Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

I still have not seen anyone offer any evidence that Amanda and Raffaele had any differences between their alibis BEFORE they were interrogated by the police. After the interrogations, all bets are off, because they were then operating from the "information" the police gave them about each other.

You seem to be saying that you're puzzled that no one had any questions about their alibis until they were questioned about their alibis.

Huh?

And then they decided they liked the police versions better than the ones they started with, so they used those instead, and that's why they got arrested.

Okay.

Do Knox a favor. Don't argue her case for her. You're not helping her any.

 

[Amazer]

I still have not seen anyone offer any evidence that Amanda and Raffaele had any differences between their alibis BEFORE they were interrogated by the police. After the interrogations, all bets are off, because they were then operating from the "information" the police gave them about each other.

And you don't see an obvious clue here? If they had been together and doing the things they originally claimed to have been doing then they would have known that the investigators were feeding them wrong information.

That in itself of course doesn't prove that they were involved in the murder of Meredith. It does show however that they weren't honest about their original alibi.

 

[Mary_H]

How would we know what alibi's they gave the police before the police asked them? I thought they went straight to the police station to answer some questions after the "discovery" of the body. I don't understand your point.

If you don't know what alibis they gave the police before their interrogations, then how can anyone claim they changed their stories or their stories were inconsistent?

 

[Matthew Best]

Well, someone's confused. You track down where I said that about Fulcanelli, and then we'll review the source of confusion.

Obviously when you mentioned "desperate voices of single-issue posters visiting ... from unflinchingly partisan advocacy blogs" I got the wrong end of the stick. My apologies.

 

[Mary_H]

You seem to be saying that you're puzzled that no one had any questions about their alibis until they were questioned about their alibis.

I AM saying that. The question is why the police brought them in for interrogations when they had not lied. A lot of people say the police suspected them because of their lies and their changing stories. There is no evidence to support that argument.

 

[RoseMontague]

If you don't know what alibis they gave the police before their interrogations, then how can anyone claim they changed their stories or their stories were inconsistent?

How would anybody know what their alibi's were before they talked to the cops as they went immediately to the police station and talked to the cops. They even talked to the cops on the way to the station. If I recall Raffaele was quite inquisitive with the cops in the police car.

 

[Fiona]

Who is "a lot of people"?

 

[Mary_H]

And you don't see an obvious clue here? If they had been together and doing the things they originally claimed to have been doing then they would have known that the investigators were feeding them wrong information.

I'm sure Amanda and Raffaele did know the investigators were feeding them the wrong information. That's why the interrogators needed the time the interrogations took -- to talk the two into the "new" stories.

 

[Mary_H]

How would anybody know what their alibi's were before they talked to the cops as they went immediately to the police station and talked to the cops. They even talked to the cops on the way to the station. If I recall Raffaele was quite inquisitive with the cops in the police car.

They talked to the cops several times in the days following the murder. Their stories did not stop matching until after their formal interrogations, after whcih they were arrested.

 

[Fiona]

So we should only ever accept what people say before they talk to the police, because that is the only time they ever tell the truth? Interesting perspective

 

[RoseMontague]

They talked to the cops several times in the days following the murder. Their stories did not stop matching until after their formal interrogations, after whcih they were arrested.

Do you have access to statements to know they were "matching"?

 

[Mr.D]

Perpetually catching up over here ...

What are the Italian words for "witness" and "suspect" as they are used in Italian jurisprudence with respect to procedure and rights? It might aid in communications if those words were used when the writer wishes to differentiate from the common english usage.

 

[Amazer]

I'm sure Amanda and Raffaele did know the investigators were feeding them the wrong information. That's why the interrogators needed the time the interrogations took -- to talk the two into the "new" stories.

Of course.... that's what happened.... how did I not see this before?

Thank you Mary for shining a light where there was only darkness before. I'm totally convinced now of Amanda's innocence..........




Uhm.... Raffaele's innocence too of course....




But could you maybe give a bit of evidence that is what happened? Just so that I could be twice as certain?
You know, evidence that their original alibi was what they were really doing that night. Evidence that these interrogations took unusually long. Evidence that the investigators did "talk" them into those new stories.

 

[Mary_H]

Do you have access to statements to know they were "matching"?

No, we don't. We only have access to what they said after their interrogations. That is why no one can legitimately claim they were lying or changing their stories before their interrogations, or that differences in their stories was what prompted the police to interrogate them.

I assume the police would have interrogated them much earlier if they had evidence their alibis didn't match.

Is there anyone who can establish that Amanda and/or Raffaele lied or were inconsistent before their final interrogations?

 

[quadraginta]

They talked to the cops several times in the days following the murder. Their stories did not stop matching until after their formal interrogations, after whcih they were arrested.

How do you know this?

How do you know that it wasn't discrepancies in their stories which prompted further questioning? And that the further questioning didn't continue to uncover even more problems? This is a rather normal progression when liars are being exposed.

Are you just making this up?

 

[RoseMontague]

Mary H,
I am sorry but I think you are beating a dead horse with a Red Herring.

 

[Mary_H]

How do you know this?

How do you know that it wasn't discrepancies in their stories which prompted further questioning? And that the further questioning didn't continue to uncover even more problems? This is a rather normal progression when liars are being exposed.

Are you just making this up?

The problem is not what we know but what we don't know. You wrote: "I am referring to the pattern of lies and evasion exhibited by Knox and Sollecito, and the desperately transparent efforts to regroup as their various deceptions were exposed."

You have no evidence of a pattern of lies or evasion. You have only the records from Amanda and Raffaele's writings, all of which were created after their interrogations and reflected what they were told at the interrogations.

There was no effort to regroup -- once they were interrogated, they were held separately.

 

[RoseMontague]

What I have seen of Amanda's statements (including her email to everyone) were not consistent with Raffaele's statements nor for that matter consistent with Amanda's other statements. What I have seen from Raffaele's statements (including an interview with a reporter prior to his arrest) were not consistent with Amanda's statements, nor for that matter, consistent with Raffaele's other statements. Yet you want me to believe they all gave perfectly matching statements on many occasions prior to their arrest. And you want me just to take this on faith?

 

[Mary_H]

What I have seen of Amanda's statements (including her email to everyone) were not consistent with Raffaele's statements nor for that matter consistent with Amanda's other statements. What I have seen from Raffaele's statements (including an interview with a reporter prior to his arrest) were not consistent with Amanda's statements, nor for that matter, consistent with Raffaele's other statements. Yet you want me to believe they all gave perfectly matching statements on many occasions prior to their arrest. And you want me just to take this on faith?

You point out what Amanda wrote that is not consistent with what Raffaele said BEFORE his interrogation, and I will point out the problems with the alleged interview between the reporter and Raffaele. It will have to be later, though; I don't have time right now.

 

[Mary_H]

And you want me just to take this on faith?

If you believe that Amanda and Raffaele lied or changed their stories before talking to the police, you are taking that on faith, because no one has provided any supporting evidence.