Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
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).
Click to expand...
Yes. That would not take very long. The interpreter and 30 others in the room and resultant confusion might have dragged it out a bit.
 
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...

It takes more than just 5 days, not only to get those records, but to also sift through the records of everyone being interrogated.

Not to mention the possibility that the Phone Co might need a Court Order to release the info...
 
BobTheDonkey said:
It takes more than just 5 days, not only to get those records, but to also sift through the records of everyone being interrogated.

Not to mention the possibility that the Phone Co might need a Court Order to release the info...
Click to expand...
And, how identifiable was Lumumba's SIM? Depending on where he got it they could have just had a number and no name.
 
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...

Not at that point, no...she wasn't a formal suspect.
 
"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."

(Fiona) Why?
Click to expand...

So you're looking at it as if they asked Amanda who the test message was to, and when she said she couldn't remember, they asked her who she was protecting.

I agree that is a possibility. But maybe one of Amanda's other supporters will come along and straighten me out. :)

I still think it's a pretty big jump from there to an accusation of murder without any prodding from the police. There was no good reason for Amanda to have willfully accused Patrick of murder. Not only did she like Patrick, but if she actually had any knowledge of the crime, she would have known her story would have crumbled once they analyzed the crime scene.
 
Mary_H said:
I still think it's a pretty big jump from there to an accusation of murder without any prodding from the police. There was no good reason for Amanda to have willfully accused Patrick of murder. Not only did she like Patrick, but if she actually had any knowledge of the crime, she would have known her story would have crumbled once they analyzed the crime scene.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point, Mary. Exactly the point.
 
Mary_H said:
I still think it's a pretty big jump from there to an accusation of murder without any prodding from the police. There was no good reason for Amanda to have willfully accused Patrick of murder. Not only did she like Patrick, but if she actually had any knowledge of the crime, she would have known her story would have crumbled once they analyzed the crime scene.
Click to expand...
I haven't had a chance to integrate this thought with the rest of my thinking on the interrogation, but at least some of the studies (I think the keypress one) said people are far more likely to confess if they believe their confession will be disproved later (they were innocent subjects of course). It could equally be that (assuming she's guilty) she thought she was blown and made up the best ******** she could, without enough time to think it through, based on what she thought the police would believe and hoped it would all pan out.
 
Last edited:
Mary H said:
I still think it's a pretty big jump from there to an accusation of murder without any prodding from the police. There was no good reason for Amanda to have willfully accused Patrick of murder. Not only did she like Patrick, but if she actually had any knowledge of the crime, she would have known her story would have crumbled once they analyzed the crime scene.
Click to expand...

That's what we've been saying all along.

The reason was simple. Raffaele had dropped her alibi and she didn't have a replacement story about what she was doing on the evening of the 1st. She took the opportunity of blaming Patrick to get them off her back. She didn't name Rudy, since he'd have dropped her in it in return. Patrick on the other hand she knew to be innocent, so she also knew there was nothing he would say that could hurt her. And she didn't know the crime scene would prove Patrick innocent...the absence of evidence is not proof of innocence and it certainly wouldn't prove her a liar, but her statement against Patrick was evidence. It would have been like most rape cases...one person's word against the other. And who's everyone going to believe...a nice white middle class girl...or the black guy?
 
To be fair, she may have believed that Patrick would eventually be exonerated. She may also have believed that she would be free to leave the country once they had arrested Patrick: on the understanding that she would come back to testify. It is a little unlikely but it is possible. What she would not have known was that placing herself at the scene was making herself a suspect. I do not think Italian law is quite the same as american law in that respect (correct me if I am wrong). This is mere speculation but I think it possible that she thought that Patrick would be arrested and would later be found to be innocent: and that she would be free and clear. RS had just dropped her right in it and she may not have cared if this put him in an awkward position: or she may have thought that ultimately Guede would be identified and would carry the can as a lone wolf.

Or she might have said the first thing that came into her head and have been utterly reckless as to the consequences for Patrick. Who knows?
 
Last edited:
The text was to Patrick: she knew that and the police didn't.

The question is not why would Patrick come into her head: the question is why would she accuse an innocent man of murder. I cannot think of a good reason why she would do that...
 
Fiona said:
To be fair, she may have believed that Patrick would eventually be exonerated. She may also have believed that she would be free to leave the country once they had arrested Patrick: on the understanding that she would come back to testify. It is a little unlikely but it is possible. What she would not have known was that placing herself at the scene was making herself a suspect. I do not think Italian law is quite the same as american law in that respect (correct me if I am wrong). This is mere speculation but I think it possible that she thought that Patrick would be arrested and would later be found to be innocent: and that she would be free and clear. RS had just dropped her right in it and she may not have cared if this put him in an awkward position: or she may have thought that ultimately Guede would be identified and would carry the can as a lone wolf.

Or she might have said the first thing that came into her head and have been utterly reckless as to the consequences for Patrick. Who knows?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's what she was hoping for, although I think she'd have been quite happy to settle for Patrick not being exonerated as the second best result.
 
shuttlt said:
And, how identifiable was Lumumba's SIM? Depending on where he got it they could have just had a number and no name.
Click to expand...

From Claudia Matteini's report, published November 9th:

Mr Lumumba had tried to "cover his tracks" after the murder by using different mobile phones, the report said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...le2841412.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000

If it takes more than five days to get the phone records, then that means the police must have asked for Lumumba's records no later than the 3rd.
 
Mary_H said:
From Claudia Matteini's report, published November 9th:

Mr Lumumba had tried to "cover his tracks" after the murder by using different mobile phones, the report said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...le2841412.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000

If it takes more than five days to get the phone records, then that means the police must have asked for Lumumba's records no later than the 3rd.
Click to expand...

No, it means when the police arrested him they asked him for his phone and Patrick told them it was a new phone.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Because the text message gave her the opportunity to. And the message 'did' read as though she was going to meet him that night. He was 'Jonny on the spot'.
Click to expand...

Why did the police even ask her about the text message? How did they know it was on her phone?
 
Because she told them he had told her not to go to work. That is what she said, anyway. They asked to see that messge: it wasn't there. Her reply was there, though.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
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
Click to expand...

I think to understand this better it needs to be put in context with Raffaele's interrogation which preceded the above actions. Before the police asked Amanda about the text they had finished ascertaining from Raffaele that Amanda had left his apartment. IMO, they went into Amanda's questioning with the intent of finding further proof that she had possibly left his apartment. When they went through her phone they found the text to "someone" that she was going to meet up with them that night. Bingo. From there, they were convinced she had left Raf's place to meet someone else and they were determined to get to the bottom of it. Had it not been for Raf's statement prior to her questioning that she had left his place, I don't think they would have latched so literally to the words "see you later".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom