Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stillicho: No, I,m trying to get the info where Rudi said to a friend or in his diary, that he had mediated an earlier argument between Amanda and Meredith. Not the night of the murder. I just got a lesson on how to link, and haven,t completed the second part, as above.
 
He said that at his appeal but not at his trial? This is unusual.

Would be nice to have the whole thing in quotations. How did he identify Amanda only by her silhouette?

It's pretty obvious Rudy just takes out what he can gather from the press and then adjusts his story accordingly.
 
Have to go out, Stillicho. Will be back very late, but will check back and see if anything has developed, as far as any links. Ciao.
 
RoseMontague said:
I am however disappointed with the delay.

I understand that people are impatient and for good reason. But there are two ways you are going to get a translation...a low quality version, or a high quality professional version, checked by a range of experts in various fields. Quality takes time and in the case of a professional translation of specialised documents, specialised experts are also required. We opted for quality and this is in the interests of everyone, regardless of where they may sit in regard to the fence.
 
Shuttit said:
Given that fragments of the diaries may (I intend to imply all probilities between 0 and 1) have been released by the police/prosecutor, have any bits of the 1:45am statement ever surfaced enclosed between quotes, rather than a summary, or someone recalling what was said? I had a nose around on PMF 'In Their Own Words' and couldn't find anything.

It's only Amanda's diary that's fragmented. Full translations of Raffaele's and Rudy's diaries are available.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Amanda Wrote: "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make it clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion."

Amanda was very confused and she was scared. This did not seem to matter to the police. Amanda's illegal interrogation gave them the information they wanted.

As soon as they got Amanda to tell them what they wanted to hear, they went out and arrested Patrick Lumumba with no further questions asked. As it turned out, Patrick was innocent.

Amanda's statements about Patrick were completely unreliable. Amanda tired to explain to the police that her statements were made during a time of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion and she didn't believe them to be true. After all, she was only stating what the Interrogators wanted to hear. At the time, the police simply didn't care. They arrested Patrick anyway. The police are responsible for Patrick Lumumba's imprisonment, not Amanda Knox.

yeah, let's see what the judge thought of that:

Amanda
-The so-called "memoir" was itself a defensive statement written to explain the "confessions." It was admitted only through Article 237 CPP ['documents from a suspect can be admitted'], but it has only the same value as the previous statements. It was made at the same time and in the same place; if the other two statements are not admissible then neither is the memoir.

The events and threatening outcomes put me in a state of anguish and terror; this written statement is merely the expression of it.

-And let's not forget my education and my dreamy nature, which was exacerbated by the use of psychotropic substances.

-It was just an imaginary delirium that I fantasized in an attempt to get out of an extremely difficult situation.

Immature individuals, under the weight of acute fear, can have a defensive reaction of this type and create fantasy visions.
What made this possible was that it was implied that if I signed such an accusatory document I would be released. For these reasons, the so-called memoir reflects only my state of confusion and torment and we cannot define it as being certain, unambiguous and serious as the law requires for it to be a serious clue of guilt.

Claudia
The reasons that led you to write the memoir, as you explain them now, lack substance, because the only thing that counts for the purpose of using it for the process is that it comes from the suspect. And it was deliberately written by the suspect, so any violation of defensive rights is excluded.
There are no doubts as to whether this document was delivered spontaneously to the police. Indeed, on November 7 the director of the House of Detention writes that you spontaneously delivered to the Vice-Commander of your section two manuscript sheets, which were about the memoir.
Finally, looking at the content of the memoir itself, we must admit that its content is very careful. It is certainly not "a fantastic and imaginary delirium."

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=1177#p1177
 
Brice Fisher said:
The police told her that she knew what name they wanted to hear.

If Amanda was guilty and wanted to place the blame on another person, why would she ever admit to being in the cottage?

Because she didn't realise that just being there and doing nothing (per her story) would be regarded as a crime (she was innocent, had nothing to do with it, was only in the kitchen, Patrick did it all, blah blah).
 
Bruce Fisher said:
We are left with many questions in regard to the interrogation. Many of these questions will never be answered. I am well aware of the fact that the interrogation looks bad for Amanda. In fact, if Amanda had a attorney we would not be here discussing this right now. Rudy Guede would be serving a life sentence for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Justice would have been served.

You may answer many if you post up the the transcript of what she stated, the transcript we've been told you have.
 
Amanda Wrote: "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make it clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion."

Amanda was very confused and she was scared. This did not seem to matter to the police. Amanda's illegal interrogation gave them the information they wanted.

As soon as they got Amanda to tell them what they wanted to hear, they went out and arrested Patrick Lumumba with no further questions asked. As it turned out, Patrick was innocent.
Amanda's statements about Patrick were completely unreliable. Amanda tired to explain to the police that her statements were made during a time of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion and she didn't believe them to be true. After all, she was only stating what the Interrogators wanted to hear. At the time, the police simply didn't care. They arrested Patrick anyway. The police are responsible for Patrick Lumumba's imprisonment, not Amanda Knox.

Why were the police out to get Patrick?
 
Christianahannah said:
In Italy do many witnesses acquire an attorney while being questioned by the police? And by witnesses, I mean those who are not suspects but are one of many being questioned by police. If a witness can have an attorney present while being questioned does that automatically make them a suspect? Also, did any of the others who were questioned by the police (Meredith's flatmates, etc.) have attorneys present while being questioned?

It's fine, if you go up to the station with a lawyer in tow. But, if in mid interview, you suddenly state 'I'm not answering anymore questions without a lawyer', then you'll be classed as no longer co-operating. They'll have to stop the interview...the lawyer will turn up and tell you not to say anything. You will have moved from 'witness' to what could be considered 'hostile witness', thereby, they will make you a suspect. And by doing so, they pass you on to a higher authority, a judge...who has greater powers.

Understand...you have only a short window to speak to the police in Italy...that's you're opportunity to tell them the truth and convince them. That's what innocent people want to do.
 
el buscador said:
Capealadin, why did rudy have to be protected? Amanda had already pointed out his bathroom leavings. And she had already given him as a visitor to the house though I'm not sure if she gave his name.

Because there is a great deal of difference between leaving clues that point to an individual and openly accusing them, forcing them to retaliate and relate your role in the affair?
 
He would have never thought to incriminate Amanda and Raffaele. Rudy barely knew Amanda and he didn't know Raffaele at all.

When all of the evidence was collected, it pointed to Rudy Guede.

He knew her well enough...he'd just recently murdered Meredith with her.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Amanda did not meet Rudy on a number of occasions. She saw him around. When you see someone walking down the street do you consider that meeting someone? Amanda barely knew Rudy. This is a fact.

She'd met him Bruce, on a number of occasions and those are only the ones they've admitted to. Stop being so defensive.

Bruce Fisher said:
2 experts testified in court that one person attacked Meredith.

DEFENCE experts...that's their job, that's what they're paid to do. That doesn't in itself mean they are wrong. What shows if they are right or wrong is the evidence...read Massei. And if you want to go even further back, read Micheli...he didn't think much of their arguments either.

Bruce Fisher said:
You are missing the point completely. If Amanda had an attorney, none of the questioning would have occurred at the police station. This crime would have been solved using the evidence at the crime scene. That evidence points to Rudy Guede. Rudy would have never dreamed of incriminating Amanda and Raffaele. Where would he have come up with that story?

Yeah yeah and if she'd have fled the country she'd never have been arrested in the first place....none of this is an argument for innocence. Rather, you're griping because she got caught.

The evidence points to and convicts all three. As shown in the trial verdict and the Report.

Bruce Fisher said:
You and I look at this case much differently. I believe that Amanda and Raffale had nothing to do with the murder. They weren't there.

Proof? And if you have no such proof, how can you state that is so as an absolute?

Bruce Fisher said:
Rudy didn't know Raffaele,

Who says?
 
Last edited:
Stilicho said:
Originally Posted by capealadin
Bruce, In Rudi,s conversation, he says he had to step in when Meredith and Amanda had a previous argument.
Cite?

I don't recall Rudy having ever testified that Amanda was in the cottage when the murder occurred. If you can cite the passages then we would all be on the same page here.

This was one version of Rudy's statement to Mignini that Rudy made in late March 2008. It was reported in the media...whether it's correct or not I don't know. What is certain, is that several different versions of Rudy's statements were reported.

If you want the actual word for word statement posted, a good person to ask is Charlie Wilkes, since he claims to be in possession of the whole case file. They can clear all this crap up if they just publish the information they have. Instead, they're being cagey. I don't understand why those acting on behalf of a supposedly innocent party have to be so cagey. Maybe they can tell you.

And while we're at it and the Massei Report has been a recent topic, why haven't the FOA released a translation of the Massei Report? Unless they don't have one. In which case...what are they objecting to in regard to his reasoning...in a report they can't even read and haven't read because it's all in Italian?
 
Shuttit said:
I thought Laura was interviewed/interrogated 6 times? Did only the first time happen during this crucial period?

6 times MINIMUM...we don't have the final figure of how many times she was questioned in total.

Shuttit said:
If the killer had burned the house down there would have been very little evidence at all and perhaps none of them would be in prison.

And then, it's hard to think of quicker way of getting the police to the scene...right? And if the fire brigade put the fire out before it does enough damage? Risky move that.
 
Last edited:
Mary H said:
Of course, you are correct, RWVBWL.

I'm starting to think you two should maybe get a room or something.

Mary H said:
Laura and Filomena both retained lawyers right away. Apparently they had an inkling of what might be in store for them if they didn't.

Cite?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom