Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[RWVBWL]

Re: By Mary H,
"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."

and
RE: by LondonJohn,
"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.
"__________________________________________________________________________

Didn't Miss Alessandra Formica say that as she and her boyfriend were descending the stairs of via della Pergola that lead to viale S.Antonio, where their car was parked and where the cottage is, a black guy coming up the stairs suddenly bumped into them and ran away that night of the murder?

Does anyone know what day it was when Miss Formica told the police this? I've read that she did tell them a few days later. If it was before the night of the 5th/6th, might the police have already had a notion that a black male was possibly involved in Miss Kercher's murder, before even questioning Miss Knox about that "see you later" text message?
If so, it adds another reason to understand Mr. Lumumba getting arrested, for the police might have been on the lookout for a black male. Now if Mr. Lumumba was a white male, I wonder if he would have even been arrested?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

Reading this article that TSIG and Bobthedonkey linked the other day, I wondered why Mr. Lumumba said that a police officer, one of many involved in his arrest, yelled at him "dirty black"? Why would a cop call Mr. Lumumba that?

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

Might that be because Miss Formica had already approached and told the police that she saw a black male that night of the murder leaving the area?
So the police were starting to look for a "dirty black" male, before Miss Knox was even "questioned" the night of the 5th/6th?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[BobTheDonkey]

LJ does not agree that Patrick should have been arrested after Amanda named him. He wrote:

...snip...

Yet, on the last few pages, LJ had this to say:

Because I argue that the police quickly came to the conclusion - at around 01.00 on the 6th - that BOTH AK and Lumumba were involved. Why would they not "need Amanda any longer" if they thought she and Lumumba both had something to do with it? And it was the middle of the night by this point, so the logical thing to do was to continue with questioning of AK, and then to get Lumumba in some time later on the 6th. As it turned out, they even ended up expediting their detention of Lumumba - dragging him out of his house at 6am that same morning.

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.

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.

So maybe, rather than Stilicho and myself shifting position, LJ is actually shifting...

ETA: Or, it could be, Mary, that you again misread/misinterpret what someone here has posted. What LJ was actually saying in your quote was that he disagreed with the manner in which Patrick was arrested, not that Patrick was arrested. And given that it was a judgment call by the Police, and that we now know Patrick was not at all involved, it's easy to look back and say the Police acted brashly. In reality, though, at the time of the arrest, there was every reason to believe Patrick needed to be picked up, and picked up fast. A horrible rape/murder had occurred, and there was every reason to believe Amanda's accusation of Patrick being the culprit.

 

[Fulcanelli]

_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

Reading this article that TSIG and Bobthedonkey linked the other day, I wondered why Mr. Lumumba said that a police officer, one of many involved in his arrest, yelled at him "dirty black"? Why would a cop call Mr. Lumumba that?

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

Might that be because Miss Formica had already approached and told the police that she saw a black male that night of the murder leaving the area?
So the police were starting to look for a "dirty black" male, before Miss Knox was even "questioned" the night of the 5th/6th?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

Not all this again. If you had bothered reading the whole thread you'd know that this had already all been dealt with. Patrick stated on a number of occasions in Italian national television that he never made those statements about being mistreated by the police. The story you are referring to was a 'paid' story (70,000 euros) and it was not a news story but a personal interest story. The Mail embellished their interview with Patrick to spice it up. This has all been long established.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

The police had to arrest Patrick. It wasn't their choice.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

There was no hair in Meredith's hand.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Which would explain why he was not able to take full advantage of the opportunity. There's a first time for everything. Rudy was compiling a generous record of incidents of breaking and entering -- something that also was not on his record -- prior to the murder. It is clear he was in a pattern that was escalating.

Utter claptrap.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They said quite a bit more than that:

"[Chief of Police] Mr De Felice said that the three had “tried to overpower her sexually” but Miss Kercher had resisted. He added that the student had been “morally upright”, and that no traces of drugs had been found in her blood.

"Giuliano Amato, the Italian interior minister, told a news conference: “It’s an ugly story in which people which this girl had in her home, friends, tried to force her into relations which she didn’t want.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2816366.ece

This was on the 6th of November.

Of course. Amanda had told them all of this.Therefore, if you need to blame anyone, blame Amanda (God forbid).

 

[Fulcanelli]

She probably didn't "name" the police officer because Italian law requires you "name" someone under their defamation law--which is why I don't think she's too worried about her upcoming slander suit.

In which case, Amanda Knox lied on the stand in the trial.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Again, more utter rubbish from you Mary.

 

[Fulcanelli]

ETA: Or, it could be, Mary, that you again misread/misinterpret what someone here has posted. What LJ was actually saying in your quote was that he disagreed with the manner in which Patrick was arrested, not that Patrick was arrested. And given that it was a judgment call by the Police, and that we now know Patrick was not at all involved, it's easy to look back and say the Police acted brashly. In reality, though, at the time of the arrest, there was every reason to believe Patrick needed to be picked up, and picked up fast. A horrible rape/murder had occurred, and there was every reason to believe Amanda's accusation of Patrick being the culprit.

The police didn't make the call. They were acting on orders given by the judge (Mignini). Then, following his arrest, his arrest and continuing detention was upheld in court by Judge Matteini. Therefore, the arrest was correct.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's what I'm wondering, too. LJ agrees that Patrick should have been arrested after Amanda named him:

And it was the middle of the night by this point, so the logical thing to do was to continue with questioning of AK, and then to get Lumumba in some time later on the 6th.

His only objection appears to be when they "knew" that Patrick had murdered Meredith. I suppose we will always disagree about that. We think it was only after Amanda told them; he thinks it was about halfway into the interview and that they were playing mind games with her for a while.

I think Amanda's own testimony sums it all up very nicely:

So I am asking you, why start accusing [Patrick] when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why did you think those things could be true?

I was confused.

You're putting words into my mouth again. Re-read what I wrote. I have consistently argued that Lumumba should NOT have been arrested immediately on the 6th. And much less that he should have been dragged from his house in front of his family in an aggressive dawn raid - incidentally I'm not hearing much praise of the Perugia police for this dawn raid from ANY angle, and for a good reason.

I argue instead that Lumumba should have been pretty urgently visited by the police (but at 9am rather than 6am on the 6th), and invited to attend the station to "help police with their inquiries" (as we politely put it in UK law enforcement jargon). He should have been given this chance to volunteer information, under caution, about the text message and about his whereabouts on the evening/night of the 1st.

I contend that the police most certainly had enough information at their disposal by 4am on the 6th to warrant immediate further investigation of Lumumba. After all, he was clearly wrapped up in the text message confusion, and of course AK had named him as the killer.

But that second point (the AK accusation) should emphatically NOT have been seen by the police as a "silver bullet" piece of evidence against Lumumba which warranted his super-urgent arrest by Perugia's finest. It should instead have been seen as an uncorroborated accusation by a potential accomplice, who - objectively - might have been judged as acting under some duress. And that's before we even bring up the matter of how much Lumumba's involvement might have been "suggested" to AK prior to the confession - but for the sake of argument let's be generous and disregard that element for now. I still believe that the police had no right to charge in and arrest Lumumba (let alone in the way they did it).

So, my argument is that the police should have merely brought Lumumba in for questioning under caution on the 6th. After all, they'd never even spoken to him previously about this crime. Had he either refused to come to the station or given suspicious (or provably dishonest) statements in interview, then the police would have had firmer grounds on which to arrest him. Additionally, they had no forensic or identification evidence whatsoever against Lumumba at that time (obviously). And he demonstrably didn't constitute a flight risk at that time. Furthermore, had he - hypothetically - refused point blank to come to the station to answer questions, the police could have obtained an arrest warrant within the hour with very low attendant risk that Lumumba would skip town at such short notice, leaving his wife and child behind.

 

[LondonJohn]

The police had to arrest Patrick. It wasn't their choice.

Run through why they "had" to arrest Lumumba at 6am on the 6 November again, just to clear things up for me. Please could you also clarify in that explanation why they had to arrest him, rather than summon him for questioning under caution.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yet, on the last few pages, LJ had this to say:








So maybe, rather than Stilicho and myself shifting position, LJ is actually shifting...

ETA: Or, it could be, Mary, that you again misread/misinterpret what someone here has posted. What LJ was actually saying in your quote was that he disagreed with the manner in which Patrick was arrested, not that Patrick was arrested. And given that it was a judgment call by the Police, and that we now know Patrick was not at all involved, it's easy to look back and say the Police acted brashly. In reality, though, at the time of the arrest, there was every reason to believe Patrick needed to be picked up, and picked up fast. A horrible rape/murder had occurred, and there was every reason to believe Amanda's accusation of Patrick being the culprit.

Oh dear. Whatever the merits or otherwise of Mary H's arguments, it's you who's misinterpreting my opinions here. The stuff of mine that you've quoted in your reply is mainly discussing how I think the Perugia police might have come to take the steps they did take. For example, when I say things like "this was now a green light to arrest Lumumba", that DOESN'T mean that this is my opinion - I'm suggesting what the police might have thought at that point. I thought that would be extremely easy for any reader of my posts to figure out. Obviously I was wrong.

So, to clarify my position again: I disagree in principle that Lumumba should have been arrested at 6am on the 6th. I further argue that EVEN IF THERE WAS A CASE FOR LUMUMBA'S ARREST AT 6AM ON THE 6TH (WHICH I DISAGREE WITH), Lumumba should never have been arrested in the way in which it occurred, in some sort of SWAT incursion into his property. That's why I used phrases such as "...let alone in the manner in which it occurred". My position on this specific issue has never wavered, and nothing I've written previously has contradicted it.

Can everybody figure out my personal position on this matter now? Or shall I repeat it in words of no more than two syllables...?

 

[bucketoftea]

Yes, they had to arrest him straight away. Whoever committed the murder was considered dangerous, and Amanda claimed to be a witness, and named him. Her fault utterly.

 

[RoseMontague]

According to Nadeau's book the police had set up a surveillance camera and taped Amanda's and Raffaele's conversation in the police waiting room on 4 November. Amanda said:

"I want to know who his friends are because he doesn't have many friends. He didn't leave the house much. He didn't talk much."

Nadeau believes that the police had a suspicion she was talking about someone else that was involved in the murder and she was hiding that information. The point is that the pump was primed for the police to jump to conclusions when the text message and Patrick's name came up.

I am curious if it ever came out who she was talking about, if not Patrick.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Run through why they "had" to arrest Lumumba at 6am on the 6 November again, just to clear things up for me. Please could you also clarify in that explanation why they had to arrest him, rather than summon him for questioning under caution.

The short answer is that the police had to obey the judge (Mignini) who had ordered Patrick's immediate arrest. The stimulus for the order was Amanda's voluntary statement signed at 5:45 am, at which point Patrick's immediate arrest was ordered. Under what precise articles of law the order was given, that would be a question for an Italian lawyer or judge.

 

[RWVBWL]

Not all this again. If you had bothered reading the whole thread you'd know that this had already all been dealt with. Patrick stated on a number of occasions in Italian national television that he never made those statements about being mistreated by the police. The story you are referring to was a 'paid' story (70,000 euros) and it was not a news story but a personal interest story. The Mail embellished their interview with Patrick to spice it up. This has all been long established.

Hi Fulcaelli,
Thanks for the information.
I had never read this particular article.
I did not know that the police woman pounding on the door in the early morning, the arrest in front of the family, the "dirty black" comments, the 7 police cars with sirens ablaze drive-thru was a paid "personal interest story"...
RWVBWL

 

[RWVBWL]

The short answer is that the police had to obey the judge (Mignini) who had ordered Patrick's immediate arrest. The stimulus for the order was Amanda's voluntary statement signed at 5:45 am, at which point Patrick's immediate arrest was ordered. Under what precise articles of law the order was given, that would be a question for an Italian lawyer or judge.

Good day Fulcanelli,
Before I head to the beach here in L.A., maybe you can answer me this.
When did Miss Formica talk with the police about seeing a black male leaving the area the night of the murder?
Was it before the night of the 5th/6th?

If the police were looking for a black male, due to knowledge of Miss Formica's eye witness account, and then found out that Amanda Knox's boss, Mr. Lumumba who she had sent the "see you later" text message to, was a black male, I can see the police pressuring Miss Knox to better "remember" her/his involvement that night of the 5th/6th. Heck, maybe she even needed a little "help" to remember, as her up-coming slander trial suggests...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[christianahannah]

According to Nadeau's book the police had set up a surveillance camera and taped Amanda's and Raffaele's conversation in the police waiting room on 4 November. Amanda said:


Nadeau believes that the police had a suspicion she was talking about someone else that was involved in the murder and she was hiding that information. The point is that the pump was primed for the police to jump to conclusions when the text message and Patrick's name came up.

I am curious if it ever came out who she was talking about, if not Patrick.

Was there more included in Nadeau's book concerning that conversation?

I thought it interesting Amanda had bumped into Patrick after her classes on November 5. Perhaps that is why Patrick was on her mind when questioned later that night into early morning on November 6.

I have wondered what the reason was for asking Raffaele to come to the police station for questioning at 10 p.m. on November 5. Is there any information as to why that time was chosen?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Good day Fulcanelli,
Before I head to the beach here in L.A., maybe you can answer me this.
When did Miss Formica talk with the police about seeing a black male leaving the area the night of the murder?
Was it before the night of the 5th/6th?

If the police were looking for a black male, due to knowledge of Miss Formica's eye witness account, and then found out that Amanda Knox's boss, Mr. Lumumba who she had sent the "see you later" text message to, was a black male, I can see the police pressuring Miss Knox to better "remember" her/his involvement that night of the 5th/6th. Heck, maybe she even needed a little "help" to remember, as her up-coming slander trial suggests...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

No, it was after the 6th.

And on the night of Amanda's questioning, all they obtained were his name, the fact that he was Amanda's boss and what he did to Meredith according to Amanda's story. His colour wasn't known to them until they arrested him.