Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Jungle Jim]

Perhaps she merely stated:

"Patrick, my boss, owner of Le Chic..."

Or something along those lines, not necessarily so explicitly. Anyway, it's not so hard for the Police to get from "Patrick, my boss" to "Patrick Lumumba, owner of Le Chic".

Fine. My point in response to Fulcanelli's assertion that the police did not know Patrick was a black man, was to point out his surname was a bit of a give away. In any case, the police knew the full name of the man they wanted arrested, Patrick Lumumba. They arrested him at his home. Given his surname they had reason to believe he was of African descent (i.e., a black man).

 

[stilicho]

Problems have been identified in police labs in: Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Manitoba, Missouri, Montana, Fort Worth, Virginia, and Seattle.

I've had about enough of this *********:

Baltimore:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-03-14/news/bal-md.lab14mar14_1_dna-testing-crime-lab-chiafari

"More than a year after an internal audit highlighted widespread deficiencies within the Baltimore Police Department's crime lab, the division has a backlog of thousands of analysis requests."

Boston:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/01/us_audit_found_more_problems_at_crime_lab/

"Auditors from the US Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General concluded that the laboratory entered incomplete genetic profiles into its computerized database in 12 cases of a sample of 100 involving unidentified suspects who left DNA at crimes scenes, making the profiles inadequate."

Cleveland:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...27/FREEBIOS.ART_ART_01-27-08_A12_R99539R.html

"The audit, which continues, found the analyst's testimony in Green's trial misleading and inaccurate, including his conclusions about the attacker's blood type."

San Francisco:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/22991929/detail.html

"The audit of the lab's drug-testing unit, released Tuesday, concluded in part that the unit is overburdened with too many cases to safely and accurately complete them in time for criminal charging."

--------------

I could go on but I want to make it abundantly clear that halides1 is not being entirely honest with his listing of American crime labs with problems. The point at which the contamination or fraud is uncovered is not in the courtroom but during the audit. This has been an ongoing challenge to halides1 and his team of DNA buffs.

Show us the audit report (or its media representation) where the Rome crime lab was similarly exposed. I can produce evidence of audits at each and every example you've provided, even though that's not my job. You are making the claim that the Rome crime lab is like those mentioned above.

Now prove it.

 

[Kestrel]

I've had about enough of this *********:

Baltimore:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-03-14/news/bal-md.lab14mar14_1_dna-testing-crime-lab-chiafari

"More than a year after an internal audit highlighted widespread deficiencies within the Baltimore Police Department's crime lab, the division has a backlog of thousands of analysis requests."

Boston:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/01/us_audit_found_more_problems_at_crime_lab/

"Auditors from the US Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General concluded that the laboratory entered incomplete genetic profiles into its computerized database in 12 cases of a sample of 100 involving unidentified suspects who left DNA at crimes scenes, making the profiles inadequate."

Cleveland:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...27/FREEBIOS.ART_ART_01-27-08_A12_R99539R.html

"The audit, which continues, found the analyst's testimony in Green's trial misleading and inaccurate, including his conclusions about the attacker's blood type."

San Francisco:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/22991929/detail.html

"The audit of the lab's drug-testing unit, released Tuesday, concluded in part that the unit is overburdened with too many cases to safely and accurately complete them in time for criminal charging."

--------------

I could go on but I want to make it abundantly clear that halides1 is not being entirely honest with his listing of American crime labs with problems. The point at which the contamination or fraud is uncovered is not in the courtroom but during the audit. This has been an ongoing challenge to halides1 and his team of DNA buffs.

Show us the audit report (or its media representation) where the Rome crime lab was similarly exposed. I can produce evidence of audits at each and every example you've provided, even though that's not my job. You are making the claim that the Rome crime lab is like those mentioned above.

Now prove it.

The Rome crime lab would have a hard time failing an audit. The reason is that the lab doesn't have an auditor.

 

[RoseMontague]

They're called auditors and every system has them.

There appears to be a single legitimate objection to the DNA analysis used in this case and it is that the double-DNA knife was tested using an uncommon testing method. It's the only part where all those schooled in science that have read into it agree that the testing method should be published and peer-reviewed.

The contamination hypotheses won't work and never will without supporting documentation available through the administration of the labs. The missing files hypotheses won't work because there is no evidence the defence teams don't have all the data requested and required to do their examinations.

These things come down to "trust" not because the prosecution has a smoother delivery but because the defence has done nothing to support their objections.

I am talking about expert witnesses, specifically the ones called by the defense in the Kercher case. You can call them auditors if you want to. My understanding is they disputed almost every piece of forensic evidence obtained. The judges/jury decided to go with the opinions of the prosecution experts instead.

If you are saying the jury is not influenced to some degree by the quality and presentation of defense's forensic expert witnesses then we just do not agree on that point.

 

[Mary_H]

Perhaps she merely stated:

"Patrick, my boss, owner of Le Chic..."

Or something along those lines, not necessarily so explicitly. Anyway, it's not so hard for the Police to get from "Patrick, my boss" to "Patrick Lumumba, owner of Le Chic".

But wait, Bob -- Fulcanelli has tried to slip it by us twice that the police didn't know who Patrick was:

"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."

"As for Patrick, they didn't even know who he was, let alone that he was black. They didn't know that until they arrested him."

In that case, Amanda would have to be terribly specific to help out the poor cops.

Never mind that EVERYBODY in Perugia knew who Patrick was and that he ran the popular Le Chic. Never mind that it is the job of the police to know who's who and what's what in the city they patrol. Never mind that they usually keep an especially close eye on university districts and other areas of high drug trafficking.

No, the police had no idea who Patrick was, or that he was from Africa. And although they may have been scrutinizing Amanda in the days prior to her interrogation, they had no reason to find out where she worked and who her employer was.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Just for clarification: when I say "they", I'm really referring to the machinery of state as a whole. In the UK, it's solely the police's judgment as to whether they arrest someone (although they can be held accountable for their decision ex-post). In Italy, the prosecuting attorney (here, Mignini) gets involved a lot sooner than in the UK. By the way, Mignini is not a judge, and did not act as a judge in any capacity in this case. But I thought you knew that....

So, with that in mind, you're arguing a semantic point when you say the police had to arrest Lumumba because Mignini had ordered them to arrest him. I'm really asking: why did Mignini give that order to arrest Lumumba? I know that you've argued that it was AK's 5.45am statement that sealed the deal on Mignini's order. But I still argue that Mignini should have (and would have) known full well that AK was a) far from a reliable source of information in general; b) was still, I believe, without legal representation; c) was making accusations against a man that were not only totally uncorroborated but that were unsupported by any forensic or other evidence.

So I'll say again. I think Lumumba should have been summoned for questioning on the morning of the 6th. Not arrested. Had he refused to give voluntary statements, or if his statements had shown evidence of lying or concealment, THEN he could have been arrested and brought into custody.

Also (but not addressed to your post) I also saw someone else write that Lumumba had to be arrested because a) this was a very serious crime, and b) there were public safety issues about having a rapist and murderer at large. However, I don't think there were any other reports of sexual assault or murder in Perugia between the 2nd and the 6th November (but I might be wrong). So unless there were lots of bodies still waiting to be discovered, or rape victims who had not yet come forward, the police/prosecutor had no reason to suspect that they had a serial maniac on their hands (or, at least, not one who was likely to commit another serious offence within the following four hours).

I re-iterate: EVEN IF THEY THOUGHT LUMUMBA MIGHT BE A RAPIST AND MURDERER, WITH A PROPENSITY TO RE-OFFEND, they would have been placing the public at no additional risk whatsoever by visiting Lumumba at 9am and inviting him to give his version of events at the station. If he'd flat refused while he stood at his front door, they could have justifiably arrested him virtually instantaneously - thus not placing the public at risk. And if he'd gone to the station, but had given evasive or untruthful replies, then they could likewise have arrested him there and then. So the "public protection" argument just doesn't wash, in my view.

 

[stilicho]

The Rome crime lab would have a hard time failing an audit. The reason is that the lab doesn't have an auditor.

They have never been audited? Are you sure? Cite?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Ermmmmm. apart from anything else, his surname was "Lumumba" and you suggest that the police/prosecutor might not have even guessed at his ethnic origin? I'm not suggesting that this influenced their decision-making, but I AM suggesting that they at least had a fairly good idea of his ethnicity. Plus, I understand he was fairly well-known around town, and in addition, police drink in bars quite often.....

 

[LondonJohn]

'Possibly'. Only Amanda didn't seem to know his surname anyway (why would she?). In her statements she refers to him only as 'Patrick'.

Uh-oh. If the police only knew him as "Patrick", how did they know whose house to turn up at for the arrest?

 

[stilicho]

I am talking about expert witnesses, specifically the ones called by the defense in the Kercher case. You can call them auditors if you want to. My understanding is they disputed almost every piece of forensic evidence obtained. The judges/jury decided to go with the opinions of the prosecution experts instead.

If you are saying the jury is not influenced to some degree by the quality and presentation of defense's forensic expert witnesses then we just do not agree on that point.

I'm speaking of real-life auditors.

Judges/jurors will almost always agree with the forensics results regardless of the paid stumping done by the defence. You'd have a difficult time finding a single example of contamination being proved in a court of law or accepted by a jury (or set of judges).

That's because it's necessary to prove contamination through audits and not on the fly.

I believe you're also talking about other forensics such as the knife wound analyses and so forth. I am not certain how often paid defence experts are believed over crime lab experts in that regard but I doubt it's at a very high rate.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ahh... others seem to have picked up on the internal contradictions within the fine Mr Fulcanelli's position before I made the same points. Apologies for the repetition. I really should have caught up with ALL the posts that had happened in my absence before posting one of my own, rather than responding to posts as I scroll down through what I've missed...

 

[stilicho]

EVEN IF THEY THOUGHT LUMUMBA MIGHT BE A RAPIST AND MURDERER, WITH A PROPENSITY TO RE-OFFEND, they would have been placing the public at no additional risk whatsoever by visiting Lumumba at 9am and inviting him to give his version of events at the station.

This is just plain stupid.

Show me a single example, anywhere, of the police allowing a violent rapist-murderer to lounge around in his house while pondering an invitation to come down for a chit-chat.

 

[RWVBWL]

But wait, Bob -- Fulcanelli has tried to slip it by us twice that the police didn't know who Patrick was:

"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."

"As for Patrick, they didn't even know who he was, let alone that he was black. They didn't know that until they arrested him."

In that case, Amanda would have to be terribly specific to help out the poor cops.

Never mind that EVERYBODY in Perugia knew who Patrick was and that he ran the popular Le Chic. Never mind that it is the job of the police to know who's who and what's what in the city they patrol. Never mind that they usually keep an especially close eye on university districts and other areas of high drug trafficking.

No, the police had no idea who Patrick was, or that he was from Africa. And although they may have been scrutinizing Amanda in the days prior to her interrogation, they had no reason to find out where she worked and who her employer was.

Hi Mary H,
I agree, many police in my city seem to know of the local bars, clubs and establishments serving alcohol, I would imagine the same is true for other small cities. Those places, especially clubs and bars, are where many fights occurr between inebriated patrons...

The whole jist of my joining this particular discussion was that if Miss Alessandra Formica had already gone to the police to report that she had seen a black male leaving the area of the murder that night, then the police might have been aware that there might be a black male individual involved. And so, when they questioned Miss Knox, and she told them where she worked, someone probably knew of Mr. Lumumba being the owner of Le Chic, and that he was a black male. If they had Miss Formica's eye witness report by then, that might have rang a bell in someone's mind.
When the police were interrogating Miss Knox about that "see you later" text message, they possibly thought that Mr. Lumumba was planning to meet Miss Knox later and so he was involved in Miss Kercher's murder. They could have thought that he was the black male that Miss Formica saw the night of the murder.
Since Miss Knox has continuously said that the police "helped" her to remember, (and now she has to go to trial next month for stating that belief), maybe her "confession" was the last piece of the puzzle in their reasoning to arrest Mr. Lumumba in the early morning hours a short time later.
But they were, as we now know, wrong...

I wonder who knows when Miss Formica did actually report what she saw,
before Miss Knox, Mr. Sollecito and Mr. Lumumba were arrested or afterwards?
If it was before, that would make things kind of interesting. Personally, I would think that she would have went to the police right away, for a murderer was on the loose in her town, and she might have seen him. Yikes!
RWVBWL

 

[Agatha]

I re-iterate: EVEN IF THEY THOUGHT LUMUMBA MIGHT BE A RAPIST AND MURDERER, WITH A PROPENSITY TO RE-OFFEND, they would have been placing the public at no additional risk whatsoever by visiting Lumumba at 9am and inviting him to give his version of events at the station.

Why? Are rapes only committed in the afternoon or evening? They had evidence (AK's accusation and statement) that they had a rapist and murder at large; they could not take any chance that he would flee or reoffend.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is just plain stupid.

Show me a single example, anywhere, of the police allowing a violent rapist-murderer to lounge around in his house while pondering an invitation to come down for a chit-chat.

Once again, you've consciously chosen to misrepresent what I wrote in order to try to belittle me. Not nice, nor stylish in any way. You use pejorative and provocative language to misrepresent me in an astonishing and unjustified fashion. May I recommend the following book to you: - seriously, you might benefit from reading it:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Frien...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274389582&sr=8-1


Where did I say that I proposed "the police allowed a violent rapist-murderer to lounge around in his house while pondering an invitation to come down for a chit-chat". Indulge me for a moment while i deconstruct just what you wrote there.

1) Lumumba was not a "violent rapist-murderer" at that point - nowhere near it. He'd been accused by a confused girl who'd demonstrably acted irrationally and in a contradictory fashion over the previous six hours. There was also a text message that clearly required clarification. But there was no other evidence whatsoever. And of course Lumumba never WAS a "violent rapist-murderer" at ANY point. What I think you might have meant was "suspected violent rapist-murderer" - although, for the reasons I've just given, I think you'd be wrong in that assertion too.

2) There was never a suggestion of Lumumba being allowed to "lounge around in his house" or "ponder an invitation". What I in fact suggested was that the police visit Lumumba's house in person, and ask him to accompany them to the station for questioning. My post clearly implied that Lumumba would have been asked to decide there and then whether to go voluntarily. Nowhere did I imply that he might have said to the police at his door something like "Thanks for the offer chaps. Give me a couple of hours to think about it, will you? I'll give you a shout to let you know if I fancy coming down to the station for a chat. Ok?".

3) Where did I suggest "chit-chat"? You're implying there some sort of cosy non-confrontational conversation. I suggested nothing of the sort. In fact, I explicitly said that Lumumba could (and should) have been asked to attend the station for an interview under caution, in order for the police to establish Lumumba's explanation (or otherwise) for the text message, and to put to him what AK had accused him of to gauge his reaction. A the same time, the police could have been searching for any other evidence (forensic etc) that might have corroborated AK's accusation.

4) As I've pointed out too many times to repeat, my suggestion of what the police could (and should) have done would have placed Lumumba in the police station one way or another by 9.30 that morning. He'd either have been there after willingly volunteering to accompany the police, or he'd have been there if he refused to accompany the police and had subsequently been arrested (justifiably, if he'd refused to go voluntarily). Do you actually understand what I've said there?

Now, some might call me a cynic, but it seems to me that you've chosen to go easy for a while on the personal attacks, but have instead chosen to employ a practice of deliberately distorting my opinions to try to discredit not only my posts by also me myself. It's almost as if you're out on a deliberate mission to damage me and/or my reputation. But surely that's just too far-fetched to be the truth, isn't it..................

 

[quadraginta]

Just for clarification: when I say "they", I'm really referring to the machinery of state as a whole. In the UK, it's solely the police's judgment as to whether they arrest someone (although they can be held accountable for their decision ex-post). In Italy, the prosecuting attorney (here, Mignini) gets involved a lot sooner than in the UK. By the way, Mignini is not a judge, and did not act as a judge in any capacity in this case. But I thought you knew that....

<snip>

What an unusual arrangement. I had no idea.

In the U.S. police have the authority and jurisdiction to arrest, and often do, most frequently when the offense in question is immediate and obvious.

In other circumstances a D.A. or Prosecuting Attorney may be conducting an investigation, and direct LE to make an arrest when sufficient evidence is obtained to have a warrant issued. Grand Juries have varying jurisdiction in this regard as well.

Not nearly as simple as the UK, apparently.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

But wait, Bob -- Fulcanelli has tried to slip it by us twice that the police didn't know who Patrick was:

"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."

"As for Patrick, they didn't even know who he was, let alone that he was black. They didn't know that until they arrested him."

In that case, Amanda would have to be terribly specific to help out the poor cops.

Never mind that EVERYBODY in Perugia knew who Patrick was and that he ran the popular Le Chic. Never mind that it is the job of the police to know who's who and what's what in the city they patrol. Never mind that they usually keep an especially close eye on university districts and other areas of high drug trafficking.

No, the police had no idea who Patrick was, or that he was from Africa. And although they may have been scrutinizing Amanda in the days prior to her interrogation, they had no reason to find out where she worked and who her employer was.

I'm sorry, what was the point you guys were originally trying to make? That the Police arrested Patrick because of his race?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Once again, you've consciously chosen to misrepresent what I wrote in order to try to belittle me. Not nice, nor stylish in any way. You use pejorative and provocative language to misrepresent me in an astonishing and unjustified fashion. May I recommend the following book to you: - seriously, you might benefit from reading it:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Frien...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274389582&sr=8-1


Where did I say that I proposed "the police allowed a violent rapist-murderer to lounge around in his house while pondering an invitation to come down for a chit-chat". Indulge me for a moment while i deconstruct just what you wrote there.

1) Lumumba was not a "violent rapist-murderer" at that point - nowhere near it. He'd been accused by a confused girl who'd demonstrably acted irrationally and in a contradictory fashion over the previous six hours. There was also a text message that clearly required clarification. But there was no other evidence whatsoever. And of course Lumumba never WAS a "violent rapist-murderer" at ANY point. What I think you might have meant was "suspected violent rapist-murderer" - although, for the reasons I've just given, I think you'd be wrong in that assertion too.

2) There was never a suggestion of Lumumba being allowed to "lounge around in his house" or "ponder an invitation". What I in fact suggested was that the police visit Lumumba's house in person, and ask him to accompany them to the station for questioning. My post clearly implied that Lumumba would have been asked to decide there and then whether to go voluntarily. Nowhere did I imply that he might have said to the police at his door something like "Thanks for the offer chaps. Give me a couple of hours to think about it, will you? I'll give you a shout to let you know if I fancy coming down to the station for a chat. Ok?".

3) Where did I suggest "chit-chat"? You're implying there some sort of cosy non-confrontational conversation. I suggested nothing of the sort. In fact, I explicitly said that Lumumba could (and should) have been asked to attend the station for an interview under caution, in order for the police to establish Lumumba's explanation (or otherwise) for the text message, and to put to him what AK had accused him of to gauge his reaction. A the same time, the police could have been searching for any other evidence (forensic etc) that might have corroborated AK's accusation.

4) As I've pointed out too many times to repeat, my suggestion of what the police could (and should) have done would have placed Lumumba in the police station one way or another by 9.30 that morning. He'd either have been there after willingly volunteering to accompany the police, or he'd have been there if he refused to accompany the police and had subsequently been arrested (justifiably, if he'd refused to go voluntarily). Do you actually understand what I've said there?

Now, some might call me a cynic, but it seems to me that you've chosen to go easy for a while on the personal attacks, but have instead chosen to employ a practice of deliberately distorting my opinions to try to discredit not only my posts by also me myself. It's almost as if you're out on a deliberate mission to damage me and/or my reputation. But surely that's just too far-fetched to be the truth, isn't it..................

Go reread your posts again, LJ. What you are saying you didn't say, you did in fact say.

You said the Police had no need to rush down and arrest Patrick. You said the Police should have invited him to come down to make a statement at 9am.

Now, I don't know about you, but that certainly is leaving a suspected violent rapist/murderer on the loose. The reality is that the Police had no reason to suspect he wouldn't strike again. The Police in just about any precinct in the world would have gone down to arrest Patrick in the same manner. And if they hadn't, the local people would have been in an uproar.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why? Are rapes only committed in the afternoon or evening? They had evidence (AK's accusation and statement) that they had a rapist and murder at large; they could not take any chance that he would flee or reoffend.

Read my post again. I'm not being patronising: I do mean, read my post (and others of mine) again to put things in the correct context.

To repeat, though: I explicitly argue that even had the police correctly felt that Lumumba was the rapist/murderer, they didn't have to take ANY chance that he would flee or re-offend by visiting him at 9am and asking him to accompany them to the station for interview under caution. One way or another, he'd have been sitting in the police station by 9.30, after which point he could justifiably be arrested and remanded in custody if his version of events hadn't added up or the police had uncovered more evidence against him. He'd already have been arrested by 9.30, of course, if he'd refused to co-operate with the police at 9am. So any way you cut it, Lumumba would have been off the streets by 9.30 if you follow my argument.

And I would argue, as I've done before, that I don't believe that AK's accusation in and of itself constitutes sufficient grounds for the immediate arrest of Lumumba - before even giving him a chance to explain himself. You of course have a right to disagree on this.

Finally - although I don't think it's all that relevant to my argument - I DO think that most serious sexual offences against strangers are committed in the evening or the early hours of the morning (i.e. between, say, 7pm and 4am). There are many complex reasons for this, but they include 1) darkness; 2) alcohol or drugs (whose usage tends to spike during the afternoon and evening); 3) pent-up sexual frustration (which also tends to build up during waking hours, to reach a crescendo by the evening/night) and 4) opportunity (drunk girls on their way home alone, people sleeping). By the way, to clarify, on point (3), what I mean is that very few serial rapists get the urge to rape as soon as they wake up in the morning. It takes many hours after waking for the sexual urge to rise to the frenzied level necessary to commit a pre-meditated rape.

And before anyone argues something like: "Well, it was still dark at 7am in Perugia in November, and women were asleep all over Perugia, so this fulfills your criteria for a potential rape/assault to occur", I'd argue that the most important factor of all is (3) from my list above. So would Lumumba have had to have been up all night, building up more and more frustration and an urge to attack. And if he HAD been up all night, the police were unlikely to find him in his house sleeping next to his wife and child - he'd likely have been out prowling for potential victims. Anyway - that's all conjecture, but I think the raw statistics would support the assertion that the majority of stranger-rapes/assaults are committed between around 7pm and 4am. If this IS accurate, then the police could have a certain amount of confidence that any potential serial sex attacker (including Lumumba) would not have committed any further offences against members of the public between 6.00am and 9.00am on the 6th November 2007.

 

[LondonJohn]

Go reread your posts again, LJ. What you are saying you didn't say, you did in fact say.

You said the Police had no need to rush down and arrest Patrick. You said the Police should have invited him to come down to make a statement at 9am.

Now, I don't know about you, but that certainly is leaving a suspected violent rapist/murderer on the loose. The reality is that the Police had no reason to suspect he wouldn't strike again. The Police in just about any precinct in the world would have gone down to arrest Patrick in the same manner. And if they hadn't, the local people would have been in an uproar.

Jeeez. Here we go again.

I did not say that the police had no need to rush down and arrest Patrick. I said the police had no need to arrest Patrick. Can you spot the difference?

I did not say that the police should have invited him to come down to the station at 9am. I said that the police should have arrived at his house at 9am, and asked him at his doorstep to accompany them immediately to the station. Can you spot the difference?

I did not say that the police should have asked him to make a statement. I said that the police should have asked him to be interviewed under caution. Can you spot the difference?

I did not imply that the police could be leaving a dangerous murderer/rapist on the loose through these actions. I argued that Lumumba (whether it was truly justifiable to consider him a truly valid suspect at this point is moot for this particular argument) would have been off the streets and in a police station by 9.30 that morning. Had his answers under caution been evasive, self-contradictory or dishonest, he could have been arrested mid-way through the interview. Or if he's refused to accompany the police at 9am, he could have been arrested there and then on his doorstep. Can you spot the difference?

It's appearing more and more to me that a small hard core of posters is deliberately choosing to attack my arguments not based on logic, but rather on mis-quoting my arguments or telling me I am either contradicting myself or not remembering what I've previously written. Is there an agenda at work here?