those days ever since it happened — for instance, who could I imagine could be the person who had killed Meredith. I said I still didn't know."

"Everything (I) said was said in confusion and under pressure," she said. "They (the officers questioning me) were suggesting Patrick Lumumba so the first thing I said was 'OK, Patrick.'"

Lumumba's lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, asked her why she had implicated his client during the interrogation.

"They told me try to remember what I apparently, according to them, had forgotten," she said. "I couldn't understand why they were so sure that I was the one who knew everything and so in my confusion I started to imagine that maybe I was traumatized, like what they said. The declarations were taken against my will."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525960,00.html
 
Mary_H said:
Obviously, they didn't ask her about it at those times because they did not yet suspect her. If they did suspect her at those time and they didn't ask her about it, they weren't being very thorough, were they?
Click to expand...
So, the Police were wrong. And even if they were right, they were still wrong.

Gotcha.
 
Fulcanelli said:
You forget it was not only Amanda's lawyers who had access to the diary. Raffaele's lawyers also had access, as did Patrick's.
Click to expand...

My claim was that it is most likely Amanda's defenders would have released parts that supported Amanda's innocence and her detractors would have released parts that supported her guilt.
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Shuttlt,
From reading your many posts, I admire your tenacity to find answers to qestions that interest you by digging deep, and I just feel, somehow, that you, Shuttlt, might help answers some of those questions I wrote of...
Have a good rest of the day,
RWVBWL
Click to expand...
OK, RWVBWL, I'll be nice again. There are so many bitchy comments, one can get trigger happy. Perhaps I need to remind myself I'm not on Perugia-Shock and I don't need to be quite so defensive.

My guess is your questions aren't answerable on the internet. I may be wrong, and perhaps at some point I will have time to look. I'm really more focused on finding out how we came to know what we know about the case and where misinformation came from. If I see anything relating to the issues you mentioned I'll certainly post it.
 
Mary_H said:
Knox claimed the police then pressured her into implicating former bar owner Patrick Lumumba in the murder.

"I didn't expect to be interrogated ...When I got there I was sitting on my own doing my homework when a couple of police officers came and sat with me," Knox testified. "They began to ask me the same questions they'd been asking me all those days ever since it happened — for instance, who could I imagine could be the person who had killed Meredith. I said I still didn't know."

"Everything (I) said was said in confusion and under pressure," she said. "They (the officers questioning me) were suggesting Patrick Lumumba so the first thing I said was 'OK, Patrick.'"

Lumumba's lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, asked her why she had implicated his client during the interrogation.

"They told me try to remember what I apparently, according to them, had forgotten," she said. "I couldn't understand why they were so sure that I was the one who knew everything and so in my confusion I started to imagine that maybe I was traumatized, like what they said. The declarations were taken against my will."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525960,00.html
Click to expand...

'Claimed'.
 
Mary_H said:
Knox claimed the police then pressured her into implicating former bar owner Patrick Lumumba in the murder.

"I didn't expect to be interrogated ...When I got there I was sitting on my own doing my homework when a couple of police officers came and sat with me," Knox testified. "They began to ask me the same questions they'd been asking me all those days ever since it happened — for instance, who could I imagine could be the person who had killed Meredith. I said I still didn't know."

"Everything (I) said was said in confusion and under pressure," she said. "They (the officers questioning me) were suggesting Patrick Lumumba so the first thing I said was 'OK, Patrick.'"

Lumumba's lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, asked her why she had implicated his client during the interrogation.

"They told me try to remember what I apparently, according to them, had forgotten," she said. "I couldn't understand why they were so sure that I was the one who knew everything and so in my confusion I started to imagine that maybe I was traumatized, like what they said. The declarations were taken against my will."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525960,00.html
Click to expand...

Because Fox is somehow a more trusted news outlet than Amanda's own testimony, which has been posted (time and again) to show that she was not coerced into giving Patrick's name, not just as the recipient of a text, but as the murderer.
 
shuttlt said:
OK, RWVBWL, I'll be nice again. There are so many bitchy comments, one can get trigger happy. Perhaps I need to remind myself I'm not on Perugia-Shock and I don't need to be quite so defensive.

My guess is your questions aren't answerable on the internet. I may be wrong, and perhaps at some point I will have time to look. I'm really more focused on finding out how we came to know what we know about the case and where misinformation came from. If I see anything relating to the issues you mentioned I'll certainly post it.
Click to expand...

Methinks you've been asked to go on a wild goose hunt. The idea that the 13 partial prints could be later identified is, well, laughable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom