Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheDonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. I've never bothered to read up on the child murderers claims in detail (I've gone blank on his name), or the other claims of mysterious strangers. I've been goaded to look this stuff up on Perugia-Shock before. It struck me as an impossible task then and it strikes me as an impossible task now. As you say, it seems rather unlikely that the owners of the unidentified prints will rise up out of the internet no matter how hard I Google.
 
Mary_H said:
They weren't wrong not to interrogate her about the cell phone before they suspected her.
Click to expand...

Wait, double negatives kill my reading comprehension.

Could you please post this in a singularly positive statement (and I'm not being facetious...I just want to make sure I understand exactly what you're trying to argue here)
 
Still trying to catch up from earlier today...

Fulcanelli said:
So what about the vibrator? It's the FOA who love to keep bringing up the vibrator and talking about it...nobody else cares.

Information was given to the public for the public's right to know.
Click to expand...

Apparently the vibrator was important to Amanda because it was the first thing she brought up when it was her turn to testify. Obviously, she was dismayed at having issues surrounding her sexuality discussed in such a public forum. The public had no right to know she owned a pink bunny vibrator.

I don't know...because of the sexual nature to the event and the fact they were on trial for a SEX MURDER? And because it showed they were hardly cut up about Meredith's murder and...mat even have been turned on by it.
Click to expand...

This information and other information were part of the prosecution's efforts to damage Amanda's reputation and raise suspicions about her in the minds of the populace as well as the jury panel. If that were not an established phenomenon, Amanda's lawyers would not have sued to prevent the general reading audience to getting a hold of the information.

Hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Exactly the same mechanisms are at work.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Is there any chance you could provide that quote again, as well as the link for where it came from? I don't know which page of this thread it is on.
Click to expand...
I posted it about 6 hours ago, here it is again:

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

The lies of her boyfriend

The phone records examined by the postal police proved crucial to reconstruct the movements of the boys. And to deny what had hitherto said. The first to admit that he had "told a lot of crap" and promptly. The young man is summoned to the police station at 22:40 on 5 November, two nights ago. After the discovery of the corpse of Meredith had already been questioned, but told her not knowing what had happened: "I was out with Amanda," it was justified. Now understand that the situation has changed. And so he decided to change his or her own version. The minutes of Raffaele Sollecito begins at 22:40 on Tuesday. "I've known Amanda for two weeks. From the evening when I met her began to sleep in my house. On November 1 I woke up around 11, I had breakfast with Amanda and then she left and I went back to bed. I reached his house around 13-14. There was also Meredith came out hurriedly towards the 16 without saying where he went. Amanda and I went downtown around 18 but can not remember what we did. We stayed downtown until 20:30 or 21. I to 21 are left alone at home, while Amanda said she would go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet his friends. At this point we said goodbye. I went home, I got high, had dinner, but I do not remember what I ate. Around 23 fixed on the user called me at home my father. I remember Amanda was not back yet. I navigated to the computer for two hours after the call from my father and I only stopped when Amanda came back, presumably to the 1. Do not remember as if it were dressed and was dressed the same way as when we said goodbye before dinner. I do not remember if we consumed that night intercourse. The next morning we woke up around 10 and she said she wanted to go home to shower and change clothes. In fact came out about 10.30 and I went back to sleep. When Amanda also took out an empty envelope, saying that would have served to put dirty clothes. At about 11:30 she returned home and I remember that he had changed clothes. He was carrying the usual bag. At this point, according Sollecito, Amanda said she would be worried. "He told me - says the young - that when she arrived at his house found the door wide open and blood stains in the bathroom small. He asked if it seemed strange. I answered yes and I advised him to call her friends. She said he phoned Filomena (another girl who lives in house murder ed), and said that Meredith did not answer. "

The return home

The two go together in the apartment. And so I urge reconstructs those moments: "She opened the door with the keys and I entered. I noticed that Filomena's door was wide open with the windows down and the room a mess. Amanda's door was open and had everything in order instead. Then I went towards Meredith's door and saw it was locked. First I looked to see if it was true what Amanda had told me the blood in the bathroom and I noticed drops of blood on the sink, while on the mat there was something strange, a sort of mixed water and blood, while the rest of the bathroom was clean .... The rest was in order. Just then Amanda came into the big bathroom and came out scared and hugged me and told me that before, when he took a shower, he saw that instead of feces in the water was now clean. I wondered what was happening and I went out to see if I could climb on the window of Meredith ... I tried to break down the door but I could not and then I decided to call my sister and I recommended to her because he is a lieutenant in the carabinieri. He told me to call 112, but in the meantime the police arrived by post. In the previous report I have referred a lot of crap because she had convinced me of his version of events and I did not think the inconsistencies. "
Click to expand...

Again, sorry for any translation errors Google may have introduced. The link is to the Italian original.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Wait, double negatives kill my reading comprehension.

Could you please post this in a singularly positive statement (and I'm not being facetious...I just want to make sure I understand exactly what you're trying to argue here)
Click to expand...

You implied I was saying the police were wrong no matter what they did. I said the police were right when they did not ask Amanda about her cell phone messages in the first two days of the crime.
 
Mary_H said:
You implied I was saying the police were wrong no matter what they did. I said the police were right when they did not ask Amanda about her cell phone messages in the first two days of the crime.
Click to expand...
So, you don't think they suspected her in the first two days? What about all the fuss about Giobbi saying that they did?
 
I do not know if they asked her before the 5th. But I do not see what that has to do with suspecting her or not. It seems likely that they would have asked everybody all sorts of things about what they did on the night of the murder, both on the 2nd and thereafter. But until RS said that she had not been with him for the whole evening they had no basis to ask where she went or who she met night. Once he said that, it was very natural to pursue that line. Knox denied she had gone out and they got insistent about it: they asked why she had not gone to work and she said Patrick had told her she didn't have to work. They asked to see that message on her phone and it wasn't there: but her outgoing message was there and in Italian it meant that she was meeting someone. They did not realise this was not what she meant, and so they read it in the way it would read if an Italian had written it. And they asked who the message was to and she said she could not remember. And then she did remember and she said it was Patrick: but she did not say it was her response to his original message and explain what happened: instead she accused him of murder. It is the last bit which is mysterious. The rest seems quite simple to me
 
shuttlt said:
I posted it about 6 hours ago, here it is again:

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml


Again, sorry for any translation errors Google may have introduced. The link is to the Italian original.
Click to expand...

Is that it? That doesn't say she asked him to lie. That says he now has a version of the story in his head that is inconsistent with the version he had before. Considering this statement was made after his interrogation, it's most likely the differences came about a a result of the interrogation.

I still don't see anyone providing any evidence that either suspect lied before they were interrogated.
 
shuttlt said:
She could have just replied to his text.
Click to expand...

That's right, she could have. But she'd have remembered it. Especially as she testified in court that when she got Patrick's message she was so happy to get the message saying she didn't need to go into work. Yet, then next days she'd forgotten it. According to Mat on the 5th she'd still forgotten it. Yet nearly two years later she remembered how happy about the text she was when it came to her testifying.
 
Mary_H said:
Is that it? That doesn't say she asked him to lie. That says he now has a version of the story in his head that is inconsistent with the version he had before. Considering this statement was made after his interrogation, it's most likely the differences came about a a result of the interrogation.

I still don't see anyone providing any evidence that either suspect lied before they were interrogated.
Click to expand...
And the business about his father's call and what he did after?
 
Mary_H said:
Is that it? That doesn't say she asked him to lie. That says he now has a version of the story in his head that is inconsistent with the version he had before. Considering this statement was made after his interrogation, it's most likely the differences came about a a result of the interrogation.

I still don't see anyone providing any evidence that either suspect lied before they were interrogated.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that tends to happen a lot when police interrogate criminals..their BS gets exposed.

The police have stated Raffaele was called in because of inconsistencies in his statements. that means things didn't match...that means lies.
 
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...

They were not suggesting Patrick. She produced Patrick's name: it was not sugggested to her and she said so in court, though it took a while to tease out the truth

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.
Click to expand...

<snip>

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!

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."
Click to expand...

<snip>

' 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--
Click to expand...

<snip>

because in the end, what happened was
this: when I said the name of "Patrick", I suddenly started imagining a kind
of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn't agree, that maybe
could give some kind of explanation of the situation. I saw Patrick's face,
then Piazza Grimana, then my house, then something green that they told me
might be the sofa. Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted
to know everything I had done. But I didn't know how to say. So they started
talking to me, saying, "Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so
you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?" I don't know, maybe in Piazza
Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. "Okay,
fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the
door?" Well, with my key. "So you opened the house". Okay, yes. "And what
did you do then?" I don't know. "But was she already there?" I don't know.
"Did she arrive or was she already there?" Okay. "Who was there with you?"
I don't know. "Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?" I don't know.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
That's right, she could have. But she'd have remembered it. Especially as she testified in court that when she got Patrick's message she was so happy to get the message saying she didn't need to go into work. Yet, then next days she'd forgotten it. According to Mat on the 5th she'd still forgotten it. Yet nearly two years later she remembered how happy about the text she was when it came to her testifying.
Click to expand...

At the time she was being interrogated, it was mundane. Did the police ask her at her interrogation how she felt when she found out she didn't have to work that night? If so, she probably would have given the same answer she gave in court.
 
Mary_H said:
On the 2nd and 3rd they saw the text message she sent to Patrick saying, "See you later?"
Click to expand...
Asking her about what messages she received and examining her phone are not at all the same thing. Didn't she say at the police station on the 5th/6th that she hadn't had any messages? Perhaps that's what she told them on the 2nd as well. Could be an innocent error. She did have quite a bit going on afterall and in the scheme of things Patricks message wouldn't have been important to her.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom