Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kestrel said:
Science has shown that police interrogation techniques can elicit false statements from suspects. When these techniques were used on Amanda Knox, she signed a statement that included things that were clearly false.
So why do so many so called "skeptics" on JREF insist that that other parts of her statement are proof that Amanda was at the scene of the crime when Meredith was murdered?

When science conflicts with the decrees of an authority figure, a skeptic should be siding with science.
Click to expand...

Nice how "can" became "did".
 
Malkmus said:
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".
Click to expand...
True, and once the whole 'confession' thing happens it all fits together (or at least it appears to).
 
Malkmus said:
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".
Click to expand...

Absolutely
 
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...
Hi Shuttlt,
Thanks for the reply.
I really, really think that you are a very good at digging deep for information when you find it curious. And myself, in my free time, I like to read, not watch TV, so I have read many of your posts, even some of the earlier "Shittit" posts, which are very informative in debate and discussion. Though I might not agree with you on some things, you are very knowledgable. A few of the questions I have asked seem to be part of defence's argument during Raffaele Sollecito's appeal. And so I just thought that you specifically might find something of significance about those questions I asked about as you search far and wide daily about this case.
Heck, if I could, I would still luv to read a transcript of Guede in his trial testimony. Maybe I just have to dig deeper, hmmm.
Anyways, have a good one.
RWVBWL
 
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

What are we arguing about?
Click to expand...

What is your source for Amanda claiming she could not remember who sent her the text message?
 
Mary_H said:
"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."



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.
Click to expand...

To save herself?
 
Fiona said:
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...
Click to expand...

To me that is the most damming fact against Amanda.

We know that she accused Patrick.

We know he was innocent therefore we know that Amanda lied.
 
Mary_H said:
We don't know the answer to that question because we don't have a record of what was said at the interrogation.



It absolutely is a suggestion to ask someone who a specific message was sent to when they already knew the answer.
Click to expand...

I agree.

We'll never know why the police didn't document nor record the interrogation. They were in the police station and it seems really dishonest to say they didn't have any equipment available.

I don't recall ever reading the excuse for this?
 
JREF2010 said:
I agree.

We'll never know why the police didn't document nor record the interrogation. They were in the police station and it seems really dishonest to say they didn't have any equipment available.

I don't recall ever reading the excuse for this?
Click to expand...

They don't record witnesses.

It was covered upthread.
 
Kestrel said:
The excuses were given upthread, but only the JREF authoritarians accepted the explanation.
Click to expand...

Any idea where upthread?

I would think the police would have insisted on recording the interrogation for both documentation of evidence purposes and protect themselves from potential accusations of mischief later.

What is the other side of the argument?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom