Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

How is that close to the middle? That's what I've been saying for the past few days, Mary.

You have been saying this?

"Suspected of meeting with Amanda and her wanting to hide it does not, automatically, equate to suspected of murder. The Police might have been now developed interest in Patrick, determined they needed to interview him - but that does not require suspicion of murder."

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You have been saying this?

"Suspected of meeting with Amanda and her wanting to hide it does not, automatically, equate to suspected of murder. The Police might have been now developed interest in Patrick, determined they needed to interview him - but that does not require suspicion of murder."

Essentially, yes. Before the night of the 5th, the Police had no reason to suspect Patrick. None. Following Amanda's accusation of him, the Police had reason to suspect Amanda and Patrick.

The scene indicated a rape had occurred prior/during/after the murder, and this fit in with what Amanda claimed happened. Thus, there was even more reason to believe Amanda's story.

How does my comment about the lack of suspicion in Patrick prior to Amanda's accusation not fit in with what I'd said previously.

 

[LondonJohn]

Suspect of what?

Suspected of an affair with Amanda?

Suspected of meeting with Amanda and her wanting to hide it does not, automatically, equate to suspected of murder. The Police might have been now developed interest in Patrick, determined they needed to interview him - but that does not require suspicion of murder.

On one level I agree that being suspected of meeting with AK and her wanting to hide it does not equate to potential participation in murder. But if it's placed in the context that I described (a context which might of course be totally wrong, but which I contend MIGHT be right), then the Lumumba situation takes on a different hue.

In a nutshell, the reason why I think Lumumba transformed into a murder suspect in the police's eyes, even before the AK "confession", is this: The police were convinced that the text message was an firm invitation to meet up. AK had just been placed "at large" for most of the night of the 1st by her own boyfriend - giving her the opportunity to fulfill this meeting. And AK had just tried to explain the text message to the police - but not by admitting to meeting Lumumba "as arranged" for an innocent (or relatively innocent) purpose, or even by explaining that a meeting was arranged but never consummated. Instead, AK tried to claim that the text didn't even imply a meeting in the first place. I argue that the police saw this as massive evasion by AK. The logical leap then was that such evasion attached deep significance to the meeting with Lumumba, vis-a-vis the murder. QED: Lumumba was a big part of all this.

And, incidentally, I studiously refuse to play the race card with regard to any suspicion of Lumumba, because I think that implies levels of misconduct within the Perugia police that I'm currently unable to contemplate or believe.

 

[Mary_H]

Essentially, yes. Before the night of the 5th, the Police had no reason to suspect Patrick. None. Following Amanda's accusation of him, the Police had reason to suspect Amanda and Patrick.

The scene indicated a rape had occurred prior/during/after the murder, and this fit in with what Amanda claimed happened. Thus, there was even more reason to believe Amanda's story.

How does my comment about the lack of suspicion in Patrick prior to Amanda's accusation not fit in with what I'd said previously.

When you say this:

"The Police might have been now developed interest in Patrick, determined they needed to interview him - but that does not require suspicion of murder."

and when stilicho says this:

"The police had their cell phones by 02 NOV 2007. This was reported in court by either Bartolozzi or Bastitelli. That's almost four full days in which they knew about the messages and yet they saw no reason to interview Patrick."

it sounds like you are tending toward recognizing that it would have been reasonable or even advisable for the police to have interviewed Patrick in a civil way, according to regular protocol, instead of arresting him the way they did.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

On one level I agree that being suspected of meeting with AK and her wanting to hide it does not equate to potential participation in murder. But if it's placed in the context that I described (a context which might of course be totally wrong, but which I contend MIGHT be right), then the Lumumba situation takes on a different hue.

In a nutshell, the reason why I think Lumumba transformed into a murder suspect in the police's eyes, even before the AK "confession", is this: The police were convinced that the text message was an firm invitation to meet up. AK had just been placed "at large" for most of the night of the 1st by her own boyfriend - giving her the opportunity to fulfill this meeting. And AK had just tried to explain the text message to the police - but not by admitting to meeting Lumumba "as arranged" for an innocent (or relatively innocent) purpose, or even by explaining that a meeting was arranged but never consummated. Instead, AK tried to claim that the text didn't even imply a meeting in the first place. I argue that the police saw this as massive evasion by AK. The logical leap then was that such evasion attached deep significance to the meeting with Lumumba, vis-a-vis the murder. QED: Lumumba was a big part of all this.

And, incidentally, I studiously refuse to play the race card with regard to any suspicion of Lumumba, because I think that implies levels of misconduct within the Perugia police that I'm currently unable to contemplate or believe.

Raffaele wrote in his diary that he didn't trust Amanda, and wouldn't have been surprised if she'd left him that night to go see another boy/man whom she was cheating on Raff with.

Again, I believe the Police were suspicious - rightfully so. But suspicion, a hunch, without real evidence of any kind does not equate to making one a suspect.

As soon as Amanda made her accusation of Patrick and the details of the story were filled in, she was formally made a suspect.

Would you prefer the Police went off and arrested people based purely on hearsay, on one person's accusation without more evidence? Welcome to the Witch Hunts of lore.

Why, do you think, the Police hadn't interviewed Patrick prior to the 5th if he was a "person of interest" in this case due to the text message log?

 

[Mary_H]

In a nutshell, the reason why I think Lumumba transformed into a murder suspect in the police's eyes, even before the AK "confession", is this: The police were convinced that the text message was an firm invitation to meet up. AK had just been placed "at large" for most of the night of the 1st by her own boyfriend - giving her the opportunity to fulfill this meeting.

I don't think this reflects the reality of the situation. Amanda was not placed at large by Raffaele; it is more reasonable to claim she was placed at large by the police, with whom Raffaele then agreed. In other words, they lied to him and he believed them. That is why he later said he did not think about the inconsistencies -- that is, what the police had told him that was inconsistent with the alibi the two suspects had held to since 11/2.

And, incidentally, I studiously refuse to play the race card with regard to any suspicion of Lumumba, because I think that implies levels of misconduct within the Perugia police that I'm currently unable to contemplate or believe.

It's not playing the race card if they had evidence a black man committed the crime. If you read early news reports, you will find that the people of Perugia were counting on the murderer turning out to be a foreigner.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

When you say this:

"The Police might have been now developed interest in Patrick, determined they needed to interview him - but that does not require suspicion of murder."

and when stilicho says this:

"The police had their cell phones by 02 NOV 2007. This was reported in court by either Bartolozzi or Bastitelli. That's almost four full days in which they knew about the messages and yet they saw no reason to interview Patrick."

it sounds like you are tending toward recognizing that it would have been reasonable or even advisable for the police to have interviewed Patrick in a civil way, according to regular protocol, instead of arresting him the way they did.

On what basis? That he had received a text message from Amanda? Again, that alone was no real reason to believe Patrick was involved. Besides, it was a mere, what, 3 days later that the Police asked Amanda about the text message? Perhaps, and I'm just going out on a limb here, it takes time for paperwork and evidence to be sifted through...just a thought

Regardless, you still haven't provided evidence that the Police suspected Patrick, or Amanda, had anything to do with the murder prior to the 5th.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Were the Police suspicious of Patrick prior to Amanda's accusation, and somehow the NWO managed to make all the players fall into the precise roles necessary for this travesty of justice? Again, CT forum is thataway ---->

 

[Mary_H]

Raffaele wrote in his diary that he didn't trust Amanda, and wouldn't have been surprised if she'd left him that night to go see another boy/man whom she was cheating on Raff with.

He also wrote later in his diary that he had been mistaken when he suspected her and mistrusted her. You're not looking at the big picture, or his intent.

Again, I believe the Police were suspicious - rightfully so. But suspicion, a hunch, without real evidence of any kind does not equate to making one a suspect.

As soon as Amanda made her accusation of Patrick and the details of the story were filled in, she was formally made a suspect.

Would you prefer the Police went off and arrested people based purely on hearsay, on one person's accusation without more evidence? Welcome to the Witch Hunts of lore.

Are you kidding? If so, please use a winky face instead of a smiley face so we'll know.

Why, do you think, the Police hadn't interviewed Patrick prior to the 5th if he was a "person of interest" in this case due to the text message log?

They wanted to make a big splash in the news.

 

[LondonJohn]

Raffaele wrote in his diary that he didn't trust Amanda, and wouldn't have been surprised if she'd left him that night to go see another boy/man whom she was cheating on Raff with.

Again, I believe the Police were suspicious - rightfully so. But suspicion, a hunch, without real evidence of any kind does not equate to making one a suspect.

As soon as Amanda made her accusation of Patrick and the details of the story were filled in, she was formally made a suspect.

Would you prefer the Police went off and arrested people based purely on hearsay, on one person's accusation without more evidence? Welcome to the Witch Hunts of lore.

Why, do you think, the Police hadn't interviewed Patrick prior to the 5th if he was a "person of interest" in this case due to the text message log?

Because, as I've said further up, I don't believe that the police attached any real significance to Lumumba UNTIL two things happened on the night of the 5th/6th: 1) RS turned on AK, and refused to confirm that she'd been at his flat all evening/night; and 2) AK appeared to the police to become extraordinarily evasive over the text to Lumumba when questioned about it in her own interview. I've argued that these two things led police to conclude pretty quickly that AK had something major to do with this murder. And if she had something major to do with it, then the police's clear belief that she was lying about having met up with Lumumba places him right in the heart of the case as well. Of course, as soon as AK "fessed up" and accused Lumumba into the bargain, it was now a full-on green light to arrest Lumumba.

I don't think the police should have had any direct suspicions of Lumumba any time before 11pm on the 5th. As I've said before, I think it was perfectly proper of them to bring RS and AK in, to try to clarify the seeming contradiction. I think the police WERE growing in suspicion of AK, and probably of RS too, through the 4th and 5th. But they still had to be open to the possibility that the text to Lumumba had an innocent explanation - especially as it pertained to Lumumba himself.

Incidentally, your penultimate paragraph (beginning "Would you prefer...") is intriguing to me. Isn't that exactly what the police did to Lumumba at 6am on the 6th? Wasn't he arrested on one person's accusation without more evidence (except the text message, which turned out to be a red herring anyway, and to which the police shouldn't have attached such a high level of certainty in their beliefs)?

 

[LondonJohn]

Are you kidding? If so, please use a winky face instead of a smiley face so we'll know.
.

Unfortunately, I don't think he is kidding. It's hard to understand why he said that, though.........

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think this reflects the reality of the situation. Amanda was not placed at large by Raffaele; it is more reasonable to claim she was placed at large by the police, with whom Raffaele then agreed. In other words, they lied to him and he believed them. That is why he later said he did not think about the inconsistencies -- that is, what the police had told him that was inconsistent with the alibi the two suspects had held to since 11/2.



It's not playing the race card if they had evidence a black man committed the crime. If you read early news reports, you will find that the people of Perugia were counting on the murderer turning out to be a foreigner.

I realised after writing this post that the RS alibi-retraction issue is also a lot more complicated than first meets the eye. And, having just mugged up on it some more, I too believe the possibility that certain...."techniques".....might have been employed to.....help things along.

The race thing is of interest to me. How and why did they have evidence that a black man committed the crime? Did they find Afro-Caribbean hair at the scene? Or was that linked to some of the eyewitness testimony? I genuinely don't know, and would like to find out more. The alleged "will of the people" to find and convict a foreigner is also new to me, and - if true - is clearly indicative of something quite different from firm evidence.

 

[Mary_H]

On what basis? That he had received a text message from Amanda? Again, that alone was no real reason to believe Patrick was involved. Besides, it was a mere, what, 3 days later that the Police asked Amanda about the text message? Perhaps, and I'm just going out on a limb here, it takes time for paperwork and evidence to be sifted through...just a thought

Paperwork? Evidence? What's that? They certainly didn't use any of that when they dragged Patrick out of bed.

Suddenly a text message from Amanda on the night of the murder has no significance? What about all the guilters who have been saying the police suspected Amanda from Day One? Do they want it both ways -- Amanda was under suspicion but her text messages weren't?

Regardless, you still haven't provided evidence that the Police suspected Patrick, or Amanda, had anything to do with the murder prior to the 5th.

stilicho says the police were watching (and presumably analyzing) the phones as early as the 2nd.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Were the Police suspicious of Patrick prior to Amanda's accusation, and somehow the NWO managed to make all the players fall into the precise roles necessary for this travesty of justice? Again, CT forum is thataway ---->

Well, when you put it that way, it becomes more clear than ever that the police had no reason to suspect Raffaele, Patrick OR Amanda, but they got desperate and did exactly what you describe: managed to make all the players fall into the precise roles necessary for this travesty of justice.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the police brought Raffaele in on on the 5th and told him Amanda wasn't with him the night of the murder, when they had no evidence of it. Sounds like a set-up to me, especially in light of the fact that they arrested Raffaele for the reason that he WAS with her the night of the crime.

Any police department that believes they can get away with the lame-o knife and bra clasp clues, also believes they can get away with an obvious frame-up.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Because, as I've said further up, I don't believe that the police attached any real significance to Lumumba UNTIL two things happened on the night of the 5th/6th: 1) RS turned on AK, and refused to confirm that she'd been at his flat all evening/night; and 2) AK appeared to the police to become extraordinarily evasive over the text to Lumumba when questioned about it in her own interview. I've argued that these two things led police to conclude pretty quickly that AK had something major to do with this murder. And if she had something major to do with it, then the police's clear belief that she was lying about having met up with Lumumba places him right in the heart of the case as well. Of course, as soon as AK "fessed up" and accused Lumumba into the bargain, it was now a full-on green light to arrest Lumumba.

I don't think the police should have had any direct suspicions of Lumumba any time before 11pm on the 5th. As I've said before, I think it was perfectly proper of them to bring RS and AK in, to try to clarify the seeming contradiction. I think the police WERE growing in suspicion of AK, and probably of RS too, through the 4th and 5th. But they still had to be open to the possibility that the text to Lumumba had an innocent explanation - especially as it pertained to Lumumba himself.

I'm not quite sure what is being debated here...That's not any different from what Stilicho and I have been posting...

Incidentally, your penultimate paragraph (beginning "Would you prefer...") is intriguing to me. Isn't that exactly what the police did to Lumumba at 6am on the 6th? Wasn't he arrested on one person's accusation without more evidence (except the text message, which turned out to be a red herring anyway, and to which the police shouldn't have attached such a high level of certainty in their beliefs)?

I suppose I should have rephrased that last comment. Perhaps: Would you prefer the Police just arrested everyone that might possibly have had anything to do with the murder and then sort it all out?

That, actually, does a better job of capturing the thought I was attempting to portray.

 

[Mary_H]

Unfortunately, I don't think he is kidding. It's hard to understand why he said that, though.........

How can such a thing possibly be -- I mean, that he's not kidding? I'm telling you -- he is unconsciously moving to the other side.

 

[Mary_H]

"I suppose I should have rephrased that last comment. Perhaps: Would you prefer the Police just arrested everyone that might possibly have had anything to do with the murder and then sort it all out?

That, actually, does a better job of capturing the thought I was attempting to portray.

LOL! Here he goes again....

Isn't that what Fulcanelli claimed was the point of Matteini's report -- just a preliminary that could be sorted out later?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

How can such a thing possibly be -- I mean, that he's not kidding? I'm telling you -- he is unconsciously moving to the other side.

The other side of what?

You are sadly mistaken if you believe I find the arrests of Amanda & Raffaele were somehow in error. You are also sadly mistaken if you believe I'm "subconsciously" shifting toward agreeing with you. To do that requires far too many mental gymnastics, and I tire of those.

 

[Mary_H]

The race thing is of interest to me. How and why did they have evidence that a black man committed the crime? Did they find Afro-Caribbean hair at the scene? Or was that linked to some of the eyewitness testimony? I genuinely don't know, and would like to find out more. The alleged "will of the people" to find and convict a foreigner is also new to me, and - if true - is clearly indicative of something quite different from firm evidence.

Hmmm, apparently you are not reading my posts, John. Should I skip yours, too? Earlier today I posted:

"Italian police investigating the murder of Meredith Kercher are testing blood-smeared hairs found in her hand that could have come from her killer or killers, it emerged today.

The Turin daily La Stampa said that several hairs had been found in the fingers of Ms Kercher's left hand "and now the laboratory examinations will tells us whether these bloody hairs belong to whoever killed her".

"We know that Meredith Kercher, on that evening of November 1, fought back and tried to defend herself," it added."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2862541.ece

There were a couple of responses to the post, too.

 

[LondonJohn]

My head now hurts, and I'm going to bed. Have a pleasant debate through the US-time-zone evening.

 

[Mary_H]

.....As I've said before, I think it was perfectly proper of them to bring RS and AK in, to try to clarify the seeming contradiction. I think the police WERE growing in suspicion of AK, and probably of RS too, through the 4th and 5th.....

What contradictions? Why were they suspicious?

 

[LondonJohn]

Hmmm, apparently you are not reading my posts, John. Should I skip yours, too? Earlier today I posted:

"Italian police investigating the murder of Meredith Kercher are testing blood-smeared hairs found in her hand that could have come from her killer or killers, it emerged today.

The Turin daily La Stampa said that several hairs had been found in the fingers of Ms Kercher's left hand "and now the laboratory examinations will tells us whether these bloody hairs belong to whoever killed her".

"We know that Meredith Kercher, on that evening of November 1, fought back and tried to defend herself," it added."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2862541.ece

There were a couple of responses to the post, too.

But before I go.....

I did read that post. But I couldn't identify where it specifically mentioned a black man. It mentions hairs from a potential killer, but says nothing about whether those hairs were Afro-Caribbean in origin.

Have I missed something? Was there either insinuation or direct assertion that these hairs came from a black person? Or am I being dumb here? (That last one is a distinct possibility....).