Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

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.

You are confusing motive with scenarios.

Forget the scenarios. The 'motive' FOR THE MURDER is plain - after what had happened, after what they had done (whatever scenario you choose to accept) Meredith could not be permitted to live and be allowed to talk. They 'needed' to kill her. That was the motive for the 'murder', as simple as that.

The motive for why the attack started in the first place (which may or may not have had the intent of murder) and the scenario for it are a different matter entirely. The two need to be separate...do not confuse the two.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

He didn't want the child and he also wanted the money and freedom he'd gain from her death. None of those things could be described as need, however.

To example what I mean:

I WANT a currant bun.

I NEED a liver transplant.

Want V need.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

I don't believe there actually was a motive in this case - not every case has one - something got out of hand and someone just plain lost it.

 

[Jungle Jim]

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.

So your whole point is that you find fault with the procedural etiquette of the Perugia police? Can we move on?

 

[Amazer]

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.

In your scenario you are putting the public, the police officers and even Patrick himself in a situation with increased risks.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't believe there actually was a motive in this case - not every case has one - something got out of hand and someone just plain lost it.

I don't even have to separate that one. That certainly is not a stronger motive than in the Peterson case. Any motive trumps no motive as far as that goes.

 

[christianahannah]

He didn't want the child and he also wanted the money and freedom he'd gain from her death. None of those things could be described as need, however.

To example what I mean:

I WANT a currant bun.

I NEED a liver transplant.

Want V need.

I do understand the difference between want and need, though at times they can be intertwined.

What I didn't make clear was I was referring to "need" as it pertained to Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy. You answered that in the previous post to Rose. Thank you.

 

[stilicho]

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.

You're eating your words because you were proved to be mistaken. All you're doing now is restating that the Perugia police did the right thing at the right time as we had always explained to you was required by law. That it was also the right thing to do regardless of jurisdiction is simply icing on the cake. If you want to invent new methodologies for Italian law enforcement then that's your problem.

What you're also ignoring is that the lack of an immediately verifiable alibi, along with the pings near the cell tower covering Via Pergola, and the issues with the software in his phone, each combined to strongly suggest to the Perugia police that Amanda had not been lying and that they had the rapist-murderer in custody.

So you've acknowledged that the timing was not extraordinary, have invented procedures that don't exist in Italy, and have now been told why they could not immediately release Patrick too.

And all of this was due to the words of one person and one person only--Amanda Knox. You can sugar coat it, slide step around it, do the hokey-pokey this way and that, but you're stuck with the fact that an innocent man was nabbed, no procedures were violated, and that only Amanda Knox is responsible.

The courts agreed with us. Thank you for playing. Next.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Presumably, he had been at work every day since the discovery of the body.

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?

Hard to believe, but interviews that are conducted calmly and sanely, even with attorneys present, can lead to better information than interviews conducted in the ham-fisted way the Perugian police did it. If protocols are followed, and witnesses have rights, then the police protect themselves from later accusations of torture and brutality.

At least in countries where people are allowed to accuse the police of anything.

 

[stilicho]

First of all, you are assuming that it would have been Patrick at the door.
Second, you are assuming that Patrick would have just stood around passively while the police arrest him.
Given the fact that Patrick was in fact innocent of the crime i'ts quite likely that the scenario would have played out like you assume but you can only make that assumption with the benefit of hindsight.

I'm all for a kinder gentler police force. I support progressive measures such as the taser to subdue fleeing suspects rather than shooting them. I've worked with aboriginal applicants for law enforcement positions in my community to help them qualify for entrance examinations.

At the same time, I have difficulty showing a lot of sympathy for violent criminals apprehended too early to prepare their morning oatmeal.

 

[stilicho]

At least in countries where people are allowed to accuse the police of anything.

As in Italy, you mean. Amanda was allowed the opportunity at her trial to identify her assailant and she chose to tell a story about doing homework by the elevator instead.

 

[Baylor]

My first post in this thread. Too many sub-conversations to keep track of what's going on.

Both sides agree that evidence was staged.

Amanda supporters say the DNA was faked.

Amanda accuers say the break-in was staged.

Both sides agree Amanda is a slut.

Am I right so far?

 

[Matthew Best]

Sorry - the rules are that you must read the entire thread before asking any questions.

 

[Agatha]

LJ, as far as I can ascertain from googling, there is no such thing as an "interview under caution" in the Italian justice system.

 

[Amazer]

LJ, as far as I can ascertain from googling, there is no such thing as an "interview under caution" in the Italian justice system.

This has been pointed out to him earlier... doesn't seem to stop LJ though.

 

[Mary_H]

What you're also ignoring is that the lack of an immediately verifiable alibi, along with the pings near the cell tower covering Via Pergola, and the issues with the software in his phone, each combined to strongly suggest to the Perugia police that Amanda had not been lying and that they had the rapist-murderer in custody.

When was this information about the pings and the software known by the police?

 

[stilicho]

My first post in this thread. Too many sub-conversations to keep track of what's going on.

Both sides agree that evidence was staged.

Amanda supporters say the DNA was faked.

Amanda accuers say the break-in was staged.

Both sides agree Amanda is a slut.

Am I right so far?

We'll go with what the courts found. The break-in was staged. There is no law against being a slut and no such charges were levelled against Amanda or her co-accused.

 

[stilicho]

When was this information about the pings and the software known by the police?

After the arrest. They had no interest in Patrick or his cell phones before Amanda told the police he had raped and murdered her flatmate.

 

[RoseMontague]

A correction to my post about the "parade". I am told it is Dempsey's book that mentions the horn honking (no sirens blazing). Too many books with more to come, it seems.

 

[RoseMontague]

My first post in this thread. Too many sub-conversations to keep track of what's going on.

Both sides agree that evidence was staged.

Amanda supporters say the DNA was faked.

Amanda accuers say the break-in was staged.

Both sides agree Amanda is a slut.

Am I right so far?

Welcome UnLovedRebel (love the name).

Actually, Amanda supporters don't generally agree that the evidence or the break in was staged. They also don't believe Amanda was a slut, and neither do some of the guilters. They may believe the DNA results were faked but they prefer to claim contamination.