Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

OK, that's fair enough. Let's let the lawyers figure out when she became a suspect.

Do we agree that the statements where she implicated herself, including any of the signed declarations prior to the "memorial" were not admissible? That much has been established at any rate.

There's another reason that I think that Amanda might have been a "real" suspect before 05 NOV 2007. It's because of her 04 NOV 2007 alibi email. I find it remarkable that she already has an alibi in place for bathmat hopping and mixed sources of DNA in the bathroom when she couldn't possibly know about that unless someone had suggested it to her. I think they did ask her about her activities in the cottage and were trying to find out whether the blood had dried when she first noticed it.

Again, I will put this under the category of "hunch" but that might be one of the reasons her lawyers are trumpetting the suspect angle. To be truthful, I believe she made self-incriminating statements even before 04 NOV 2007 but they have never been produced to my knowledge.



They batted .500. Patrick was arrested because a witness declared him to be the murderer.

Shouldn't it be .750? The Police arrested 4 people, 3 of whom look to be guilty (according to the evidence)...

EDIT: And, from what I recall regarding the discussion during Amanda's testimony, the Judges decided that Amanda became an official suspect at approx 1:45am, Nov 6th. The Police may not have believed her alibi, but that doesn't make her guilty nor a suspect - i.e. Just because I don't want to tell the Police that I was out cheating on my gf does not mean I'm suspected of being involved in a murder that happened that evening. However, placing myself at the scene of the crime during the crime...well...that's just foolish/stupid.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Do we have the full text of this statement? I keep getting this one mixed up with the "memorial". The latter is the one reprinted in the Telegraph.

Where is the 05:45 declaration?

I do the same. I've not seen the 5:45 declaration... I just know it was referenced a number of times during Amanda's testimony.

 

[stilicho]

Shouldn't it be .750? The Police arrested 4 people, 3 of whom look to be guilty (according to the evidence)...

Nope. This is by the count of the Mary_H's and Bruce Fisher's of the world.

RG: Arrested, convicted, correct, 1.000 BA
PL: Arrested, released, correct, 1.000 BA
AK: Arrested, turned cartwheel, convicted, incorrect, .667 BA
RS: Arrested, doorknob DNA transfer, convicted, incorrect, .500 BA

Game, set, match! (Wrong sport but if we're going to mix our metaphors we might as well go the whole nine yards¹)

----------------

1: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-whole-nine-yards.html

 

[Mary_H]

Flat out, wrong.

I provided quotes directly from Raffaele's diary wherein he states, very clearly, that he lied about Amanda's whereabouts at her bequest.

ETA: This is not the first time I have reminded you of this. Please cease with this line of arguing, it only shows just how disingenuous you are.

He does not say anywhere in his diary that Amanda asked him to lie.

Regardless, whatever was written after the interrogations can be assumed to have been influenced by the interrogations. I will not cease with this line of argument until someone gives me evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied before their final interrogations.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

He does not say anywhere in his dairy that Amanda asked him to lie.

Regardless, whatever was written after the interrogations can be assumed to have been influenced by the interrogations. I will not cease with this line of argument until someone gives me evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied before their final interrogations.

Ahhh, so you're intentionally being obtuse.

 

[Fiona]

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.

Of course there is supporting evidence. For example, Amanda told Filomena she was at the cottage when she telephoned her: in her e-mail she said she was at Raffaele's. Those two statements are inconsistent. Both were made before 5th November. Do you think the police would not notice that?

 

[Mary_H]

Here is the information about the Kate Mansey article and her alleged interview with Raffaele. I cite these because, as far as I know, they purport to contain the only written record of anything Raffaele said to anyone before the interrogation by police that led to his arrest.

“The Machine” wrote a piece for the truejustice web site in which he claimed, “There is no question that Raffaele Sollecito has deliberately and repeatedly lied.”

The first article below was used to support his first claim; all of the rest of his claims come from what Raffaele wrote or said after the final interrogation.

Raffaele Sollecito Trapped In His Own Words by “The Machine”

“Lie one. Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.”

http://www.zimbio.com/Meredith+Kerc...Murder+Suspect+Amanda+Knox+Raffaele+Sollecito

Here is the article he was referring to:

ITALY MURDER DETAILS EMERGE
Kate Mansey In Perugia, Italy 4/11/2007
EXCLUSIVE MURDERED IN ITALY..MEREDITH, 21 Friend tells how he broke down door

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/11/04/italy-murder-details-emerge-98487-20058122/

After reading it, please consider that anyone who knows the basic facts of the case knows that hardly anything in the article is true. On the contrary, here is what was said at trial:

"Luca kicked down the door and went white, and Marco yelled 'sangue, sangue -- blood!'" said a key witness today in the trial of American student Amanda Knox, who is accused in the murder of her former housemate, British exchange student Meredith Kercher.

"One of four residents of the house in Perugia, Italy, where Kercher was slain, Filomena Romanelli recalled watching her boyfriend, Marco Zaroli, and a friend, Luca Altieri, breaking into the locked bedroom where Kercher lay dead.

"I recall seeing a blurry image of a comforter and a foot," Romanelli told the court in Perugia. "And then Marco grabbed me and said 'via, via!' and we were ushered out of the house by the police."

http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=6826939

With a very great stretch of the imagination and a heaping helping of prejudice, one could imagine that Raffaele falsely represented himself to Kate Mansey, and claimed he had broken down the door, gone into the room, and led a screaming Amanda out of the house. I prefer to believe that Kate Mansey collected some information from various sources and combined them into the character of Raffaele to keep matters simpler for her readers.

One week later, after Raffaele had been arrested and imprisoned, Kate Mansey claimed that she had come into the preceding information during an interview at a café (unnamed) with Raffaele:

Byline: KATE MANSEY in Perugia 11/11/07

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Day+I...REDITH:+THE+HUNT+FOR+SUSPECT+No4.-a0171084546

After reading that, will someone please let me know that I am not the only person here who can see how contrived that “interview" is? Suddenly, now that Raffaele is a suspect, all of his behaviors have taken on new, sinister meanings – behaviors she never even noticed or mentioned in the previous article.

Does anyone believe she actually saw Raffaele standing lost and frightened on the street in Perugia during the days after the crime? Does anyone believe that the famously silent Raffaele would talk to a British reporter? Does anyone believe the British reporter knew enough Italian to understand what Raffaele said on the phone? Does anyone find the conversation she attributes to him just a LITTLE too convenient?

This would be a great project for an analytical reasoning class.

I am sure that when Kate Mansey wrote her sensational pieces for the Daily Mirror, she had no idea that the falsehoods contained in them would be carried through thousands of arguments in the blogs to support the claim that Raffaele lied about where he was the night of the crime. Too bad.

A question occurs -- authentic, not ironic -- why did The Machine focus only on the detail of the party to prove Raffaele was a liar? Why did he not say Raffaele was a liar for claiming he had kicked down the door?

 

[Mary_H]

Ahhh, so you're intentionally being obtuse.

Not that I know of.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

How about this from Amanda's email on the 4th:

the next morning i woke up
around 1030 and after grabbing my few things i left raffael's
appartment and walked the five minute walk back to my house

We know that's not what time she woke up as her phone was switched on well before then.

 

[Mary_H]

Of course there is supporting evidence. For example, Amanda told Filomena she was at the cottage when she telephoned her: in her e-mail she said she was at Raffaele's. Those two statements are inconsistent. Both were made before 5th November. Do you think the police would not notice that?

Yes, I do think the police would not notice that. How would they even be aware of it, or care?

 

[Fiona]

Yes, I do think the police would not notice that. How would they even be aware of it, or care?

I think they would be aware of it because they were conducting a murder investigation: they had spoken to filomena and they had spoken to Amanda.

 

[Mary_H]

I think they would be aware of it because they were conducting a murder investigation: they had spoken to filomena and they had spoken to Amanda.

Sorry, I really can't see the police asking the girls where they had made the phone calls from, although I guess it's possible. If they did ask, it probably would only have been asked once, and at the time of the initial questioning, their answers might have matched and Amanda got mixed up later when she wrote her e-mail. During the initial interviews, the police were not suspicious of Amanda -- she had done nothing but help them out by pointing out the blood stains in the bathroom, giving them a tour of the cottage and answering their questions.

 

[Fiona]

So you don't think the police ask what people have been doing in some detail when they are investigating a murder? Ok

 

[Mary_H]

So you don't think the police ask what people have been doing in some detail when they are investigating a murder? Ok

They did ask in some detail. They probably just would have no reason to doubt anything anyone said on the first day. Where did you get this information about the phone calls, anyway? Was it brought up at trial?

 

[Fiona]

Filomena testified to it. Amanda's e-mail is the source for her account. The police do not have to have any reason to doubt discrepancies between accounts? I expect they can believe six impossible things before breakfast, can they?

 

[Mary_H]

Filomena testified to it. Amanda's e-mail is the source for her account. The police do not have to have any reason to doubt discrepancies between accounts? I expect they can believe six impossible things before breakfast, can they?

Certainly the police can doubt it, if they are aware of it. I just can't see them even noticing it until they were looking for ways to trip up Amanda's credibility.

What purpose would it serve for Amanda to consciously and deliberately change her story about where she made the phone call from? If anything, she would want to tell Filomena that she called from Raffaele's, because she would not want Filomena to be able to place her at the cottage.

All her inconsistency really shows is that she wasn't concerned about covering her tracks or keeping her stories straight.

 

[Fiona]

You asked for evidence: you got evidence: it makes no difference. Ok

 

[Mary_H]

You asked for evidence: you got evidence: it makes no difference. Ok

I asked for evidence that Amanda and Raffaele's stories were inconsistent with one another's before their interrogations, or evidence for a pattern of lies and deception.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I asked for evidence that Amanda and Raffaele's stories were inconsistent with one another's before their interrogations, or evidence for a pattern of lies and deception.

That evidence was provided. You choose to ignore it. That's where we continually hit a brick wall.

 

[Amazer]

They did ask in some detail. They probably just would have no reason to doubt anything anyone said on the first day. Where did you get this information about the phone calls, anyway? Was it brought up at trial?

I would think that it is the job of the police to be suspicious of just about everything anyone tells them, from the very first day onwards. At least until that what is being told to them can be verified.