Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Which confirms she remembered the text.

 

[Mary_H]

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

I never can believe that anyone is not embarrassed to use this as an argument. It is kindergarten-level nit-picky.

What part of this do you not see as the police bringing up Patrick?

"GCM: You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?"

"AK: To the person I had written to, precisely."

Do you really want to argue that because she said his name first that she is the one who brought him up?

 

[Mary_H]

Which confirms she remembered the text.

Of course she remembered it once she was reminded of it. I have pictures on my cell phone but I cannot not tell you what they are. If I opened my cell phone and looked at them, I would say, oh, now I remember.

 

[Fiona]

I never can believe that anyone is not embarrassed to use this as an argument. It is kindergarten-level nit-picky.

What part of this do you not see as the police bringing up Patrick?

"GCM: You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?"

"AK: To the person I had written to, precisely."

Do you really want to argue that because she said his name first that she is the one who brought him up?

Yes. I think that is very clear

 

[Mary_H]

They DID ask her.

May I obtusely asked where this has been established?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I never can believe that anyone is not embarrassed to use this as an argument. It is kindergarten-level nit-picky.

What part of this do you not see as the police bringing up Patrick?

"GCM: You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?"

"AK: To the person I had written to, precisely."

Do you really want to argue that because she said his name first that she is the one who brought him up?

Or how about this...she could just of said 'That's Patrick, my boss, it was my reply to him after he told me I didn't need to go to work'. Instead, she came out with a story. Nobody made her.

 

[Fulcanelli]

May I obtusely asked where this has been established?

The police said so, when they testified in the trial. They said they had asked her before about who she had contacted and she had said nobody.

You people are fond of going on about how many times Amanda was questioned. What do you think the police where asking her...about the weather?

 

[Mary_H]

Yes. I think that is very clear

Well, in the interest of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I hope that if you go out into the world and tell people that Amanda uttered Patrick's name first, you would include the fact that it was because she was asked to identify who she had sent a text message to.

 

[shuttlt]

And why is it so important if the police looked at her phone and asked her about a message on it? Why does them asking about it mean that it's necessarily their fault that the whole Patrick story got told? There is an equally silly argument going in the other direction that bangs on and on about them introducing him into the conversation (actually it is often argued that the police named him first and hence it's all their fault). They asked a legitimate question about a suspicious message. Them asking the question is no more of a reason for Patrick to be blamed than Amanda putting a name to the message.

The only important thing I can think of here is whether the police knew about the message from Patrick before hand.

 

[shuttlt]

Well, in the interest of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I hope that if you go out into the world and tell people that Amanda uttered Patrick's name first, you would include the fact that it was because she was asked to identify who she had sent a text message to.

Could somebody tell me what the point of this argument is?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Of course she remembered it once she was reminded of it. I have pictures on my cell phone but I cannot not tell you what they are. If I opened my cell phone and looked at them, I would say, oh, now I remember.

She wouldn't have forgotten it. It had only happened a couple or so days before. They showed her the text. She would have recognised it. All the Italian people Amanda seemed to know spoke English. She stated she sent Patrick the text in Italian because he couldn't speak English. Therefore, she'd have recognised her own text that she'd written in Italian just a few days before.

 

[Mary_H]

The police said so, when they testified in the trial. They said they had asked her before about who she had contacted and she had said nobody.

You people are fond of going on about how many times Amanda was questioned. What do you think the police where asking her...about the weather?

I have no reason to believe they were asking her questions about her whereabouts, her actions and her phone calls until she was in the interrogation. I'm sure she offered all that information as a matter of fact over the course of the four days, but since the police's initial theory of the crime did not include Amanda, they would have no reason to ask her about those things.

Having been the first to arrive in the scene, she had more information than anybody else about what the condition of the house was when she got there. That in itself would probably require quite a few interviews. As I understand it, she and the other roommates also were asked to provide names of anyone who knew Meredith, so they could also be interviewed.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, in the interest of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I hope that if you go out into the world and tell people that Amanda uttered Patrick's name first, you would include the fact that it was because she was asked to identify who she had sent a text message to.

I thought that was common knowledge. Congratulations for establishing what everyone knew and has said already.

 

[Mary_H]

I thought that was common knowledge. Congratulations for extablishing what everyone jnew already.

Then why is it continually argued that Amanda brought his name up first AS IF that meant she brought it up spontaneously in order to accuse him?

 

[stilicho]

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.

How do they distinguish among these two opposite positions? Which lawyer advised them which parts said "guilty" and which parts said "not guilty"?

This goes even further than what I'd suggested--that her lawsuit was won on the basis of permission to publish. You're saying that there was a clear understanding among AK, her lawyers, the recipients of the diaries, and their publishers about what supported guilt and what didn't.

That's much more extreme than what I'd said.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Or how about this...she could just of said 'That's Patrick, my boss, it was my reply to him after he told me I didn't need to go to work'. Instead, she came out with a story. Nobody made her.

That's exactly my argument against this "forced memories" tripe. No one encouraged her to name Patrick as the murderer. She was being asked who she had texted that night. Period.

As Fulcanelli has pointed out, there's quite the distinction between:

"OH, that? That was to my boss. He had told me I didn't have to work, and I was telling him I would see him 'OK, see you later'"

is very different from:

"It's him. It's Patrick. He's bad. He did it."


Similar to the arguments regarding Raffaele's contrived cooking story regarding Meredith's DNA on the knife. While he could have made up a plausible story, he didn't. All he could come up with was a complete fabrication.

While it doesn't make him guilty, it sure as hell doesn't help his cause.

 

[shuttlt]

I have no reason to believe they were asking her questions about her whereabouts, her actions and her phone calls until she was in the interrogation. I'm sure she offered all that information as a matter of fact over the course of the four days, but since the police's initial theory of the crime did not include Amanda, they would have no reason to ask her about those things.

Having been the first to arrive in the scene, she had more information than anybody else about what the condition of the house was when she got there. That in itself would probably require quite a few interviews. As I understand it, she and the other roommates also were asked to provide names of anyone who knew Meredith, so they could also be interviewed.

Mary, I realize I'm starting to be rude by repeatedly asking the same question, but are you saying that the whole Giobbi meme is wrong and you don't believe the police suspected Amanda and Raffaele from day 1?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have no reason to believe they were asking her questions about her whereabouts, her actions and her phone calls until she was in the interrogation. I'm sure she offered all that information as a matter of fact over the course of the four days, but since the police's initial theory of the crime did not include Amanda, they would have no reason to ask her about those things.

Having been the first to arrive in the scene, she had more information than anybody else about what the condition of the house was when she got there. That in itself would probably require quite a few interviews. As I understand it, she and the other roommates also were asked to provide names of anyone who knew Meredith, so they could also be interviewed.

No reason to believe? The police were investigating a murder. They had questioned her several times already. They would have asked her what she was doing on the night of the 1st. The fact Raffaele dropped her alibi, saying what he'd told them before was rubbish, is proof they were asked about their activities on the night of the 1st previous to the 5th.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Then why is it continually argued that Amanda brought his name up first AS IF that meant she brought it up spontaneously in order to accuse him?

Because she did bring his name up and she did accuse him. All the police had done was ask her about a text message.

 

[shuttlt]

Then why is it continually argued that Amanda brought his name up first AS IF that meant she brought it up spontaneously in order to accuse him?

The reverse is argued over and over again as well - that it was the police who first named Patrick. Everybody with a serious interest in the case knows that Amanda named Patrick in response to a police question about the SMS. Could you explain the point that we are arguing our way towards?