Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[LondonJohn]

He has not "eased off" on his allegations of physical and psychological abuse. He has stated quite explicitly that he never made any such allegations. And your attribution of reasons for the withdrawal which never happened are hardly "open minded". Do you have any reason at all to suppose that his own statements about his interrogation are lies? Do you have any evidence at all as to his motivation for doing that even assuming he did?

My source, once again, is a piece of work that's been published in the UK. Page 119 of "Darkness Descending" states: "Later, Patrick complained that at various points during the ordeal he was abused, although today he is more reticent". And on page 114: "He (Lumumba) claimed some of the policemen hit him over the head (during his arrest) and yelled "dirty black"".

If these are again fabrications of the authors of this book, I'm willing to stand corrected of course. And if he later retracted all these statements (presumably well in advance of the book's publication in 2010), then that's also instructive.

But the basic issue is that Lumumba either alleged the things reported in this book or he didn't. I'd suggest that if he didn't, then the book's authors and publishers are laying themselves open to all sorts of libel accusations. And if he DID allege these things, but subsequently retracted the accusations, it would also be potentially libellous not to publish his retractions in full. I would argue that the publishers (an imprint of global publishing house Simon & Schuster) would have taken very careful legal steps to ensure the accuracy and defensibility of what was written. Which is why I tend to believe what's written there. Again, if what's written is inaccurate or just plain false, I would wonder why the seemingly-litigious Sr Mignini hasn't taken action in the UK or Italian courts already. After all, these statements explicitly accuse arresting officers of physical and racial abuse, and further accuse unnamed police/prosecution authorities of additional abuse during his interrogations. Have Mignini or the Perugia police filed any libel suits over what's been published in this book?

 

[stilicho]

...words...

Back up there a bit, big guy. You said this:

I have no agenda and no pre-conceptions.

This was a part of your apology for being unable or unwilling to provide an adequate explanation for your interest in the convictions of the three young adults who participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher. You sounded honest enough, at first, in being uninterested in the minutiae. You were only concerned that the case was weak and that the Italian legal system might not be able to confirm the convictions.

The case is remarkably robust and relatively simple for each level of the appeal process to confirm those findings.

We've already explained this to you. Why are you now veering off into the minutiae you claimed to have no interest in? If you're just another FOA type then you should wear it as a badge instead of dishonestly claiming to have no agenda or preconceptions.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

I would actually agree with you when you say that there are some elements of theatricality in some of AK's appearances before courts or cameras. And that does her very little credit at all. But to put her whole demeanour down to an elaborate act is, in my opinion, just too cynical. Whether she actually participated in these crimes or not, the fact of the matter is that she had just been formally accused of pretty much the most serious crime on the statute book, and locked up in jail. She was in a foreign country, uncertain of what was going to happen next to her, and in the unfamiliar (and probably intimidating) location of an Italian criminal court.

To suggest that her entire appearance and statement on this day was a carefully-constructed act seems to me to be fantastic (in the true sense of the word) and incredible (also in the true sense of the word). It's also dangerous to assume that someone who's a proven liar is lying in absolutely everything they say or do.

 

[LondonJohn]

Back up there a bit, big guy. You said this:

I have no agenda and no pre-conceptions.

This was a part of your apology for being unable or unwilling to provide an adequate explanation for your interest in the convictions of the three young adults who participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher. You sounded honest enough, at first, in being uninterested in the minutiae. You were only concerned that the case was weak and that the Italian legal system might not be able to confirm the convictions.

The case is remarkably robust and relatively simple for each level of the appeal process to confirm those findings.

We've already explained this to you. Why are you now veering off into the minutiae you claimed to have no interest in? If you're just another FOA type then you should wear it as a badge instead of dishonestly claiming to have no agenda or preconceptions.

I don't really know where to start with this. Firstly, why do I have to provide an adequate explanation for my interest in this case?! I presume that you're neither a Kercher family member, nor a member of the prosecution or defence team, nor connected in any way with any of the cast of characters in this case. So what's your explanation for your interest in this case? Your question about my source of interest is strange to say the least. Why is ANYONE on here discussing a case in which they have no direct involvement?

Second, where are my pre-conceptions. I've started with a blank page, and I'm perfectly willing to have my opinions challenged. If I'm presented with an argument that contradicts my prior opinion with which I agree, I'll happily change my position. You seem to be confusing "pre-conceptions" with "unfixed opinions".

Thirdly, please can you once and for all leave it with the "we" stuff. On whose behalf are you also speaking?

Fourthly, at what point did I state that I'm not interested in the minutiae of the case, as you allege? Minutiae are the building blocks of most cases, and of course I'm interested in them.

Fifth, you're implying that I'm being dishonest. Please retract that. I'm not being dishonest.

What a shame that we're back to this gutter level of argument. If you disagree with things I write, tell me that and tell me where I'm wrong. Don't accuse me of willful dishonesty or some sort of agenda.

 

[bucketoftea]

Well, I'm convinced it was a *poorly*- constructed act. I agree liars sometimes tell the truth, but it really looks like she's lying about everything connected to this case, and would appear to have a good reason to.

 

[Mary_H]

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."

OMG, I know I shouldn't react to this but it's just so funny I can't help myself. Yeah, remember, John, when you said my theory was inconceivable?

I just keep picturing Fine as Wallace Shawn in "The Princess Bride," repeating, "It'th inconthievable!!!"

At which stable do you buy your blinders, Fine?

(See Laura's, or Filomena's, reference to Raffaele's possessiveness. Kierkegaard writes of this too.)

And Fine, could you please give me the title of the book in which Kierkegaard writes about Raffaele's possessiveness? Do you know if Nostradamus ever mentioned Raffaele?

 

[Fine]

My source, once again, is a piece of work that's been published in the UK. Page 119 of "Darkness Descending" states: "Later, Patrick complained that at various points during the ordeal he was abused, although today he is more reticent". And on page 114: "He (Lumumba) claimed some of the policemen hit him over the head (during his arrest) and yelled "dirty black"".

If these are again fabrications of the authors of this book, I'm willing to stand corrected of course. And if he later retracted all these statements (presumably well in advance of the book's publication in 2010), then that's also instructive.

But the basic issue is that Lumumba either alleged the things reported in this book or he didn't. I'd suggest that if he didn't, then the book's authors and publishers are laying themselves open to all sorts of libel accusations. And if he DID allege these things, but subsequently retracted the accusations, it would also be potentially libellous not to publish his retractions in full. I would argue that the publishers (an imprint of global publishing house Simon & Schuster) would have taken very careful legal steps to ensure the accuracy and defensibility of what was written. Which is why I tend to believe what's written there. Again, if what's written is inaccurate or just plain false, I would wonder why the seemingly-litigious Sr Mignini hasn't taken action in the UK or Italian courts already. After all, these statements explicitly accuse arresting officers of physical and racial abuse, and further accuse unnamed police/prosecution authorities of additional abuse during his interrogations. Have Mignini or the Perugia police filed any libel suits over what's been published in this book?

__________________

LondonJohn, here's the original published story, with spaces added to url address.....

"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.' "

h t t p://w w w.dailymail. co. uk/news/article-496218/I-fired-Foxy-Knoxy-hitting-customers-Patrick-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html]originalstory

 

[quadraginta]

__________________

LondonJohn, here's the original published story, with spaces added to url address.....

"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.' "

h t t p://w w w.dailymail. co. uk/news/article-496218/I-fired-Foxy-Knoxy-hitting-customers-Patrick-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html]originalstory

Love it!

"You think you got it bad? Just be glad you weren't arrested in Amerika."
​

It'd funny if it weren't so true.

 

[Alt+F4]

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.

Is there some reason to believe that Amanda's defense team (lawyers in Italy and the U.S.) are incompetent and/or not working in her best interests?

 

[Fine]

OMG, I know I shouldn't react to this but it's just so funny I can't help myself. Yeah, remember, John, when you said my theory was inconceivable?
I just keep picturing Fine as Wallace Shawn in "The Princess Bride," repeating, "It'th inconthievable!!!"

At which stable do you buy your blinders, Fine?



And Fine, could you please give me the title of the book in which Kierkegaard writes about Raffaele's possessiveness? Do you know if Nostradamus ever mentioned Raffaele?

_________________

Sorry Mary. Permit me to correct myself. Unbelievable instead of inconceivable. Do you feel vindicated now? LondonJohn wrote this about your absurd theory...

"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)."


///

 

[RoseMontague]

I was wondering when the question came up about Amanda's sweatshirt she was wearing on the day of the murder that Laura and Filomena described that was never found. Does anyone have a link to this issue. What was the description of the sweatshirt and how did Amanda explain this?

 

[Amazer]

Is there some reason to believe that Amanda's defense team (lawyers in Italy and the U.S.) are incompetent and/or not working in her best interests?

Duh.... Amanda is in jail instead of walking free. What more reason do you need?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

OMG, I know I shouldn't react to this but it's just so funny I can't help myself. Yeah, remember, John, when you said my theory was inconceivable?

I just keep picturing Fine as Wallace Shawn in "The Princess Bride," repeating, "It'th inconthievable!!!"

At which stable do you buy your blinders, Fine?



And Fine, could you please give me the title of the book in which Kierkegaard writes about Raffaele's possessiveness? Do you know if Nostradamus ever mentioned Raffaele?

From Amanda's handwritten statement on the 6th:

I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder

One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening

I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

So, taking the last phrase, she is, undoubtedly, incontrovertibly stating that she had been asked about her whereabouts on the night of the murder prior to her lie about Patrick being the murderer.

Do you yield, Mary?

Shall we discuss how you ignored that Amanda's email home on the 4th states that she's tired of answering 100 questions - and then goes immediately into the happenings of the night before the murder. I may be wrong, but I certainly received the impression from your previous post in regard to the email that Amanda started writing about the morning after the murder and only later discussed what had happened the night before - a bit of judicial rearrangement of the email, perhaps?

Still don't yield? How about near the end of the email, where Amanda clearly states:

after sticking around at the housr
for a bit, the police told us to go to the station to give testimony,
which i did. i was in a room for six hours straight after that without
seeing anyone else, answering questions in italian for the first hour
and then they brought in an interpreter and he helped my out with the
details that i didnt know the words for. they asked me of course about
the the morning, the last time i saw her, and because i was the
closest to her, questions about her habits and her relationships.

So, Amanda was undoubtedly questioned about her whereabouts on the night prior to the murder immediately following the discovery of the body (well, approx an hour or so after).

Yield, Mary?

 

[christianahannah]

My source, once again, is a piece of work that's been published in the UK. Page 119 of "Darkness Descending" states: "Later, Patrick complained that at various points during the ordeal he was abused, although today he is more reticent". And on page 114: "He (Lumumba) claimed some of the policemen hit him over the head (during his arrest) and yelled "dirty black"".

If these are again fabrications of the authors of this book, I'm willing to stand corrected of course. And if he later retracted all these statements (presumably well in advance of the book's publication in 2010), then that's also instructive.

But the basic issue is that Lumumba either alleged the things reported in this book or he didn't. I'd suggest that if he didn't, then the book's authors and publishers are laying themselves open to all sorts of libel accusations. And if he DID allege these things, but subsequently retracted the accusations, it would also be potentially libellous not to publish his retractions in full. I would argue that the publishers (an imprint of global publishing house Simon & Schuster) would have taken very careful legal steps to ensure the accuracy and defensibility of what was written. Which is why I tend to believe what's written there. Again, if what's written is inaccurate or just plain false, I would wonder why the seemingly-litigious Sr Mignini hasn't taken action in the UK or Italian courts already. After all, these statements explicitly accuse arresting officers of physical and racial abuse, and further accuse unnamed police/prosecution authorities of additional abuse during his interrogations. Have Mignini or the Perugia police filed any libel suits over what's been published in this book?

I haven't read "Darkness Descending" so I don't know the construct of the book. Does it contain footnotes or source notes? If so, are there footnotes in respect to pages 114 and 119 about Lumumba's treatment by the Perugian police? If there are no footnotes can a source of information (without the threat of libel suits) be newspapers or news television in the UK?

 

[Jungle Jim]

I was wondering when the question came up about Amanda's sweatshirt she was wearing on the day of the murder that Laura and Filomena described that was never found. Does anyone have a link to this issue. What was the description of the sweatshirt and how did Amanda explain this?

Can you elaborate, what is the issue? What was the question that came up? I believe Laura was in Rome and never saw Amanda on the day of the murder.

 

[tsig]

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...

You see I believe her guilt because her " emails and other correspondences were self-serving and disingenuous"

You seem to be doing it backwards.

 

[tsig]

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.

How the UK conduct criminal investigations has nothing to do with a case tried in Italy.

 

[tsig]

__________________

LondonJohn, here's the original published story, with spaces added to url address.....

"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.' "

h t t p://w w w.dailymail. co. uk/news/article-496218/I-fired-Foxy-Knoxy-hitting-customers-Patrick-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html]originalstory

http://www.dailymail.co uk/news/article-496218/I-fired-Foxy-Knoxy-hitting-customers-Patrick-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html]originalstory

 

[BobTheDonkey]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html originalstory

Fixed that for you

 

[JREF2010]

ok, that old Daily Mail artticle where Patrick said he was "punched and kicked" by the police.

a 10hour interrogation...6:30am and kept unfed until 5:30pm or later....

sounds familiar? now where did I hear someone else speak of that type of interrogation in Perugia?

hmmm?