____________________
Hi Mary,
I suggest that you connect your speakers. If what Amanda says is true, you are wrong about this issue. And we can more on.
///
Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
- Status
____________________
Hi Mary,
I suggest that you connect your speakers. If what Amanda says is true, you are wrong about this issue. And we can more on.
///
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
See above.
Okay, from your LINKED transcript, which is identical to my earlier quotation, her interrogation of November 5th begins...
"After that, they moved me into another room and started asking me the same questions, what I had done that night,... "
Clearly Amanda had been asked before about her whereabouts the night of the murder.
Q.E.D.
Lets move on.
///
Amazer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
Ah.... if life was only that simple. But you have to understand that Mary is firmly wedded to her position and nothing will shake her belief.
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
I was ready to move on long before you came over here from PMF deliberately to pick a fight. Ask The Bard how that experience went for her.
If you want to be effective, you ought to be more knowledgeable about what you want to fight about.
Here is a little more of Amanda's quote, so it's not out of context:
"When I was there, I had just planned to wait, but the police came into their waiting room and wanted to talk to me more about what I knew, people that I knew who had come to my house. I gave them phone numbers and -
"After that, they moved me into another room and started asking me the same questions, what I had done that night, asking me - for times, exact time periods, exactly what I did. And was - it was difficult for me because it was in the middle of the night that I - we had been called. I was very tired. And I was also quite stressed out. And I - so I -
"They kept asking me the same questions, time periods - exactly sequences of actions and I did my best, to give the same information over and over and over again."
Is there anyone on this board other than Fine who thinks that when Amanda says "the same questions," she is referring to the questions the police asked her on the 2nd, and not the repetitive questions they were asking her during this interrogation?
Because if you do, then I am definitely going to have to refer to Fine's Freudian slip at the end of her post at 11:31.
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,757
We're still waiting for anything of substance from you, Mary. So far you've accused the police and the investigators of being too aroused to do their jobs properly and then, once their arousal was satisfied, they proceeded to fake evidence anyhow.
This is why you're being taken for a rodeo clown.
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,757
My opinion? It's sheer speculation and has nothing whatsoever to do with the convictions of the three accused of murdering Meredith Kercher.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Ermmm.... I don't answer for Mary H - and I don't share many of her views - but I'd suggest that calling her a "rodeo clown" is both out of order and a violation of forum rules. Can't you focus on rebutting her without resorting to personal attacks such as this? And unless various parties are acting in concert here, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the pronoun "I" rather than "we"? Aren't we all equal on this board, or are some posters more equal than others...?
_____________________
I too welcome the opinion of other contributors to this forum. I think I have demonstrated that Mary's version of Perugia police practice is not only counter-intuitive but even contradicts the testimony of angelic Amanda.
Amanda was right, Mary was wrong.
Let's move on.
///
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
But it is fair to suggest that you lifted the quote about previous questioning out of context, in order to try to support a specific prior assertion. The full quote does indeed indicate that AK was referring to her questioning from earlier that same evening, rather than questioning from previous days.
Of course it's perfectly possible to argue that AK's statements in court, emails and other correspondences were self-serving and disingenuous, especially if one believes in her guilt. And I personally believe that she did herself significant harm with some of the things she said and wrote in those weeks following her arrest. The fact that seemingly her lawyers didn't basically order her to shut up speaks volumes for the quality of her defence team, by the way. But her veracity and motivation are a different subject; her court statement - if interpreted at face value - seems perfectly clear on the time frame she is referring to. I suppose it provides an interesting insight into how people choose to interpret evidence to suit their own purposes, more than anything else...
Last edited:
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
Thank you, LondonJohn, but stilicho is not that bad. They all call me names all the time; I'm used to it. Besides, the term "rodeo clown" made me think of the movie, "Brokeback Mountain," one of my all-time favorites.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
By the way, for my part, I can't believe the police WOULDN'T have asked AK as early as the 2nd what she was doing on the night of the 1st - where she was, who she was with, when she'd been at the cottage etc. I would imagine that these questions would have been asked of all the girls in the cottage, as well as all the tenants in the flat below. It's one of the most basic things the police would have wanted to establish as quickly as possible: who was where on the night of the murder (and, for that matter, up until the moment that the body was discovered on the lunchtime of the 2nd).
Such questioning doesn't imply suspicion though. I suspect that they'd have asked Filomena the very same thing, for example, and presumably she'd have answered that she was at her boyfriend's house. I imagine that they'd have quickly cross-checked that with her boyfriend, and parked that information pending any further developments. Presumably, when they asked AK the same question, the same process would have ensued. It would be interesting to find out at what point the police might have started to believe that AK was lying about her whereabouts. Did RS give evasive replies when asked to verify AK's statement of having been at his apartment all night? Because it seems that the computer and mobile phone traces didn't come to the police's attention until much later (at least the 10th).
Am I right in believing that the police tapped AK's cellphone pretty soon after the 2nd? Can someone clarify if that's correct, and, if so, when did the phone tap start? Is it known whether the police tapped the phones of all the girls in the cottage? Or did they single AK out very early on for special surveillance? Did they need to apply for a court order to tap a phone, as is mandatory in the UK?
Such questioning doesn't imply suspicion though. I suspect that they'd have asked Filomena the very same thing, for example, and presumably she'd have answered that she was at her boyfriend's house. I imagine that they'd have quickly cross-checked that with her boyfriend, and parked that information pending any further developments. Presumably, when they asked AK the same question, the same process would have ensued. It would be interesting to find out at what point the police might have started to believe that AK was lying about her whereabouts. Did RS give evasive replies when asked to verify AK's statement of having been at his apartment all night? Because it seems that the computer and mobile phone traces didn't come to the police's attention until much later (at least the 10th).
Am I right in believing that the police tapped AK's cellphone pretty soon after the 2nd? Can someone clarify if that's correct, and, if so, when did the phone tap start? Is it known whether the police tapped the phones of all the girls in the cottage? Or did they single AK out very early on for special surveillance? Did they need to apply for a court order to tap a phone, as is mandatory in the UK?
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Thank you, LondonJohn, but stilicho is not that bad. They all call me names all the time; I'm used to it. Besides, the term "rodeo clown" made me think of the movie, "Brokeback Mountain," one of my all-time favorites.
Brokeback Mountain?? You HOMOPHOBE!!
London John wrote: "But it is fair to suggest that you lifted the quote about previous questioning out of context, in order to try to support a specific prior assertion. The full quote does indeed indicate that AK was referring to her questioning from earlier that same evening, rather than questioning from previous days."
Not true, LondonJohn. I suggest you re-read the transcript or---even better--- listen to the tape. According to Amanda, the questions "earlier that evening," addressed to Amanda while she was in the waiting room, pertained to people familiar with Meredith, those who had come to the cottage. Nothing at all about Amanda's whereabouts the night of the murder!!! It's clear that Amanda had been asked on previous days about her whereabouts. That means Mary was wrong.
///
Not true, LondonJohn. I suggest you re-read the transcript or---even better--- listen to the tape. According to Amanda, the questions "earlier that evening," addressed to Amanda while she was in the waiting room, pertained to people familiar with Meredith, those who had come to the cottage. Nothing at all about Amanda's whereabouts the night of the murder!!! It's clear that Amanda had been asked on previous days about her whereabouts. That means Mary was wrong.
///
Last edited:
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
Everything about your post is reasonable, John. The conflict arose from the question you point out -- "It would be interesting to find out at what point the police might have started to believe that AK was lying about her whereabouts."
There are many claims that inconsistencies in the suspects' alibis is what led the police to suspect them, but so far, no one has been able to cite any inconsistencies from any time before the interrogations that began on the 5th.
I believe it is correct to say the police were tapping Amanda's phone, although I don't know when it started or what reason the police would cite for doing it, unless, as you say, they tapped everyone's cell phone.
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
Brokeback Mountain?? You HOMOPHOBE!!
I KNOW! I loved "The Crying Game," too!
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I have listened to the tape and read the transcript. I'd argue that AK's tone of voice is clearly tired and stressed, and her statement is at times semi-coherent and contains many "tailing-off" sentences. One such sentence pertains to what the police were asking her in the waiting room earlier in the night, while RS was being questioned. You've chosen to interpret what she lists she was asked as a literally complete list. You avoid the fact that she includes the all-encompassing phrase "what I knew"; that she tails off mid-sentence, seemingly leaving the "list" unfinished; and the fact that her construction in the following sentence ("After that, they moved me into another room and started asking me the same questions") would clearly tend to imply that she's directly referring to her previous sentence. Although, as I've said in another post above, it's inconceivable to me that the police wouldn't have asked her basic questions about her whereabouts on the night of the 1st in their very first questioning of her and all the other housemates.
Two other things spring to mind about this episode: Why on earth were the police questioning her in a seeming amount of detail while she was sitting in a public waiting room anyhow? And (although I'm far from convinced of AK's lack of involvement in some manner) why would she voluntarily choose to accompany her boyfriend to the police station that evening? Surely if you've committed a serious crime, basic human nature would be to avoid placing yourself in a police station at all costs, until and unless a failure to attend would be construed as a sign of evasiveness or guilt. In this instance, she had absolutely no reason to go to the station with RS, and she can't have felt that it might indicate culpability if she didn't accompany him. The police had only asked to see RS, after all, and she happened to place herself in further potential jeopardy by going with him. This would appear to indicate that she either knew her culpability and had what some people might call "massive brass balls", or that she didn't feel she was taking a risk by going to the station voluntarily that night.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Firstly, as a small point of clarification, I wrote "metaphorically "high-fiving"", rather than "flying high".
Second, if you can find me an example of where the UK police have given a press conference in advance of a trial in which they have announced that they've "solved the crime", I'd be extremely interested to hear it! Police routinely give press conferences to announce the arrest of suspects. They are allowed to give the age and gender of the suspect, together with his/her general area of residence. However, they are not allowed to discuss evidence against any of the suspects, or even their names, let alone claim to have solved the crime. When a suspect is charged with a crime, the prosecutors (and, by extension, the media), are merely allowed to state the accused's full name and address, and the offences with which they are charged - nothing more. The case then goes completely sub-judice (i.e. no details whatsoever about evidence, accused's background etc) until the trial, and during a trial only those matters discussed in court are reportable. Any breach of these rules is a contempt of court, and can result (and has in the past resulted) in cases being dismissed, together with criminal prosecutions for those who were in contempt. By and large, the police and media follow these rules - although they are routinely tested to the limit by the tabloids in particular.
It doesn't take a huge amount of analysis to show how potentially prejudicial the sorts of statements made by the Perugia authorities could be to any impending trial - and that's precisely why this behaviour is not allowed in the UK. And, for all the many faults of the UK criminal justice system, this is one of the more demonstrably sensible and fair areas of legislation.
Last edited:
LondonJohn wrote: "Two other things spring to mind about this episode: Why on earth were the police questioning her in a seeming amount of detail while she was sitting in a public waiting room anyhow?"
They weren't. In the waiting room they were asking about visitors to the cottage. The detailed questions came when she was invited into a conference room.
And thanks for listening to the tape of Amanda's testimony. I think it is clear that when Amanda mentions the "same questions" ---and cites as an example her whereabouts the night of the murder---these are NOT the same questions asked of her earlier when the police were asking about cottage visitors. But whether Amanda is contradicting Mary or not, we both know that Mary's theory is, as you put it, "inconceivable."
Why did Amanda accompany Raffaele to the police station? Well, speaking as a "guilter," I suggest that she may have wanted to appear as cooperative as possible to the cops, and so seem just that more innocent. Or, it may be that Raffaele insisted she accompany him, given the "distrust" found in the blush of romantic love. (See Laura's, or Filomena's, reference to Raffaele's possessiveness. Kierkegaard writes of this too.) But I don't think it matters much. Once Raffaele changed his story the cops would have wanted to talk to Amanda ASAP.
Raffaele says he changed his story when he recognized the "inconsistencies" in his first story. Since he is no more articulate than "honor student" Amanda, I wonder if he is speaking of inconsistency-with-fact, rather than internal inconsistency. Did the cops then, November 5th, know that he'd spoken via phone with his father long before he claims to have awakened for the day? Or did they know of activity on his computer, before either is supposed to have awakened? Or maybe Raffaele is referring to the implausibility of his initial story. I hope the MOTIVATIONS sheds some light on those "inconsistencies." The English translation should be available as soon as this weekend on the PMF site.
///
They weren't. In the waiting room they were asking about visitors to the cottage. The detailed questions came when she was invited into a conference room.
And thanks for listening to the tape of Amanda's testimony. I think it is clear that when Amanda mentions the "same questions" ---and cites as an example her whereabouts the night of the murder---these are NOT the same questions asked of her earlier when the police were asking about cottage visitors. But whether Amanda is contradicting Mary or not, we both know that Mary's theory is, as you put it, "inconceivable."
Why did Amanda accompany Raffaele to the police station? Well, speaking as a "guilter," I suggest that she may have wanted to appear as cooperative as possible to the cops, and so seem just that more innocent. Or, it may be that Raffaele insisted she accompany him, given the "distrust" found in the blush of romantic love. (See Laura's, or Filomena's, reference to Raffaele's possessiveness. Kierkegaard writes of this too.) But I don't think it matters much. Once Raffaele changed his story the cops would have wanted to talk to Amanda ASAP.
Raffaele says he changed his story when he recognized the "inconsistencies" in his first story. Since he is no more articulate than "honor student" Amanda, I wonder if he is speaking of inconsistency-with-fact, rather than internal inconsistency. Did the cops then, November 5th, know that he'd spoken via phone with his father long before he claims to have awakened for the day? Or did they know of activity on his computer, before either is supposed to have awakened? Or maybe Raffaele is referring to the implausibility of his initial story. I hope the MOTIVATIONS sheds some light on those "inconsistencies." The English translation should be available as soon as this weekend on the PMF site.
///
Last edited:
bucketoftea
Thinker
- Joined
- May 3, 2010
- Messages
- 202
IMO
Her poor performance on the stand begins and ends with her poor acting. She is acting distressed and confused for us. Utterly unconvincing. eg how the snivelling tone stops abruptly as she tells us she's come to the end of her story. The trailing off sentences.........give.....little.................
The youtube video also shows us a great still from outside the cottage where AK is showing the cameras her "sorrow" (if you watch that film, she looks round and spots the camera, then swoons a bit for the audience.
IMO
Check out what Eyes for Lies has to say about Amanda.
http://eyesforlies.blogspot.com/2007/11/amanda-knox.html
- Status