Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

Other than Mary H, who seems to have been beating the straw out of that particular herring with remarkable fervor, I am unsure whom these usual suspects you speak of may be. Perhaps you would like to point them out.

What I've seen here, and said myself, is that even in the total absence of any inconsistencies it would be perfectly normal for LE to devote extra attention to Knox, because of her proximity to the victim, Sollecito for his role as her alibi, and both together simply because they were at the scene and contributing their input immediately after the crime occurred.

The police would have been remiss in their duties if they had taken any other tack at the onset of the investigation.

The pair's subsequent inability to keep their stories straight, and the failure of all the things which could be crosschecked to support those stories merely raised an ante that was already there.

You and Lane99 both need to produce some documentation showing that the police were suspicious of Amanda from the beginning of the investigation, and that they came up with some evidence that made them more suspicious of her. NOT including what they got from Raffaele's interrogation.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You and Lane99 both need to produce some documentation showing that the police were suspicious of Amanda from the beginning of the investigation, and that they came up with some evidence that made them more suspicious of her. NOT including what they got from Raffaele's interrogation.

I'm sorry, but why do they need to provide this information?

I don't understand why, exactly, this is a big deal. After all, the Police interviewed the other two girls and the boys from downstairs more than just once. It's as though you expect the Police to be investigating a brutal murder, but they're only allowed a single interview with each person they talk to...

Again, the Police were wrong regardless because their questioning led directly to the discovery of Amanda's lies, and, subsequently, her arrest.

 

[Mary_H]

I'm sorry, but why do they need to provide this information?

I don't understand why, exactly, this is a big deal. After all, the Police interviewed the other two girls and the boys from downstairs more than just once. It's as though you expect the Police to be investigating a brutal murder, but they're only allowed a single interview with each person they talk to...

Again, the Police were wrong regardless because their questioning led directly to the discovery of Amanda's lies, and, subsequently, her arrest.

lane99 wrote: "The latest I'm personally aware of seems to be the claim by the usual suspects that, up until the moment of her false confession, the police were not in any way fixated on Knox and considered her nothing more than a innocent witness.

Not a credible argument, it would appear, if what I recently heard is true: that Amanda Knox was put under police surveillance rather quickly after the murder was discovered."

What lane99 has "heard" is not a basis for calling an argument credible or not.

Obviously I don't believe the police should be limited to one interview with each person. All I want to know is why the interest of the police was piqued by what Amanda and Raffaele said that made them want to interrogate them in an adversarial fashion when they didn't do that to anyone else (as far as I know).

It's a legitimate question. Everyone always says "Amanda lied," but no one ever says what those lies were. quadraginta said the two defendants didn't keep their stories straight, but there is no evidence of that until after their interrogations.

We KNOW the police told Amanda during her interrogation that Raffaele had blown her alibi -- how do we know the police didn't tell Raffaele the same thing about Amanda during his interrogation? It certainly appears they did, from what he wrote later. He wanted to know why Amanda had told lies about him. Since she didn't tell lies about him, he must only have heard this from the cops. It's a pretty well known police strategy.

The reason this is a "big deal" is that it appears the police took Amanda and Raffaele in for interrogations, forced them to claim involvement in a crime they didn't commit, then arrested them. Wouldn't you consider that a big deal if you were the one arrested?

So, I repeat: What evidence did the police have against Amanda and Raffaele before they formally interrogated them?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

lane99 wrote: "The latest I'm personally aware of seems to be the claim by the usual suspects that, up until the moment of her false confession, the police were not in any way fixated on Knox and considered her nothing more than a innocent witness.

Not a credible argument, it would appear, if what I recently heard is true: that Amanda Knox was put under police surveillance rather quickly after the murder was discovered."

What lane99 has "heard" is not a basis for calling an argument credible or not.

Obviously I don't believe the police should be limited to one interview with each person. All I want to know is why the interest of the police was piqued by what Amanda and Raffaele said that made them want to interrogate them in an adversarial fashion when they didn't do that to anyone else (as far as I know).

It's a legitimate question. Everyone always says "Amanda lied," but no one ever says what those lies were. quadraginta said the two defendants didn't keep their stories straight, but there is no evidence of that until after their interrogations.

We KNOW the police told Amanda during her interrogation that Raffaele had blown her alibi -- how do we know the police didn't tell Raffaele the same thing about Amanda during his interrogation? It certainly appears they did, from what he wrote later. He wanted to know why Amanda had told lies about him. Since she didn't tell lies about him, he must only have heard this from the cops. It's a pretty well known police strategy.

The reason this is a "big deal" is that it appears the police took Amanda and Raffaele in for interrogations, forced them to claim involvement in a crime they didn't commit, then arrested them. Wouldn't you consider that a big deal if you were the one arrested?

So, I repeat: What evidence did the police have against Amanda and Raffaele before they formally interrogated them?

Well, given that at that point in time, the investigation was still in the early stages, I don't find it all that much of an anomaly that the duo were called back in for questioning. No suspects had been found as of yet, Amanda and Raffaele were found at the scene. It is only to be expected that the would continue to be interviewed.

When Raffaele dropped Amanda's alibi on the 5th, the interview took a slightly different note - that's to be expected as well. The Police now had sound reason to suspect that Amanda had been lying to them.


I, still, fail to see the problem. I have no doubt that if I were being interviewed for a murder, I would expect to be interviewed more than once. I would also expect that if I was found to be lying, the Police would come down even harder on me - you know, to find out the truth.

 

[christianahannah]

Alt+F4 writes:

Just my opinion, but I think the determining factor if the video in question should be available for public veiwing is if it shows a dead body, or not.

I have a version in which the frames showing the body have been removed.

Well I do not wish to see edited videos of that kind. I do not actually think such footage should be available at all. It is all very well saying that the trial should be public and so it should: but some things are rightly seen or heard in private by those who need to know.

Charlie thank you for your willingness to share what you have, especially after being asked to do so previously, but I have to agree with Fiona concerning the video, edited or not. Perhaps if someone would like to view the footage they could private message you for the link.

Would it be possible for you to give a summary of what you saw in the video which is of importance?

 

[quadraginta]

You and Lane99 both need to produce some documentation showing that the police were suspicious of Amanda from the beginning of the investigation, and that they came up with some evidence that made them more suspicious of her. NOT including what they got from Raffaele's interrogation.

I've never said that the police were suspicious of anyone from the beginning.

I've also never said that they weren't.

I said that it is perfectly normal procedure to focus an investigation on the people with the closest relationships to the victim. It is also standard to re-interview, not just as an effort to uncover inconsistencies in someone's testimony, but for the perfectly reasonable possibility that they may have inadvertently omitted some helpful information at the onset.

What part of this don't you understand?

We don't know everything which was said in the interviews leading up to the arrest, but we can safely surmise from the little we do know that there could easily have been discrepancies which piqued the investigators' interest.

Could that have been enough to increase LE's "suspicion"? Possibly. We don't know that either. Except for silly semantic games this usage of the term "suspicion" does not equate to the formal appellation "suspect".

What part of that don't you understand?

 

[RWVBWL]

Christianahannah writes:

Do you know if the purse (wallet) in the wardrobe was in use or an extra one which was empty? Do you know if the police ever determined where Meredith's money and credit cards were taken from?

It's the same purse. It was on the bed when the crime scene was discovered. But during the investigation, police removed the mattress from the bed and took the mattress out to the living room. Then they pulled the clothes out of the wardrobe and laid them on the bedframe. The purse, along with the pillow from the floor, ended up in the empty wardrobe. On December 18, they stuffed the clothing on the bed into a suitcase, pulled the purse out of the wardrobe and put it back on the bedframe, laid an evidence tag next to it, and took pictures of it.

Hi Charlie and other JREF members,
Charlie mentioned that Miss Kercher's mattress was pulled out into the living room. Months later, someone broke into the apartment and stole that mattress.
Do you know anything about the theft of Miss Kercher's mattress after her murder?

I had read on Frank Sfarzo's latest posting at Perugia Shock that Luciano Aviello was insinuating that someone else killed Miss Kercher. Doing a google search of Mr. Aviello, I noticed on PMF that he was taking credit for a break-in that occured at Miss Kercher's apartment.
See this:
Saturday 09 May 2009
Prisoner writes: 'I know real murderer's name'
“I know the real name of Meredith’s killer, a fellow-brother Albanian friend of mine told me, and it’s not Raffaele Sollecito.” Luciano Aviello is Raffaele Sollecito’s ex-cellmate and, now, maybe encumbering his admirer, is writing another letter to Court of Assize president Giancarlo Massei.
A few weeks ago he had sent a letter in which he claims to have asked two of his friends to break into the murder house to prove that anybody could have done so. Yesterday, the page count of his letter jumped to five, and the tone was angrier. He’s had it with journalists, because they’ve referred to his less than clear past and because they wrote about his previous never-proven-true “revelations” on various important and dramatic criminal cases (like the disappearance of little Angela Celentano).
He’s had it with the police too, in whom he confided his secret about Raffaele’s innocence and who didn’t even give him the time of day. He maintains that, actually, he has a letter written by an Albanian friend, which contains the real name of the murderer, and he wants to speak only to the court president, Giancarlo Massei, to reveal it to him.
Although even the lawyer on the civil side of the case, Francesco Maresca, acting for the Kerchers, remains skeptical: “That letter ought to be re-read carefully: it’s not flour from his grainsack*”.
__________________________________________________________________________

As her mattress was stolen, I wonder why someone would steal it? There would be a big chance of getting caught while doing it, so why? Just because Miss Kercher had slept on it and was the victim of a brutal murder? Or might it have something to do with what Mr. Aviello states?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

Well, given that at that point in time, the investigation was still in the early stages, I don't find it all that much of an anomaly that the duo were called back in for questioning. No suspects had been found as of yet, Amanda and Raffaele were found at the scene. It is only to be expected that the would continue to be interviewed.

When Raffaele dropped Amanda's alibi on the 5th, the interview took a slightly different note - that's to be expected as well. The Police now had sound reason to suspect that Amanda had been lying to them.

I, still, fail to see the problem. I have no doubt that if I were being interviewed for a murder, I would expect to be interviewed more than once. I would also expect that if I was found to be lying, the Police would come down even harder on me - you know, to find out the truth.

You keep missing the point. Amanda and Raffaele had already been interviewed at least three times, if not more. You say Raffaele dropped Amanda's alibi on the 5th, as if he did it spontaneously -- but he did it as a result of the interrogation. That is not a "sound reason," especially because he probably did it because the police lied to him about Amanda during his interrogation.

After he talked to the police, he said he had not thought "about the inconsistencies." What were the inconsistencies? What did the police tell him about Amanda that was inconsistent with the story the two of them had been telling during the previous three days?

How about if I change the question to: why did the police interrogate Raffaele, and what did they tell him about Amanda?

Do you really not think it is important that the Perugian police may have arrested Amanda and Raffaele for no good reason, with no evidence? Are you not even curious about that possibility?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Quadraginta writes:

When did they do the Spheron-VR survey?

I'm not sure. The program loads a splash screen for the case file that says November 4, 2007, but the notation beneath the images says they were last updated on 11/12/2007.

 

[Fiona]

They did not arrest them for no good reason and with no evidence. They arrested them because Amanda accused Lumumba and said she was there and that RS may have been there too.

 

[Mary_H]

We don't know everything which was said in the interviews leading up to the arrest, but we can safely surmise from the little we do know that there could easily have been discrepancies which piqued the investigators' interest.

How can you safely surmise that when there is no evidence for it?

Based on what Amanda and Raffaele wrote after their interrogations that reflects they were misinformed about each other, I think it is much safer to surmise the police had nothing to go on, so they lied to the defendants during their interrogations in order to get some quick arrests.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think all these jailhouse witnesses are worthless.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Christianahannah writes:

Would it be possible for you to give a summary of what you saw in the video which is of importance?

It shows egregious mishandling of evidence.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Here's something from the spheron data that nobody has mentioned...

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/sign_on_amandas_door.jpg

 

[christianahannah]

You keep missing the point. Amanda and Raffaele had already been interviewed at least three times, if not more. You say Raffaele dropped Amanda's alibi on the 5th, as if he did it spontaneously -- but he did it as a result of the interrogation. That is not a "sound reason," especially because he probably did it because the police lied to him about Amanda during his interrogation.

After he talked to the police, he said he had not thought "about the inconsistencies." What were the inconsistencies? What did the police tell him about Amanda that was inconsistent with the story the two of them had been telling during the previous three days?

How about if I change the question to: why did the police interrogate Raffaele, and what did they tell him about Amanda?

Do you really not think it is important that the Perugian police may have arrested Amanda and Raffaele for no good reason, with no evidence? Are you not even curious about that possibility?

Mary we will probably never know what inconsistencies, if any, were given by Amanda and Raffaele in their many interrogations by the police. I would think the police are not allowed to divulge the content of those interrogations or the signed declarations by Amanda or Raffaele. I'm not sure if Amanda or Raffaele could allow the release of the declarations to the public but they are definitely under no obligation to do so.

 

[christianahannah]

Christianahannah writes:

Would it be possible for you to give a summary of what you saw in the video which is of importance?

It shows egregious mishandling of evidence.

Can you be more specific?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Everyone should take time and read this article by Cesare Beccari who is an Italian lawyer:

How Each of The Three Subtly But Surely Pushed The Other Two Closer to The Fire (Part 1 of 4)

This article makes some of the same mistakes that have occurred since the beginning of this nightmare.

They continue to mention nothing about the actual history of Guede. We can only wait for someone to print it. That is for a future discussion,

From the article;

“It’s impossible that Meredith’s DNA is on the knife”, says Amanda, “because she’s never been to Raffaele’s apartment. So unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned the blood off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well over the next few days, well, I just highly doubt all of that”.

Doesn’t all this sound like a reciprocal veiled accusation? Why would two people accused of murder, with exactly the same fate, write down their doubts about the innocence of their presumed accomplice? Why doesn’t Amanda mention Patrick or Rudy at all in her diary?


Amanda wasn't accusing Raffaele. Her statement doesn't sound like a "reciprocal veiled" accusation at all.

She was saying how ridiculous the whole scenario would have had to be for the evidence to be on the knife. Twisting the meaning of her words if just another case of poor journalism.

 

[Stankeye]

Mary we will probably never know what inconsistencies, if any, were given by Amanda and Raffaele in their many interrogations by the police. I would think the police are not allowed to divulge the content of those interrogations or the signed declarations by Amanda or Raffaele. I'm not sure if Amanda or Raffaele could allow the release of the declarations to the public but they are definitely under no obligation to do so.

My take on this as its bugged me from the beginning in that two people who have an alibi suddenly turn on each other, is that either the police lied to them about each of them not backing their alibi or the police had evidence..which I think may have been the CCTV from the parking lot, that to them placed Amanda not in Raffaele's apartment when she said she was, therefore "Raffaele we have evidence Amanda was not with you, what do you say about that?"

Now you can argue either way what a guilty vs innocent person would do with that being presented to them, but it does give one pause on what you thought had gone on that night. Guilty or innocent you have to rethink your position and you are effectively tripped up.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Christianahannah writes:

Can you be more specific?

Sure. I posted this a couple of days ago when the subject of the mixed DNA from Filomena's room came up in the discussion:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/sample_176.html

Someone objected that the dirty gloves and the sample collecting shown in the pictures don't pertain specifically to sample 176. That is true, but I don't have any photos or video showing that particular sample being collected. I therefore provided what information I do have, to make the point that investigators did not use forensically sound procedures at this crime scene. The video shows a number of samples being collected. In almost every case, one can evaluate what is shown on camera relative to published guidelines for collecting DNA evidence and see that the investigators were being sloppy.

 

[RWVBWL]

I think all these jailhouse witnesses are worthless.

Hi Charlie,
I can see your point.
However, the guy does mention the never found apartment keys, which I find very interesting, since that is an often overlooked item that was missing.
And when I read about him mentioning the break-in last year, well, it might make sense that he knows or has heard something. Especially when I learned that Miss Kercher's mattress was stolen, for who would steal that? That is taking a huge chance on getting seen or caught, I believe.

I bet that the guys on the streets knew about this crime a lot earlier than the police, that's usually how it works unless the cops are on the scene immediatley.

If there had been a reward offered by the families of either Raffaele Sollecito or Amanda Knox of say $25,000 to $50,000.00 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the actual murderer of Miss Kercher, such as similiar to what happenes here in Los Angeles with "WE TIP":
http://www.wetip.com/
maybe that person, Rudy Guede or someone else, who the lawyers for Raffaele Sollecito seem to believe might have been involved, would be in jail right now after having someone from the streets turn him in anonymously...
RWVBWL