Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[piktor]

...it would be far less logical (and in fact possibly even indicative of some form of racial bias) to assume that a WOMAN called Lumumba was of African ethnic origin. This is, of course, because it's perfectly likely for a Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian (etc) woman to marry a man of African origin, and to take his name.

So it would be correct and not racist at all to infer a Mr. Lumumba be Negroid and a to infer a Mrs. Lumumba could be ethnically Negroid is somehow "racist".

I must also infer that you know for a fact that all admirers of the name Lumumba are non-white and would never legally change their name to Lumumba. Certainly no Caucasoid male has or could have changed his name to Lumumba.

Now, that strikes me as a slanted thought-process.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

But the severity of the crime does not determine whether or not Lumumba should have automatically been arrested in this circumstance. The police could - and should in my view - have accorded Lumumba the opportunity to assist them voluntarily. They had never spoken with him at any level previously about this crime. All they had was AK's accusation and the text message. HE SHOULD have been given the opportunity a) to cooperate, and b) to provide an answer all relevant questions without having been placed under arrest (much less being dragged out of his house in front of his family). If he' refused to accompany the police, he could have been arrested on the spot. And if he'd tried to resist arrest in any way, backup could have been there in five minutes and they'd have been perfectly justified in pinning him to the ground and slapping on arm restraints.

A lot of these sorts of posts seem to be suggesting that I advocated some sort of situation whereby Lumumba wasn't brought immediately to the police station. If we take out the whole "6am vs 9am" issue ( I believe that the police could safely have waited until 9am, but am prepared to go with 6am), then I'm absolutely arguing that Lumumba should have been in a police car on his way to the station by 06.15 that morning, arriving at the station by 06.30. But not in handcuffs (unless he'd ended up being arrested for non-compliance). And once he was in the station (assuming he hadn't already been arrested for non-compliance), he could and should have been arrested and placed in custody as soon as he either started telling porkies or further evidence turned up. But not before.

One other point: the police at that time (06.00) had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER whether Lumumba had a cast-iron and immediately-verifiable alibi. They never even gave him the opportunity to offer them one before slapping on the handcuffs. What if - hypothetically - they'd got to the station after the famous "dawn raid" arrest, and their first question had been "Where were you on the evening/night of the 1st November?". What if Lumumba's reply was something like "My child was rushed to hospital at 6pm on the 1st. I went to work in my bar but I left the bar at 8.45pm (it was very quiet), and went straight to the hospital to meet up with my wife and child. The doctors (Doctor X, Doctor Y and Doctor Z) treating my child saw me and talked with me at many various times from 21.00 to 03.00 - at which point my wife and I returned home."

If he HAD said something like that, it would have taken a matter of an hour maximum to check. IF it had been verified, they would have had to release Lumumba by lunchtime on the 6th, having dragged him out of his house merely hours before.

Now of course, what I've written above is conjecture and invented, and it didn't happen (although Lumumba's actual alibi turned out to be just as watertight, but - unfortunately for him - took longer to establish). It's merely meant to illustrate that the police had no idea what his alibi might or might not be - because they hadn't asked him. And they could have asked him without arresting him, while at the same time protecting the citizens of Perugia.

Let me explain why the Police didn't care about his alibi. Amanda, everyone's innocent little angel.

In fact, her statement is the reason Patrick was held for 2 weeks after he'd provided his alibi. Now, in hindsight, yes, there was no need for that.

However, and this is the important part, at the time, Patrick had been accused of a brutal murder/rape by a supposed eyewitness. That is, without doubt, a reason to pick the man up as soon as can be arranged, in a manner that provides the maximum amount of safety to the Police Officers involved. This wasn't a pick up for mere suspicion of murder/rape, this wasn't a pick-up due to unpaid parking tickets. This was a man who was accused by an eyewitness of a brutal rape and murder. Why should he not have been picked up immediately? Because he hadn't done anything since? He hadn't done anything prior to Meredith's murder either, so your argument falls flat on it's face.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I believe there is reasonable doubt about the DNA evidence, however I remain convinced that Amanda and Raffaele are hiding something based on the other evidence, including circumstantial evidence. If I were forced to a jury vote at this point, I would be saying not guilty.

That's as may be...but individual pieces of evidence are not accepted or discarded on the basis of reasonable doubt...that applies to the final verdict of guilty or not guilty only. Otherwise, no piece of circumstantial evidence (which makes up the bulk of all evidence in trials) would ever make it through a court room. This needs to be understood and that's the point I'm making.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

...it would be far less logical (and in fact possibly even indicative of some form of racial bias) to assume that a WOMAN called Lumumba was of African ethnic origin. This is, of course, because it's perfectly likely for a Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian (etc) woman to marry a man of African origin, and to take his name.
QUOTE]

So it would be correct and not racist at all to infer a Mr. Lumumba be Negroid and a to infer a Mrs. Lumumba could be ethnically Negroid is somehow "racist".

I must also infer that you know for a fact that all admirers of the name Lumumba are non-white and would never legally change their name to Lumumba. Certainly no Caucasoid male has or could have changed his name to Lumumba.

Now, that strikes me as a slanted thought-process.

What irks me is that LJ is apparently projecting his thought process on the rest of us. To me, Lumumba means nothing more than a surname. The connection of his last name to a race is minor - and realistically, I would expect the Police to know his race so as to better identify him, but that does not indicate any kind of racial profiling occurred.

In fact, there is no reason to believe the Police would have known his race strictly from Patrick's surname, nor is there reason to believe the Police acted differently than they would have had the man's last name been Smith or Johnson or Wong.

 

[RoseMontague]

Now of course, what I've written above is conjecture and invented, and it didn't happen (although Lumumba's actual alibi turned out to be just as watertight, but - unfortunately for him - took longer to establish). It's merely meant to illustrate that the police had no idea what his alibi might or might not be - because they hadn't asked him. And they could have asked him without arresting him, while at the same time protecting the citizens of Perugia.

I agree that the police had no idea what his alibi would be. I also agree that they could have asked him before he was arrested. I just think it is a debatable issue as to which way is the bast way to have handled it and I don't see his immediate arrest as some terrible thing the police did.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I agree that the police had no idea what his alibi would be. I also agree that they could have asked him before he was arrested. I just think it is a debatable issue as to which way is the bast way to have handled it and I don't see his immediate arrest as some terrible thing the police did.

Honestly, I don't think the Police would have trusted his alibi, nor would they have been expected to. In fact, I daresay I believe that most people would expect that the murderer/rapist would lie about their whereabouts.

In other words: Regardless of Patrick's alibi, he was going to jail.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But the severity of the crime does not determine whether or not Lumumba should have automatically been arrested in this circumstance.

You think not?

The police could - and should in my view - have accorded Lumumba the opportunity to assist them voluntarily.

Why? And achieved what with their questions? And once done questioning him...what, let him go? This point of this will have been...what, besides alerting him the police were on to him?

At what point 'could' and 'should' they have arrested him and under exactly what criteria? Just what are the rules you are setting here?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

ps-by the way, nice avatar...

I second that

 

[RoseMontague]

That's as may be...but individual pieces of evidence are not accepted or discarded on the basis of reasonable doubt...that applies to the final verdict of guilty or not guilty only. Otherwise, no piece of circumstantial evidence (which makes up the bulk of all evidence in trials) would ever make it through a court room. This needs to be understood and that's the point I'm making.

It is a good point you make, but having been on several juries I can tell you that we discussed both physical and circumstantial evidence as to whether we had doubts about any of it. In this particular case, two of the most important pieces of evidence are in doubt, in my opinion.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Honestly, I don't think the Police would have trusted his alibi, nor would they have been expected to. In fact, I daresay I believe that most people would expect that the murderer/rapist would lie about their whereabouts.

In other words: Regardless of Patrick's alibi, he was going to jail.

Exactly. The difference is, LondonJohn's method would have alerted him to destroy evidence and/or intimidate witnesses and/or kill again and/or flee Perugia before the arrest could be made.

For as we know, he could never be arrested for anything he might have said in interview...since according to the Knox People, nothing one may say in interview is incriminating, even if they admit to being present or doing it...false confessions, put under pressure/stress...none of it means anything and all that blah. Although, in their minds, perhaps none of that applies to black people and for that 'sort' questioning is valid

I could be wrong and If I am...what would have been the point of an interview?

 

[Fulcanelli]

It is a good point you make, but having been on several juries I can tell you that we discussed both physical and circumstantial evidence as to whether we had doubts about any of it. In this particular case, two of the most important pieces of evidence are in doubt, in my opinion.

You can take those two pieces of evidence out and toss them over your shoulder...the verdict would still remain. Scott Peterson is awaiting a lethal injection on the basis of far, far less, all of which being circumstantial. Few people anywhere have serious doubts about his guilt.

This case does not depend upon the knife and the clasp.

 

[RoseMontague]

I second that

Thank you. I believe this one was not even stolen, but was one of the free avatars available on the Top Cow website a year or so ago. It is the WitchBlade.

 

[LondonJohn]

What irks me is that LJ is apparently projecting his thought process on the rest of us. To me, Lumumba means nothing more than a surname. The connection of his last name to a race is minor - and realistically, I would expect the Police to know his race so as to better identify him, but that does not indicate any kind of racial profiling occurred.

In fact, there is no reason to believe the Police would have known his race strictly from Patrick's surname, nor is there reason to believe the Police acted differently than they would have had the man's last name been Smith or Johnson or Wong.

You're seemingly suggesting that I'm subtly (or otherwise) implying that the police's prior presumed knowledge of Lumumba's racial origin had any bearing on how they treated him. You've misrepresented me. I believe you're actually suggesting that I'm accusing the Perugia police of racism at some level. I'm not.

This whole topic was an extension of an original response to a post by Fulcanelli, who had argued that the police could have had no idea about Lumumba's ethnicity at the time they went to arrest him. I wanted merely to try to demonstrate that the police would have indeed have had knowledge of Lumumba's ethnicity (to a fairly high level of certainty) prior to his arrest - but emphatically not that this knowledge might have influenced their judgment or their actions.

 

[RoseMontague]

You can take those two pieces of evidence out and toss them over your shoulder...the verdict would still remain. Scott Peterson is awaiting a lethal injection on the basis of far, far less, all of which being circumstantial. Few people anywhere have serious doubts about his guilt.

This case does not depend upon the knife and the clasp.

The Peterson case would be a great example if not for the fact that there was only one person tried for that crime. I understand that people are convicted in many cases without any DNA evidence and very little forensic evidence. This case has a lot more mystery and a lot less motive than that case.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The Peterson case would be a great example if not for the fact that there was only one person tried for that crime. I understand that people are convicted in many cases without any DNA evidence and very little forensic evidence. This case has a lot more mystery and a lot less motive than that case.

I don't see how only one person being tried for the crime as opposed to three makes any difference in terms of comparison between the two, especially when the evidence against all three each individually is greater then that against Peterson.

I also don't see how this case has less motive then the Peterson case. Just the opposite in fact. Peterson's motive was 'want'. In this case, the motive was 'need'. Need always trumps want in terms of motive...for anything.

 

[LondonJohn]

Exactly. The difference is, LondonJohn's method would have alerted him to destroy evidence and/or intimidate witnesses and/or kill again and/or flee Perugia before the arrest could be made.

For as we know, he could never be arrested for anything he might have said in interview...since according to the Knox People, nothing one may say in interview is incriminating, even if they admit to being present or doing it...false confessions, put under pressure/stress...none of it means anything and all that blah. Although, in their minds, perhaps none of that applies to black people and for that 'sort' questioning is valid

I could be wrong and If I am...what would have been the point of an interview?

Sighhhhhhhhhhh. No. Another misrepresentation. Once more, with feeling:

"My method" would have STARTED with Lumumba coming to the police station by 06.30 to be interviewed under caution (assuming he agreed to such a course of action, otherwise he'd have been arrested). Incidentally, he'd have been under the watchful eye of the police ever since the knock on his door at 06.00. On arrival at the staion, he would then have been asked about his whereabouts on the murder night, including any potential alibis, and about the content and meaning of the text message. He could also have been asked to volunteer samples of his blood, DNA, fingerprints, hair (head and genital), fingerprint, palmprints and footprints. If he'd refused to provide these samples, he could have been arrested.

If Lumumba had given the police an easily-verifiable alibi, and had also satisfied them in other areas, then he could have been told he was free to leave the station.

If he'd given them a more nebulous or hard-to-check alibi, and/or he'd provided indeterminate answers to other questions including those about the text message, he could have been asked to remain at the police station under caution while these things were investigated further. If he'd refused, he could have been arrested in order to guarantee his continued custody.

If he'd offered no alibi, or had an unverifiable alibi, and/or had given contradictory/evasive/dishonest answers to other questions, and/or if other evidence had came to light, he could have been arrested there and then.

Where, under my scenario, is there a possibility for Lumumba - if he had been culpable - to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses or kill again?? If Lumumba HAD been the killer, he would clearly have been unable to provide the police with a verifiable alibi, and it's most likely that he'd have raised more suspicions in the interview. But the lack-of-verifiable-alibi factor in and of itself would have placed Lumumba under arrest and in custody in my scenario, without him ever leaving the police station after 06.30 on the 6th.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't see how only one person being tried for the crime as opposed to three makes any difference in terms of comparison between the two, especially when the evidence against all three each individually is greater then that against Peterson.

I also don't see how this case has less motive then the Peterson case. Just the opposite in fact. Peterson's motive was 'want'. In this case, the motive was 'need'. Need always trumps want in terms of motive...for anything.

The various motives presented in the Meredith Kercher case are just theories in my opinion. None are proven and none are sufficient enough to convince me that they are anything more than guesses.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Honestly, I don't think the Police would have trusted his alibi, nor would they have been expected to. In fact, I daresay I believe that most people would expect that the murderer/rapist would lie about their whereabouts.

In other words: Regardless of Patrick's alibi, he was going to jail.

Exactly. The difference is, LondonJohn's method would have alerted him to destroy evidence and/or intimidate witnesses and/or kill again and/or flee Perugia before the arrest could be made.

For as we know, he could never be arrested for anything he might have said in interview...since according to the Knox People, nothing one may say in interview is incriminating, even if they admit to being present or doing it...false confessions, put under pressure/stress...none of it means anything and all that blah. Although, in their minds, perhaps none of that applies to black people and for that 'sort' questioning is valid

I could be wrong and If I am...what would have been the point of an interview?

Again I ask (which you failed to answer before) what is this 'under caution'?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The various motives presented in the Meredith Kercher case are just theories in my opinion. None are proven and none are sufficient enough to convince me that they are anything more than guesses.

Motive is less important to the case than evidence indicating the involvement. In this case, we have Raffaele's DNA in Meredith's room with no plausible contamination scenario that doesn't require tertiary or quaternary transfer. We have Amanda's footprints, plus the circumstantial of faked break-in, locked doors, some indications of a cleanup, etc...

 

[christianahannah]

I don't see how only one person being tried for the crime as opposed to three makes any difference in terms of comparison between the two, especially when the evidence against all three each individually is greater then that against Peterson.

I also don't see how this case has less motive then the Peterson case. Just the opposite in fact. Peterson's motive was 'want'. In this case, the motive was 'need'. Need always trumps want in terms of motive...for anything.

Fulcanelli, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the sentences I highlighted. Would you mind expanding on your post?