Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

My, that was easy enough. Why let so many posts go by wasted on conjecture when you could have simply said so to begin with? I, for one, am willing to take you at your word, but others may not be as generous. Perhaps you could share some of these photos?

I am led to wonder why Guede, if he was in possession of the keys and required them to exit the apartment, didn't go ahead and lock the door behind him. Why would he take the time to lock Kercher's bedroom door, allegedly to delay suspicion and discovery, and then leave the apartment entrance ajar?

Possibly because to lock the front door to the apartment from the outside would require him to spend a few seconds standing in full view from the road. He might (correctly) have realised that every unnecessary second spent outside the door would increase his risk of being seen by a passer-by on the main road.

I also suspect that he might have expected that the door would at the very least stay shut behind him if he merely pulled it shut. I also suspect that he might have expected - like many here - that the very act of pulling the door shut would lock it in some way*.

So, with both those things in mind, it's perfectly logical that Guede might have decided to carefully choose a moment when he could see (from a window) that nobody was passing by, then to let let himself out of the house, quickly pull the door shut behind him, and disappear from the scene as fast as possible.

* It's feasible that he might have assumed the key-locked door to be a "double-locking" for additional security, and that the door would lock itself to a lower security level if it was simply pulled shut.

 

[stilicho]

Oh, and I seem to recall that both Paris Match (France) and Stern (Germany) often feature photographs of models or celebrities on their front covers, yet both have established reputations for high-quality investigative journalism. It turns out that it is possible for the two genres to co-exist in the same publication......

I think that maybe we can quietly put this matter to bed now?

It's not so much the source as the content that's in question. Did this "high-quality investigative" magazine investigate Aviello's claims? Frank "Sfarzo" says he did some months ago and found nothing. This is what Frank said about Aviello back in MAR 2010, some months before this "high-quality investigative journalism" from Oggi:

Alessi makes the pair with another guest of italian jails, Luciano Aviello, who, during the trial, was writing to Massei that he knew that there were other killers of Meredith. Aviello, as we remember, was writing confused stories dressed with impossible details, and Massei didn't give him importance.

(Source: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/03/meredith-kercher-case-day-one.html )

Nobody finds Alessi or Aviello to be credible in the slightest.

I think that maybe we can quietly put this matter to bed now.

 

[stilicho]

Possibly because to lock the front door to the apartment from the outside would require him to spend a few seconds standing in full view from the road. He might (correctly) have realised that every unnecessary second spent outside the door would increase his risk of being seen by a passer-by on the main road.

Any speculation as to why Ghirga and Buongiorno didn't promote your exciting new scenario? Hint: It does not fit the mountain of evidence against their clients.

@GrouchoMarxist: Could be he didn't wish to spend even 1 second locking the door - and risk being seen.

The evidence shows that RG didn't lock any of the doors in the house, didn't take Meredith's cell phones, didn't leave his footprint on the bathmat, and didn't cut her bra from her body. There's a lot of evidence to show exactly what you strongly suggest--that he left quickly--and that includes the unflushed toilet and the pattern of prints leading out the front door.

 

[LondonJohn]

A few thoughts on AK's "confession/accusation" and subsequent "apology/non-apology":

One thing has always struck me as odd about the manner and content of AK's "confession/accusation": Why did it include the accusation against Lumumba? Whether one believes that AK was involved in the murder or not, it just seems to make no sense to me*.

After all, if AK had been involved, then pretty much by definition she'd have known that Lumumba had nothing to do with it. In this scenario, I can't see what she would have to gain by naming him. Some say (assuming for moment AK's culpability) that it was done to misdirect police, or even to buy time so that she could hatch up more lies with Sollecito. But I can't buy that at all. By placing herself in the murder house at the time of the crime, and by "confessing" to letting the killer in and covering for him up to that point, she must have known that she wasn't going anywhere except a police/prison cell in the near future. She must also have known that fairly serious criminal charges would be coming her way as a result of what she'd said/written.

And that leads to my other main point: Firstly, let us again assume for a moment that AK made this "confession/accusation" from a perspective of having committed the crime jointly with RS and RG. I think that most people involved in law enforcement would say that the majority of true confessions (i.e. ones that are supported by all the other evidence, and which help convict a suspect) are accurate, often to the point of the finest detail. And there's a simple rationale for this: adult humans aren't in the habit of voluntarily confessing to something that they've done wrong, unless there is some underlying incentive to them from doing so. And, when we're talking about confessions to serious crimes, the "underlying incentive" aspects are usually one or both of two things: reduced sentences; and catharsis.

But in order for either of these incentives to kick in, the confession must be complete and accurate. After all, there's no catharsis in making a half-confession where inaccuracies are deliberately injected. And there's almost certainly no mileage in making a half-accurate confession for a possible sentence reduction - since as soon as the inaccuracies were discovered and disproved, any sentence reduction would likely be cancelled.

Many law enforcement professionals who have taken down true confessions have remarked upon the change in the behaviour of the suspect once the confession has been made - to an almost serene calm. The suspect often accompanies this new sense of calm with a statement to the effect of "it feels so much better to have got that off my chest". This is clear evidence of catharsis, and it's a feeling that's only available to a suspect if they tell the police a true and unvarnished confession.

And of course the last thing to say about true confessions is that they tend to come in the heat of intense questioning, and very often when the police confront the suspect with circumstantial (or even direct) evidence of guilt. It's at this point that the suspect starts to feel that "the game is up", and decides that a confession is now his/her best way forward. Less usually, a suspect might confess before being shown evidence of guilt (but usually still after a large amount of police accusation) - these sorts of confessions point strongly towards cathartic reasons rather than sentence-reduction reasons. For all these reasons, most true confessions tend to come once the suspect is under arrest and being questioned in an intensive - and accusatory - fashion.

So I believe that if AK was involved in the murder, she should logically have done one of only three things that night in the police station: 1) Continue to deny everything; 2) Make a false accusation, but with no implication of culpability on her part (i.e. try to throw the police trail away from her and towards someone else); 3) Make a full and true confession, either for reasons of personal catharsis or as a bid to get a lighter sentence. The fact that she did none of these three things leads me to believe that there are other factors behind why she did what she did that night in the police station...

* Unless I take the view (which I do take) that she was coerced into a "confession/accusation" in which a scenario involving her and Lumumba was suggested to her.

 

[Danceme]

Greetings Fulcanelli,
I had indeed read some of Mr. Aviello's past. I'll chalk this up to just another strange coincedence. Please note Fulcanelli that I am not the 1 from ABC News, The Daily Mail, Oggi, etc, that is publishing the current story on Mr. Aviello's story. Please write to them if you feel that it has any bearing on the upcoming Appeals Trials of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Heck, maybe Mr. Sollecito's lawyers would luv to know of this too?

Question for you:
What do you know, if anything, about any search for the missing apartment keys?
I ask this because Mr. Aviello said he hid them somewhere on the property of his last residence, so I would think that there would be some kind of search needing to be conducted. Especially since Mr. Aviello said he hid the murder weapon also.

Even Mr. Mignini has spoken up about this:
Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini told ABC News that his office will look into the matter as soon as possible.
"We must always verify what is presented to us," Mignini said.

Link: http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/mafia-informer-amanda-knox-guilty-brother-killer/story?id=10865516

Get the, what is it, The Flying Squad out there with the metal detectors, "Pronto", please!

Anyways, you seem to find it strange that a guy in prison has come forward to try to free Mr. Sollecito and Miss Knox because he is in prison. And I find it strange that a homeless "troll", (my opinion only, it's a term I use for guys who dig thru garbage containers), came forward to helped convict Mr. Sollecito and Miss Knox.
Strange murder case, huh?

But you know what Fulcanelli, I wonder if there is some truth to what Mr. Aviello states?
For if not, is Prosecutor Mignini going to try and add more years onto his current prison sentence for slander? As he is trying to do to Miss Knox?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-Oops, 1 last thing Fulcanelli.
I erred when I posted that it was Perugia Shock's Frank Sfarzo who found a knife in the vicinity of the murder scene afterwards. It was acually someone from the "smiling team".
Sorry for that, I'll try to double check my info before I post.
But anyways, here's the link:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2007/12/surprise.html

The police already were even using a metal detector back then too!
Re-reading this post, I found it kind of interesting that Mr. Sfarzo was already critical of the police's work habits into this particular investigation, way back on Dec. 18, 2007!
Hmmm...

Since Aviello told this story back in March to Rafaelle's lawyers, I presume the evidence has been found by now, three months later, the DNA testing completed, and Aviello's brother has been arrested. There is then no need for an appeal so Amanda and Rafaelle will be released any day now.

Bruce or Charlie should be able to fill us in on the details. Guys?

RWVBWL, the knife the smiling team found was a butter knife.

 

[stilicho]

She must also have known that fairly serious criminal charges would be coming her way as a result of what she'd said/written.

Why do you assume this? She had spoken with police on several occasions prior to her arrest. I thought she should have known she was in trouble merely from the content of her 04 NOV 2007 alibi email. But she apparently didn't know the evidence was beginning to ensnare herself and Sollecito and that their stories were unravelling.

[Adult] humans aren't in the habit of voluntarily confessing to something that they've done wrong, unless there is some underlying incentive to them from doing so. And, when we're talking about confessions to serious crimes, the "underlying incentive" aspects are usually one or both of two things: reduced sentences; and catharsis.

But Amanda didn't say she did anything wrong and neither did Raffaele. Raffaele simply told the police that Amanda wasn't with him and she in turn blamed the murder on Patrick. Almost everything they told the police (and their friends and families) were lies. You don't get the rewards of reduced sentences or catharsis when you lie. As we now know, the evidence allowing the police to declare each of them suspects were also lies (Raffaele was with Amanda; Patrick did not murder Meredith).

 

[LondonJohn]

It's not so much the source as the content that's in question. Did this "high-quality investigative" magazine investigate Aviello's claims? Frank "Sfarzo" says he did some months ago and found nothing. This is what Frank said about Aviello back in MAR 2010, some months before this "high-quality investigative journalism" from Oggi:

Alessi makes the pair with another guest of italian jails, Luciano Aviello, who, during the trial, was writing to Massei that he knew that there were other killers of Meredith. Aviello, as we remember, was writing confused stories dressed with impossible details, and Massei didn't give him importance.

(Source: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/03/meredith-kercher-case-day-one.html )

Nobody finds Alessi or Aviello to be credible in the slightest.

I think that maybe we can quietly put this matter to bed now.

I smell straw in the wind.....

The point that I was, in fact, arguing was that Oggi Magazine is not merely a glossy gossip magazine aimed at women (which was, to my mind, a throwaway assertion designed to discredit the magazine in general and this story by implication). Therefore, I was seeking to establish that Oggi in fact has a pedigree of publishing serious news and current affairs pieces, with regular forays into investigative journalism.

I was explicitly not passing comment on the accuracy or investigative depth of this particular story. I don't know whether the journalist who wrote this piece either neglected some details or didn't fact-check well enough, or whatever else - I haven't read the whole article. Where, for example, did I ever attempt to support the veracity or balance of this particular article? But of course that wasn't what I was arguing. However, I've clarified things again here, in case maybe some posters misinterpreted what I was arguing (or perhaps chose to misinterpret it......).

 

[Bob001]

And, when we're talking about confessions to serious crimes, the "underlying incentive" aspects are usually one or both of two things: reduced sentences; and catharsis.

Your analysis is compelling. I would just add that very often an element of a "true" confession is some kind of justification/rationalization (which might be part of a hope for a reduced sentence, even if no deal has been made): "I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing," or "I shot him because I thought he was pulling his knife," or "I was just the lookout, Johnny pulled the trigger," or "I was scared, my hand was shaking, the gun just went off" or "I just pushed the guy, then he fell down and hit his head on the curb." There's doesn't seem to be any element of rationalization in Knox's "confession," which is another reason to doubt it. If she had really been there, she would likely have tried to pin the blame on somebody who she knew was there ("We were all horsing around then Rudy went crazy...") rather than somebody she knew wasn't.

 

[LondonJohn]

Any speculation as to why Ghirga and Buongiorno didn't promote your exciting new scenario? Hint: It does not fit the mountain of evidence against their clients.

@GrouchoMarxist: Could be he didn't wish to spend even 1 second locking the door - and risk being seen.

The evidence shows that RG didn't lock any of the doors in the house, didn't take Meredith's cell phones, didn't leave his footprint on the bathmat, and didn't cut her bra from her body. There's a lot of evidence to show exactly what you strongly suggest--that he left quickly--and that includes the unflushed toilet and the pattern of prints leading out the front door.

The evidence shows that Guede didn't do any or all of these things?? That's a verrrrry interesting train of logic. The only one on that list where evidence might show absence of Guede having done it is the print on the bathmat. Quite how any evidence shows that Guede didn't do any of the rest is far beyond me.....

 

[Fiona]

Why would she have thought that accusing Lumumba would get her in trouble? What would the criminal charges be in America?

 

[Mary_H]

Why are you pretending you didn't know about this? This is from when Amanda's mother went to see Amanda in prison and Amanda said to her she felr bad about Patrick and told her mother she was going back to her original story and Amanda's mother then declared this to the Anglo press and when questioned about it on the stand as to 'why' she didn't bother going to the police to tell them Amanda was now saying she didn't do it, her excuse was 'Because I don't speak Italian'....this is old, old stuff Mary.

My point was that it is in the Massei report, not just the newspapers.

 

[RWVBWL]

Since Aviello told this story back in March to Rafaelle's lawyers, I presume the evidence has been found by now, three months later, the DNA testing completed, and Aviello's brother has been arrested. There is then no need for an appeal so Amanda and Rafaelle will be released any day now.

Hi Danceme,
That was pretty good, it made me smile, thanks!
I too have wondered more about Avielo's testimony and figured that there has to be something more to the story, especially if the defence for Mr. Sollecito plans to try and introduce it in the Appeals Trial. As you pointed out, it was first brought up months ago, yet is just now making the major media rounds, curiously.
I would have thought that this statement would have been investigated a looong time ago, but then again, Mr. Sfarzo of Perugia Shock mentions how long it took the police to even check out the area surrounding the apartment murder scene"

"After one month and a half since the crime occurred a knife was found in the underbrush around the house.
And who found it? The police? No, one from the smiling team.
Of course, they are the ones who want the weapon of the crime to be not Raffaele's knife.
And indeed, as soon as they entered the gate the lawyer went to find the knife and some blood stained hankies. How lucky...
By the way, it's just a round kitchen knife unable to make those cuts. But it's notable that they didn't search around the house previously.
They even didn't search the cliff, which is a natural spot to throw a weapon. I expected that cliff to be cleaned from bushes and searched by a squad of 100 climbers right after the crime. In my dreams. I know it's difficult, very difficult, but... I'd cost less than a single Dna test.
This morning they used a metal detector not in the ravine but through the bushes around the house. Yes, not on november 2nd, today."

Link here: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2007/12/surprise.html

Have a nice rest of your day,
RWVBWL

PS-I did indeed read of what kind of knife it was, but thanks!

 

[Malkmus]

A few thoughts on AK's "confession/accusation" and subsequent "apology/non-apology":

One thing has always struck me as odd about the manner and content of AK's "confession/accusation": Why did it include the accusation against Lumumba? Whether one believes that AK was involved in the murder or not, it just seems to make no sense to me*.

I agree with a lot of what you've said here, John. I, too, have always felt that the accusation seemed strange and unnatural for someone who was "confessing". And more recently, after having read the written statements from Nov 5, the accusation seems even less likely to have been derived from Amanda herself. Why? Let's look at "her" statement from 1:45am:

Last Thursday 1st November, day on which I usually work, while I was in the apartment of my boyfriend Raffaele, at about 20.30 I received a message from Patrick on my mobile, telling me that that evening the pub would remain closed because there were no people, therefore I didn’t have to go to work. ----------------------------------------------------------------
I replied to the message saying that we would meet immediately, therefore I went out telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work.

We know for a fact that her message back to Patrick did NOT say she would meet him immediately, and that it was the police's misunderstanding of the English phrase "see you later". This misinterpretation is again used in her statement to Mignini at 5:45am:

I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”.

These are supposedly Amanda's words, so what are the chances that (A) she would deliberately misinterpret the meaning of her own text message in such a fashion that it would incriminate herself, and (B) not even get the translation of her text correct, which went from "See you later" to, conveniently for the police, "I will see you".

When you read these statements it becomes much more evident that what we're looking at are the police's theory of what happened that night, and corroborates Amanda's later statements that they tried to get her to remember the events of that night, and when she would deny it, they would write it down anyway as if she did say those things. It's my belief that her own written statement the next day is much more accurate, and that her confused feelings of fear towards Patrick come from the police's belief that Patrick was involved in the murder. In other words, I think Amanda's "story" about meeting Patrick came from the police - as evidenced by a statement supposedly written by her, but which would have made no sense for her to say in the first place; and her statement the following day regarding her uncertainty about Patrick's guilt or innocence came from the police fueling the notion that he was involved.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The evidence shows that Guede didn't do any or all of these things?? That's a verrrrry interesting train of logic. The only one on that list where evidence might show absence of Guede having done it is the print on the bathmat. Quite how any evidence shows that Guede didn't do any of the rest is far beyond me.....

Its like everything else in this case, there is always two ways of looking at it. Personally, I would say there was more evidence saying Grudy didn't lock the doors though, than he did, and thats due to his footprints @ Meredith's door.

I also used Google Earth 'Streetview', and no one driving could even see someone locking the door going one way, and going the other, they would only briefly see his back, so locking the main door shouldn't have been a problem or concern.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Any speculation as to why Ghirga and Buongiorno didn't promote your exciting new scenario? Hint: It does not fit the mountain of evidence against their clients.

@GrouchoMarxist: Could be he didn't wish to spend even 1 second locking the door - and risk being seen.

The evidence shows that RG didn't lock any of the doors in the house, didn't take Meredith's cell phones, didn't leave his footprint on the bathmat, and didn't cut her bra from her body. There's a lot of evidence to show exactly what you strongly suggest--that he left quickly--and that includes the unflushed toilet and the pattern of prints leading out the front door.

While I realise that my writing will not win any awards, and beginning a sentence with "could be" is probably a grammaticalarialization offense of some sort, I'm happy to stand or fall on my own merits.

This is what I said:

Could be he didn't know the door would not stay closed without being locked.

Could be he didn't wish to spend even 1 second locking the door - and risk being seen.

Could be he's not big on personal responsibility.

Which was in response to the following:

My, that was easy enough. Why let so many posts go by wasted on conjecture when you could have simply said so to begin with? I, for one, am willing to take you at your word, but others may not be as generous. Perhaps you could share some of these photos?

I am led to wonder why Guede, if he was in possession of the keys and required them to exit the apartment, didn't go ahead and lock the door behind him. Why would he take the time to lock Kercher's bedroom door, allegedly to delay suspicion and discovery, and then leave the apartment entrance ajar?

My above comments apply only to the exiting of the exterior door. No more, no less.

 

[Fine]

* Unless I take the view (which I do take) that she was coerced into a "confession/accusation" in which a scenario involving her and Lumumba was suggested to her.

________________________________

Well, another option for the innocentisti---and you seem to be migrating in that direction LondonJohn--- is that Amanda wasn't coerced into the "confession/accusation," she was instead protecting Raffaele. This makes a lot more sense to me because the discomfort she claims to have experienced at the hands of the police doesn't seem sufficient at all to explain her "singing" after just a couple hours of questioning. Put yourself in Amanda's position.....Raffaele has started to LIE to the cops! Oh my, she thinks, a fully innocent person won't do this. Or would they? Is Raffaele mentally unstable? She's dumbfounded.

So she needs to talk to Raffaele about this. IN PRIVATE. So Amanda concocts the accusation against Patrick---consistent, she hopes, with her boyfriend's new version of events--- in the hope that the cops thank her and then pursue this valuable lead,... while the two lovebirds are permitted to return to Raffaele's flat. (Just the way it happens in Hollywood.) She knows she will get in trouble for lying to the cops, but her highest priority is talking to Raffaele again, to sort things out. IN PRIVATE. Okay, the accusation wasn't exactly fair to Patrick but Patrick would be able to protect himself, he's a big boy. Raffaele needed HELP, and protection. Love is a many splendid thing.

Yeah, Amanda has never explicitly offered this explanation, but if I believed she's innocent, it would make sense to me. (Much more plausible that coercion.) Maybe Amanda's been modest. Or perhaps that motive was "sub-conscious"? Or maybe this motive of protecting Raffaele has always been implicit in her account of the interrogation, in which case her lawyers may wish to mention this in the Appeal Trial.

///

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

* It's feasible that he might have assumed the key-locked door to be a "double-locking" for additional security, and that the door would lock itself to a lower security level if it was simply pulled shut.

Not feasible if it is a double cylinder deadbolt, as Bruce has assured us.

You do understand the difference between a dead bolt and a spring bolt lock, right?

What do you mean by "double locking". You have that in quotes as if it is a significant technical term related to door hardware. My experience in the field is fairly extensive, but I have somehow missed that.

Perhaps you are referring to an entry lockset combination which includes both a spring bolt and a dead bolt. This is a common configuration in residential entry doors in the U.S. I have no idea if that is true in Italy. A frequent example would consist of two orb (as opposed to mortise) locksets, one a spring bolt which probably has a thumbturn on the inside knob and a key cylinder on the outside, and a separate deadbolt lockset which may be configured the same way, or may have a key cylinder on the inside as well. A mortise configuration is essentially the same except that both bolt mechanisms are in the same lockset body. This would be what we saw in the photo of Kercher's bedroom door.

It is the latter configuration which I have thought of as being the one most likely described in the various conversations about this door, but until photos are forthcoming it is difficult to be certain. In any case the deadbolt part of the arrangement can only be engaged with the door fully closed. Double cylinder spring bolt locksets would be exceedingly unusual (I've never encountered one), and at any rate what we have heard would suggest that it is the spring bolt assembly which is the culprit where the door issues were concerned anyway.

There are a number of standard permutations. The entry doors in the apt. complex where I live have passage sets (no lock at all) on the spring bolt lockset, and separate single cylinder deadbolt locksets for security.

As others have done here I, too, can imagine scenarios which would account for Guede locking the bedroom door but leaving the entry door unsecured. I just don't see them as being very likely. I suspect that Knox claiming the entry door was left unsecured was a mistake, a spur-of-the-moment statement made to bolster the staged break-in, but not a well thought out one.

 

[Fulcanelli]

My point was that it is in the Massei report, not just the newspapers.

And that's particularly important 'why'? It was always common knowledge that nobody ever doubted. Amanda's mother claiming to the Anglo press that Amanda had changed her story along with her being quizzed about it on the stand reported extensively. This was never some mere 'rumour'. But all of a sudden, you're jumping up and down about it as though it's something nobody has heard about before and is something desperately important.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hi Danceme,
That was pretty good, it made me smile, thanks!
I too have wondered more about Avielo's testimony and figured that there has to be something more to the story, especially if the defence for Mr. Sollecito plans to try and introduce it in the Appeals Trial. As you pointed out, it was first brought up months ago, yet is just now making the major media rounds, curiously.
I would have thought that this statement would have been investigated a looong time ago, but then again, Mr. Sfarzo of Perugia Shock mentions how long it took the police to even check out the area surrounding the apartment murder scene"

"After one month and a half since the crime occurred a knife was found in the underbrush around the house.
And who found it? The police? No, one from the smiling team.
Of course, they are the ones who want the weapon of the crime to be not Raffaele's knife.
And indeed, as soon as they entered the gate the lawyer went to find the knife and some blood stained hankies. How lucky...
By the way, it's just a round kitchen knife unable to make those cuts. But it's notable that they didn't search around the house previously.
They even didn't search the cliff, which is a natural spot to throw a weapon. I expected that cliff to be cleaned from bushes and searched by a squad of 100 climbers right after the crime. In my dreams. I know it's difficult, very difficult, but... I'd cost less than a single Dna test.
This morning they used a metal detector not in the ravine but through the bushes around the house. Yes, not on november 2nd, today."

Link here: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2007/12/surprise.html

Have a nice rest of your day,
RWVBWL

PS-I did indeed read of what kind of knife it was, but thanks!

Which is actually incorrect, the police had searched those areas, including the spot the butter knife was found and it wasn't there when they searched it. Raffaele's lawyer went in through the gate and walked directly to the spot where it lay, he knew exactly where it was. He claimed Raffaele had told him where to find it. Talk about didgy.

 

[Mary_H]

I agree with a lot of what you've said here, John. I, too, have always felt that the accusation seemed strange and unnatural for someone who was "confessing". And more recently, after having read the written statements from Nov 5, the accusation seems even less likely to have been derived from Amanda herself. Why? Let's look at "her" statement from 1:45am:

Last Thursday 1st November, day on which I usually work, while I was in the apartment of my boyfriend Raffaele, at about 20.30 I received a message from Patrick on my mobile, telling me that that evening the pub would remain closed because there were no people, therefore I didn’t have to go to work. ----------------------------------------------------------------
I replied to the message saying that we would meet immediately, therefore I went out telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work.

We know for a fact that her message back to Patrick did NOT say she would meet him immediately, and that it was the police's misunderstanding of the English phrase "see you later". This misinterpretation is again used in her statement to Mignini at 5:45am:

I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”.

These are supposedly Amanda's words, so what are the chances that (A) she would deliberately misinterpret the meaning of her own text message in such a fashion that it would incriminate herself, and (B) not even get the translation of her text correct, which went from "See you later" to, conveniently for the police, "I will see you".

When you read these statements it becomes much more evident that what we're looking at are the police's theory of what happened that night, and corroborates Amanda's later statements that they tried to get her to remember the events of that night, and when she would deny it, they would write it down anyway as if she did say those things. It's my belief that her own written statement the next day is much more accurate, and that her confused feelings of fear towards Patrick come from the police's belief that Patrick was involved in the murder. In other words, I think Amanda's "story" about meeting Patrick came from the police - as evidenced by a statement supposedly written by her, but which would have made no sense for her to say in the first place; and her statement the following day regarding her uncertainty about Patrick's guilt or innocence came from the police fueling the notion that he was involved.

Good call, Malkmus.