Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

If I am understanding you correctly, any person being questioned by Italian police can at any time make a claim that the s/he saw another person commit a crime and the police and prosecutor are forced under law to immediately run out and arrest the person accused? Without any other evidence? Or, I guess I should say, without any other evidence than something like an ambiguous text message? Surely, the police/prosecutor have more discretionary powers than that?

They had more then a text message. They had Amanda's direct accusation of Patrick.

You are also aware it's quite common in US trials for criminals to turn states evidence against other criminals? In principle, their testimony is seen as valid evidence. It is also quite common for criminals to give away their confederates during police questioning and the police make many arrests on the back of criminals doing so...have done since policing began.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Secondly, I (and others, I believe) would argue that even though AK correctly walked into the police station that evening as a volunteer, she should have been re-classified as a "formal suspect" by around 01.00 on the 6th - and perhaps even before she stepped into the interview room at about midnight. This is because RS had already substantially demolished her alibi by midnight -

A sudden lack of alibi by itself is not evidence. In itself, it doesn't link her to the crime. They needed evidence that actually directly linked her to the crime before they could make her a suspect.

 

[el buscador]

They had more then a text message. They had Amanda's direct accusation of Patrick.

You are also aware it's quite common in US trials for criminals to turn states evidence against other criminals? In principle, their testimony is seen as valid evidence. It is also quite common for criminals to give away their confederates during police questioning and the police make many arrests on the back of criminals doing so...have done since policing began.

I do agree with you Fulcanelli, it is quite common for accomplices to give one another up in questioning. But what I highly question is the immediate arrest of Patrick on the word of someone who is considered an accomplice.

I'm far from expert but from what I've read/seen of criminal matters, the police usually bring the fingered person in for questioning before they make an arrest, especially when the accused hasn't turned up before as a possible suspect in the crime.

Also, to say the police/prosecutor had no choice seems an overly simplistic explanation of what occurred that morning.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I would thank you not to make those sorts of accusations. I am no liar.

Your proved yourself wrong with this post. You're a liar, lying about his lies. Pretty humorous.

When you talk about the PMF stalkers that were following Candace around, why don't you also mention that they followed Amanda's little sisters into the bathroom. The PMF crowd will stop at nothing. They search for little kids facebook accounts and stalk those same kids.

You run a great site Fulcanelli. You should be proud.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Fulcanelli,

Just to make it clear, Candace attended that event as a reporter. She brought her husband with her. Reporters were allowed one guest. Candace never denied attending the event. She simply stated that your version was incorrect.

Furthermore, Candace has never been a housewife.

If you don't want to be called a liar then stop telling lies.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

You mean they don't have any translated document? What are they waiting for? How can the family not have paid for an authentic translation when they have the appeal coming up? Why hasn't the defense fund paid for a proper translation? isn't this a crucial piece of the puzzle for any serious discussion of the Knox defense?

Just so you are aware, Amanda's attorneys are Italian. Her defense has a full grasp of the misinformation that is provided in the judge's report.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Is there any reason why Guede might feel constrained from now telling the whole unvarnished truth about what happened? I.e. are there charges that he could still face if he now changed his story in some way?

Guede is hoping to win his appeal. This case is so screwed up, he just might win it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

It is common for the police to keep a suspect under surveillance if they think he may be dangerous. Earlier in this thread I mentioned John Gacy. Police monitored him for about a week after their initial search of his house, which turned up evidence of foul play, but not enough to make charges stick. Eventually he got nervous and he invited the cops back into his house. This time the heat was on, so they smelled the decomposing bodies, got another search warrant, and found the victims in his crawl space.

A more recent case was the Craigslist Killer. They traced him through IP address, but he had a wireless router, so there was a small chance that somebody else might have used his account to contact the victims. Therefore they watched him until they obtained enough additional evidence to make an arrest. The police perceived this guy as highly dangerous, but they managed the risk with surveillance.

 

[christianahannah]

This is true...if one is conversant in Italian. However, it's been shown a few times that nearly everyone here is dependent on Google translations - which are horribly inaccurate.

I will agree that Google translation is not the most accurate or reliable course, however, not everyone associated with the case is dependent on an English translation.

 

[stilicho]

If I am understanding you correctly, any person being questioned by Italian police can at any time make a claim that the s/he saw another person commit a crime and the police and prosecutor are forced under law to immediately run out and arrest the person accused? Without any other evidence? Or, I guess I should say, without any other evidence than something like an ambiguous text message? Surely, the police/prosecutor have more discretionary powers than that?

The judges' reports (can't remember which ones) are clear that Amanda did more than simply state "oh, Patrick did it". She provided details of the crime to the police. That's what they acted on rather than a mere handwave.

Again, Fulcanelli probably knows more, but in one of her interviews that morning she sketched out the crimescene for the police.

 

[christianahannah]

I do agree with you Fulcanelli, it is quite common for accomplices to give one another up in questioning. But what I highly question is the immediate arrest of Patrick on the word of someone who is considered an accomplice.

I'm far from expert but from what I've read/seen of criminal matters, the police usually bring the fingered person in for questioning before they make an arrest, especially when the accused hasn't turned up before as a possible suspect in the crime.

Also, to say the police/prosecutor had no choice seems an overly simplistic explanation of what occurred that morning.

Did Patrick bring suit against the police for false imprisonment?

 

[stilicho]

It is common for the police to keep a suspect under surveillance if they think he may be dangerous. Earlier in this thread I mentioned John Gacy. Police monitored him for about a week after their initial search of his house, which turned up evidence of foul play, but not enough to make charges stick. Eventually he got nervous and he invited the cops back into his house. This time the heat was on, so they smelled the decomposing bodies, got another search warrant, and found the victims in his crawl space.

A more recent case was the Craigslist Killer. They traced him through IP address, but he had a wireless router, so there was a small chance that somebody else might have used his account to contact the victims. Therefore they watched him until they obtained enough additional evidence to make an arrest. The police perceived this guy as highly dangerous, but they managed the risk with surveillance.

It's intriguing that you're comparing Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy favourably to John Wayne Gacy, one of the most notorious serial killers in history. I don't think that's quite the comparison you want us to be considering. Who knows how many innocent lives they'd have ruined?

 

[HumanityBlues]

It's intriguing that you're comparing Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy favourably to John Wayne Gacy, one of the most notorious serial killers in history. I don't think that's quite the comparison you want us to be considering. Who knows how many innocent lives they'd have ruined?

Do you not see the irony of what you just said within the context of what you were responding to?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I believe DNA evidence to be valid unless/until it is shown to be invalid, with proof, strong evidence or logical argument. I consider that to be reasonable. To date, I've seen none of the latter either in the court room, or on this forum.

You believe that the bra clasp was handled properly. You believe that it was located along with the bra but it was decided that it would be best to store the clasp on the floor.

Was this the thought process?

Store the bra in an evidence collection bag

Store the clasp in the cottage.

The cottage is after all just a big evidence collection bag right?

The clasp was tested and DNA was found on the clasp that was nowhere to be found on the bra itself.

Why?

We might know the answer if the clasp was collected properly.

But you think the clasp was collected properly.

The knife is a joke. Plain and simple.

Even your good friend Barbie thinks the knife is weak evidence and should be thrown out.

Barbie also thinks that Meredith basically killed herself when she impaled herself on the knife.

Just pointing out your "credible" sources.

 

[stilicho]

Do you not see the irony of what you just said within the context of what you were responding to?

Of course I do. It's Charlie who want us to compare the murder of Meredith Kercher to the victims of John Wayne Gacy. Don't you find that odd?

 

[stilicho]

The knife is a joke. Plain and simple.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Of course I do. It's Charlie who want us to compare the murder of Meredith Kercher to the victims of John Wayne Gacy. Don't you find that odd?

Nope. How does it help your argument that they held off arresting Gacy, a notorious murderer?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It's intriguing that you're comparing Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy favourably to John Wayne Gacy, one of the most notorious serial killers in history. I don't think that's quite the comparison you want us to be considering. Who knows how many innocent lives they'd have ruined?

This is not what Charlie was saying at all. Read his post again. If you need help translating Charlie's intelligent text, maybe the PMF crew can give you a hand.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Of course I do. It's Charlie who want us to compare the murder of Meredith Kercher to the victims of John Wayne Gacy. Don't you find that odd?

I certainly hope you are being sarcastic. If that is actually how you read Charlie's post, then I am afraid there is no reason to continue the discussion.

 

[el buscador]

At the risk of further mutual backslapping, I can't but agree with pretty much everything you've said here. And you manage to make your points far more succinctly and punchily than I ever could!

I would add one small point: Obviously, given that Lumumba WAS named by AK (albeit in a confused and sobbing fashion), the police clearly had a duty to follow that up as soon as practicable. But, as you also argue, I'd contend that this didn't give the police the right to pull him out of his house in front of his wife and child, arrest him, and put him in a Perugia police cell - all without so much as asking him for his version of events.

Hey, LondonJohn, I found your posts on this subject enlightening and your logic sound. I also agreed with most of what you wrote and it helped me reach my own conclusions.

I do agree that the police had a duty to follow up on Amanda's accusations. But why not bring Patrick in for questioning before arresting him, given the circumstances?