Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary H said:
It absolutely is a suggestion to ask someone who a specific message was sent to when they already knew the answer.
Click to expand...

But they didn't already know the answer. That's 'why' they asked her.
 
shuttlt said:
Could somebody tell me what the point of this argument is?
Click to expand...

The police questioned Amanda on who sent her the text message. She responded with Patrick's name. According to Fiona's logic, that indicates Amanda brought up Patrick without prodding from the police, because she was the first one that said Patrick's name.

A claim raised earlier in this thread was that Amanda could not identify the policewoman who hit her during the interrogation. Amanda described a policewoman with long, chestnut brown hair in court, but that didn't count because she didn't know the policewoman's name.

The idea that you don't identify a person unless you say their name is indeed rather childish.
 
Mary_H said:
Here, darling.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/refuted
Click to expand...

Yes, and you didn't do that.

Unless you're claiming you meant the "deny the accuracy of"...which I highly doubt.


Regardless, you have not actually proven anyone wrong about this. Rather, you have refused to accept the court testimony to the contrary of your opinion. You might want to take a break and think about why, exactly, it is that you disagree with what your heroine (Amanda) has stated.
 
shuttlt said:
My fault, I'm being too relaxed in my word choice. There is the whole line about Giobbi and the psychological observations that led them to suspect Amanda and Raffaele. It's been thrown at me in the past as a 'suspected from day 1' thing, but I don't know for sure whether it's day 1, day 2, or day 3 he's referring to.
Click to expand...

He was referring to the night of the 5th. You can hear him say just that if you listen to his interview (look up 'Sex, Lies and the Murder of Meredith Kercher' on Youtube).
 
Last edited:
Kestrel said:
The police questioned Amanda on who sent her the text message. She responded with Patrick's name. According to Fiona's logic, that indicates Amanda brought up Patrick without prodding from the police, because she was the first one that said Patrick's name.

A claim raised earlier in this thread was that Amanda could not identify the policewoman who hit her during the interrogation. Amanda described a policewoman with long, chestnut brown hair in court, but that didn't count because she didn't know the policewoman's name.

The idea that you don't identify a person unless you say their name is indeed rather childish.
Click to expand...

You are choosing to be as obtuse as Mary. It would do you well, Kestrel, to take a break and perform the same exercise I suggested for Mary.
 
Kestrel said:
The police questioned Amanda on who sent her the text message. She responded with Patrick's name. According to Fiona's logic, that indicates Amanda brought up Patrick without prodding from the police, because she was the first one that said Patrick's name.

A claim raised earlier in this thread was that Amanda could not identify the policewoman who hit her during the interrogation. Amanda described a policewoman with long, chestnut brown hair in court, but that didn't count because she didn't know the policewoman's name.

The idea that you don't identify a person unless you say their name is indeed rather childish.
Click to expand...

Actually, she responded with 'It's him, it's Patrick, he's bad, he did it'.
 
Mary_H said:
Here, darling.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/refuted
Click to expand...

Usage: The use of refute to mean deny as in I'm not refuting the fact that is thought by some people to be incorrect. In careful writing it may be advisable to use refute only where there is an element of disproving something through argument and evidence, as in we haven't got evidence to refute their hypothesis.
Click to expand...

I am one of those people :). SOED agrees with me. I accept that language drifts however.

If you agree that you denied it, but did not "To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof:" I am content to give you the word. So long as we are all clear which meaning you are using
 
Fiona said:
Obviously.

She was asked about who she sent the text to: she said she did not remember. They did not believe her (and they were quite right, because she did then remember). But instead of saying who it was to and explaining what it meant, she accused him of murder.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's quite a claim. She never bothered to explain to them what the message was about, she just went straight from being asked about the message to accusing Patrick? How did they fill the rest of the time? Oh, that's tight, they were adjusting the chairs.

How long do you think it took her to remember who the text message was to, once she read it? An hour or so?

The police did not "suggest" his name: they did not "suggest" he was a killer. They thought she had arranged to meet someone and they wanted to know who. Amanda thought the best idea was to accuse this perfectly innocent man of murder: there was no need for that and no justification for it.
Click to expand...

According to Amanda's testimony, the police asked her who she was protecting. Do you think they asked her that before or after they asked her about the text message? I think they asked her before. I think they asked her who she was protecting and then they asked her to identify the person she sent the message to. If that is not a suggestion, I don't know what is.

It would be one even if they asked her after she told them Patrick's name.
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
I am one of those people :). SOED agrees with me. I accept that language drifts however.

If you agree that you denied it, but did not "To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof:" I am content to give you the word. So long as we are all clear which meaning you are using
Click to expand...

Well, I believe I refuted it but I will go on record as having denied it.
 
Kestrel said:
The police questioned Amanda on who sent her the text message. She responded with Patrick's name. According to Fiona's logic, that indicates Amanda brought up Patrick without prodding from the police, because she was the first one that said Patrick's name.
Click to expand...
But what is the point of it? We can piss about over the semantics of it, but in so far as this argument goes, we all agree over the chain of events, don't we?

1. Police ask Amanda to hand over phone.
2. Police ask Amanda who a message had been sent to.
3. Amanda says she doesn't remember.
4. Police don't take no for an answer.
5. Amanda remembers the text was to Patrick

What are we arguing about?

Kestrel said:
A claim raised earlier in this thread was that Amanda could not identify the policewoman who hit her during the interrogation. Amanda described a policewoman with long, chestnut brown hair in court, but that didn't count because she didn't know the policewoman's name.
Click to expand...
Either she couldn't actually identify the police woman, or the defence made no effort over the year or more after the interrogation to get her to identify the police woman. I don't think anybody is arguing that she should remember the police woman's name. If they are, I can't see why they would.

Kestrel said:
The idea that you don't identify a person unless you say their name is indeed rather childish.
Click to expand...
How hard would it be to identify the officer? How many police women can there be who might be the woman? Bruce has a list of 30+ people who signed the statement, her name is probably on that. If two years in Amanda still doesn't know the name of the woman who hit her, then whose fault is that?
 
Fulcanelli said:
He was referring to the night of the 5th. You can hear him say just that if you listen to his interview (look up 'Sex, Lies and the Murder of Meredith Kercher' on Youtube).
Click to expand...
I see, my bad. That'll teach me to rely on the word of anonymous bloggers on Perugia-Shock. Actually, if he is referring to the night of the 5th, then the whole incident is being over sold.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
But they didn't already know the answer. That's 'why' they asked her.
Click to expand...

Did the police not have records of all the calls Amanda made the day of the murder, right down to the exact number of minutes that have been the subject of many debates? If they had access to those records, how hard would it have been to get access to her phone records for the day before, if they wanted to? Don't cell phone records usually list the numbers that have been called? It is information the phone provider can track and provide to the police, at least in the United States.

If they didn't have access to the text message, they wouldn't have asked her about it. If they had access, they knew who it was sent to.
 
Mary_H said:
Wow, that's quite a claim. She never bothered to explain to them what the message was about, she just went straight from being asked about the message to accusing Patrick?
Click to expand...

Yes.

How did the fill the rest of the time? Oh, that's tight, they were adjusting the chairs.
Click to expand...

No they filled it as you would expect: they asked her what happened and she made up a lot of stuff and then they terminated the interview because she became a suspect. You know that because you, too, have read her testimony.

How long do you think it took her to remember who the text message was to, once she read it? An hour or so?
Click to expand...

I have no idea but it does not seem to have been all that long: long enough to frustrate the police though :)

According to Amanda's testimony, the police asked her who she was protecting.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct

Do you think they asked her that before or after they asked her about the text message? I think they asked her before.
Click to expand...

Why? She said this

When they found the message,
they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn't remember doing.
That's when they started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid
liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone
Click to expand...

It is not accurate because she implies they found Patrick's message to her and they didn't of course: so we cannot rely on it. But the order is find and ask about the text first: ask about protecting someone after. And that makes sense. They did not believe she did not remember and perhaps it occurred to them that she might be protecting someone because she was afraid or because she was complicit.

I think they asked her who she was protecting and then they asked her to identify the person she sent the message to. If that is not a suggestion, I don't know what is.

It would be one even if they asked her after she told them Patrick's name.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
shuttlt said:
At what time did the the whole SMS/naming of Patrick thing happen?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but long enough for Amanda and the police to argue for awhile and for someone outside the interrogation room to hearing yelling (or screaming or crying).
 
Mary_H said:
Did the police not have records of all the calls Amanda made the day of the murder, right down to the exact number of minutes that have been the subject of many debates? If they had access to those records, how hard would it have been to get access to her phone records for the day before, if they wanted to? Don't cell phone records usually list the numbers that have been called? It is information the phone provider can track and provide to the police, at least in the United States.

If they didn't have access to the text message, they wouldn't have asked her about it. If they had access, they knew who it was sent to.
Click to expand...
When did they get this information together? How easy would it be for them to identify Patrick from the phone number? I vaguely recall there was some confusion caused by him changing his phone shortly after the murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom