Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

All of this seems to indicate that Amanda hadn't been in the Questura long when the police came to talk to her - it may even have started immediately after her phone call to Filomena at 22.29. So what I'm wondering is, do we have any other information on when the interrogation started?

We already know she was doing cartwheels before starting her homework. To try and nail a time for when the questioning began by assuming when she began her homework is a non-starter. She had no idea how many questions they wanted to ask Raffaele and how quickly it would be sorted out...they could have been done with him in half an hour or so. A common act of human behaviour while waiting for someone/something is to try and amuse themselves in their surroundings and then sit around and just wait for a while. Only when it becomes apparent that one is in for the long-haul does one then fish out their homework/work they've taken home from the office and begin to do that. She could have just as easily started her homework quite a long while after getting off the phone with Filomena and we know at 11 pm she still wasn't being questioned since it was at that time she was told off for doing cartwheels. She could have started her homework any time after that...30 minutes...45 minutes.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I wonder why it was, then, that Curatolo felt the need to drop any mention of the "witches' costumes" when he came to testify in court...?

Because it's a myth. They were never in his original statements, original statements which the court had in any case.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Good analysis, RW. Meredith started a call to her mother at 9:00, but it was cut off. Meredith's British cell phone was used at 10:00 by someone who either accidentally or purposely called her bank. The bank sent a message about 15 minutes after that, but no one answered, suggesting Meredith was already incapacitated. From this evidence and that of Alessandra Formica, it looks like the murder took place between 9 and 10ish.

Which requires the rather massive assumption that the person Formica saw was involved in the murder, an assumption which depends on the idea that only murderers were walking the streets that night. As for the phone, that was Meredith herself. The bank sent no message. The murder took place a very long time after 10. After 11 in fact.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

One the other hand one must consider, that because of the language difficulties every interrogation would last much longer as normal (with a native italian speaker).

That is a very good point, also with RS's statements around midnight, and Amanda's shortly after, the case was beginning to move in a different direction, more police may have been called in, Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini was called in, in the middle of the night, why not addition officers as well.

 

[Fulcanelli]

One thing I was a bit confused about with regard to the two police statements is how Amanda was even allowed to make that second statement at 5.45, since she was quite obviously a suspect by then but had no lawyer and the questioning wasn't recorded. I found a sort of answer to my puzzlement while looking through Amanda's court testimony, where Carla Dalla Vedova is speaking:



So the second statement was presumably thrown out because Amanda was essentially a suspect, but had no lawyer, hence her right to defense was violated. So there's no question at all that the police behaved improperly there. The question is only whether she should have been made a suspect earlier. I was probably the only one confused about that, but thought I'd post it anyway just in case.

No rights were 'violated'. We've already covered this:

All I did was to apply the Italian law of proceedings. I really cannot understand. Knox was also heard as a witness by the Police, then evidence of her involvement in the crime having emerged, the Police suspended the questioning according to article 63 - Law of Criminal Proceedings. However she deemed that she was making an unsolicited statement, which I received without her being questioned, and which was thus completely legitimate. Only in the case of a formal interrogation, with notification of criminal offences and questioning by a PM or a judge, must the person under investigation be represented by a defence lawyer, not when unsolicited statements are being made under article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17394#p17394


All the court rules is what was correct under Italian law. Statements made as a witness cannot be used against the self in court. Statements made against the self as a suspect can only be admitted in court if a lawyer was present. This does not mean her rights were violated, it means simply that the legal criteria for it being used against her court was not present. The statements themselves were in fact perfectly legal and could be used to further the investigation, just not used in court. In exactly the same way, Rudy's statements were not admissible in the trial either. Under your logic, that would mean all of Rudy's statements were a violation of rights, which is clearly nonsense. It is therefore, your reasoning and understanding of the Italian system that is at fault.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This only works against Knox if she knew that Lumumba was innocent, which would only be the case if she were guilty herself. But if she was innocent, and the cops aggressively said, "Who could have done this? Who do you know? Who sent you a message?," she would have given them the name they wanted. They might even have convinced her that Lumumba did do it. She might have believed that the cops knew more than she did. If she was innocent, she wouldn't have been at the crime scene and could not have known that Lumumba didn't do it. If she was guilty, it would have made more sense for her to blame someone else that she knew was there, most likely Guede, or maybe make up a story about a mysterious stranger. The fact that she accused a person who could not have been there might reasonably be interpreted to mean that she wasn't there herself.

Sorry, that's a cop out. Under your above logic, anyone can accuse anyone of anything formally and publicly and never be held accountable under the claim of Well, I don't know for sure he/she isn't a child rapist. Therefore, I'm permitted to accuse him/her of being one!". That's a nonsense. In any case, the findings of the court:

Le motivazioni, contenute in 427 pagine, sono state firmate dal presidente della Corte Giancarlo Massei e dal giudice a latere Beatrice Cristiani. Nel provvedimento si afferma inoltre che Amanda "accusò liberamente Patrick Diya Lumumba di avere ucciso Meredith e l'accusò nella consapevolezza dell'innocenza dello stesso Lumumba". Di qui la condanna della giovane americana a un anno di carcere in più anche per il reato di calunnia.
– [ Romagna Oggi ], “Rome Today”, 04 March 2010

“The reasons, contained in 427 pages, were signed by Court President Giancarlo Massei and by his judge a latere Beatrice Cristiani. The orders confirm, amonsgt other things, that Amanda ‘freely accused Patrick Diya Lumumba of having killed Meredith Kercher and she accused him knowing full well of the innocence of the said Lumumba’. Hence, the young American’s sentencing to an additional year’s imprisonment for the crime of calumny [calunnia].”

Trans: 'Catnip'

PMF


And the court can conclude this (and did). You know why? Because Amanda was 'there', taking part in the murder of Meredith and therefore knew fully well Patrick was not there. It's extremely simple and doesn't require complicating just for the sake of complicating.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No more talk, please, that the police "barely had time to set up the chairs" in the interview room before AK broke down. This little phrase seems to have become something of a mantra, but it's completely misleading.

It's now (I believe) fairly well-established that AK was summoned back into an interview room by around 00.30 on the 6th at the latest. This gives at least one hour and 15 minutes of interrogation leading up to AK's "confession/allegation" at 01.45. Even if we generously assume 15 minutes of preamble, there still remains one hour of time during which it would be perfectly possible for the police to ratchet up the pressure. And one hour would be much more than ample.

Completely false. Raffaele's questioning had begun at 10:30 and was still ongoing when they began questioning Amanda in the waiting room and when she was taken into the interview room. We don't know 'what' time it was that Raffaele dropped her alibi.

To halt the pressure, all Amanda had to do was give the police a true account of what she was doing that night.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think Curatolo was probably advised by the prosecution that mentioning "witches' costumes" would give the defense a very easy way to attack his testimony, and that perhaps he should just quietly drop all mention of the witches when he testified in court. Which he did.

And funnily enough no, I don't have a link to the interview between Curatolo and the prosecution where this was discussed.

Really? Why was the same advice not being extended to Kokomani? I'm sorry, there's no evidence at all any of them were coached.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If Amanda was coerced into making the statement, do you still believe it was her fault that Patrick was arrested? In other words, do you hold the maker of a coerced confession responsible for their statement, or the police?

Even if the police behaved badly, it doesn't excuse her accusing of Patrick (not that I believe they did).

Moreover, where is the 'coercion' when she was heard again by Mignini on her own insistence, when she gave the bulk of her detail in her accusations against Patrick? It was actually on the basis of that second statement, made to Mignini, that the order for Patrick's arrest was given. She then reinforced it with her signed two page note the next day. That's two occasions where she accused Patrick where there was CERTAINLY no coercion going on. On that basis, your whole argument for 'coercion as an excuse' is without basis and falls down.

 

[Fulcanelli]

A digression here. In these long threads about the minute details of this case, there has been little broad discussion of the terrible nature of the crime itself. The prosecution contends, and persuaded a jury, that two young college students who had known each other less than two weeks and a small-time thug who may previously have met one of the students one time brutally murdered a third student during some kind of a demented sex game gone wrong. Is that plausible? I've been out of college a long time, but I don't remember hearing about a lot of sex murders in the dorms. (Sex yes, murder no.) And how often does one young woman help a man rape another young woman? Especially after she and her boyfriend have spent the evening smoking dope? Since when does marijuana inspire bloodlust? The thug has already been convicted on the basis of overwhelming physical evidence he left behind as he fled the country. Is it more likely that a burglar/robber acting alone committed an ordinary crime of opportunity, or that three people conspired to commit a crime of a nature rarely seen or even imagined? The oft-repeated JREF mantra, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," applies here, and no extraordinary proof has been forthcoming.

Author Doug Preston's take, including his own experience with prosecutor Mignini (an interview before the trial):
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/131443.asp

Bob, please read back through this thread and the previous one the many conversations that have covered FOA Douglas Preston.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Mrs. Columbo,

Amanda was doing some stretches or yoga poses when an officer commented on her flexibility. According to her, he asked her something along the lines of whether she could do a cartwheel. Others on the previous thread may have accepted that the officer commented on her flexibility but did not believe that he asked her to do any other gymnastics moves. All of this is to the best of my recollection, and please bear in mind that this whole question is disputed.

On the previous thread Kestrel provided a link to a good videotaped lecture on why the innocent should be careful when talking to the police as well.

Halides1, will you please stop repeating this lie! Amanda never said this at all, Chris Mellas said it! And I refer you to Amanda's OWN TESTIMONY (as I've done several times before on this matter) on the stand in the trial where she explains exactly why she did yoga and cartwheels down the police station and being told/asked/requested to by a policeman was not a part of it...it never happened, it's just another bare faced lie from Chris Mellas and his own daughter with her own testimony make him him a liar.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But as Mary pointed out, not a single bit of what you quoted suggests that the police were asking her who the message was to, and that she told them she didn't know. It all indicates that they were asking her who she met, and then indicating the text message, saying they knew she met someone. To read that as Amanda telling them she didn't know who sent the text is a major distortion of what was said.

They were also asking her who it was to "who is this? who were you going to meet?". For reasons I don't quite understand, y'all seem desperate to muddy things rather then clarify them.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I don't know why you persist with this nonsense. Amanda stated in her note that she stood by what she said about Patrick the previous night. It most certainly was not a retraction. What it was, was a very deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and to cover her backside because she knew the police would eventually find out that what she had said regarding Patrick wasn't true. I can also understand, if that's what she like under questioning, full of wishy-washy non-answers, weasel words, obfuscation, avoidance and general obstruction, one can very easily see why the police may well have lost patience and raised their voices and became suspicious.

If they could force her to 'confess' in one hour, why had that not happened in the supposed previous 50 + hours of questioning she had undergone? The answer is simple. Raffaele had dropped her alibi and told police she had left him that evening to go to Le Chic. Subsequently, they also found the text message she had sent.

It wasn't poor police work at all. These sort of comments come from people who don't understand the first thing about police work. They HAD to do it, they had no choice...a direct accusation of his committing the murder had been made.

You spin every detail to fit your scenario.

Amanda Wrote: "The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real. "

"If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of."


You read these words from Amanda and you think the is trying to manipulate the police and "muddy the waters"

I read her words and I see that she was still very confused. She is having a very hard time accepting what the police have told her.

Amanda never confessed to the murder.

The police knew they were running out of time. Amanda's family would insist for Amanda to get an attorney. Over 5 days, Amanda was suffering from exhaustion. This interrogation was planned. The police obtained unreliable information from the interrogation. This is very common with interrogations of this nature.

The police took that unreliable information and arrested an innocent man. They claimed case closed and thought they had a slam dunk. That is poor police work.

The police did not have to run out and arrest Patrick. You can repeat that all you want. it is simply not true.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

... more police may have been called in, Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini was called in, in the middle of the night, why not addition officers as well.

They were most likely at the Questura, in other rooms,very busy with their investigation-work: like writing reports, discussing previous results, checking files and so on .... (as I would imagine)
As I mentioned before: the whole staff was in highest alert.

 

[Bob001]

This may be the above-referenced video, in two parts (I couldn't find the original link). It's worth reposting. A university law professor talks about why he would "never" speak to police because of all the ways honest comments by an innocent person can be used against him, followed by a response from a veteran police detective (at the same event, invited by the professor). The first is about 27 minutes, the second about 22 minutes. Fascinating insights into police "interview" (they would never call them "interrogation") techniques, even (especially) when honest cops are going by the book. (The detective even has a couple words about what he observed at "interviews" in Italy.):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#docid=6014022229458915912

 

[Fulcanelli]

You spin every detail to fit your scenario.

Amanda Wrote: "The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real. "

"If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of."


You read these words from Amanda and you think the is trying to manipulate the police and "muddy the waters"

I read her words and I see that she was still very confused. She is having a very hard time accepting what the police have told her.

Amanda never confessed to the murder.

The police knew they were running out of time. Amanda's family would insist for Amanda to get an attorney. Over 5 days, Amanda was suffering from exhaustion. This interrogation was planned. The police obtained unreliable information from the interrogation. This is very common with interrogations of this nature.

The police took that unreliable information and arrested an innocent man. They claimed case closed and thought they had a slam dunk. That is poor police work.

The police did not have to run out and arrest Patrick. You can repeat that all you want. it is simply not true.

Amanda had NOTHING to be confused about. She knew either she was at that cottage, or she was not.

Yes, the police did have to arrest Patrick, this is a plain fact. They were ORDERED to arrest Patrick.

 

[RWVBWL]

Which requires the rather massive assumption that the person Formica saw was involved in the murder, an assumption which depends on the idea that only murderers were walking the streets that night. As for the phone, that was Meredith herself. The bank sent no message. The murder took place a very long time after 10. After 11 in fact.

Greetings Fulcanelli,
Nice to see you back here again!
I liked how you prefaced a particular sentence above, so I will "borrow" useage of the same, if you don't mind:

A common act of human behaviour when you are a tired woman is to put on your pajamas or a nightgown on and crawl under the covers and go to sleep.

Since Miss Kercher had stayed out partying until 5:30am that morning, 1 can imagine that indeed she might have been just a bit tired after leaving her girlfriends apartment the night she was murdered.

An interesting thing I recently read was that the English girls stated they did not drink any alcohol that evening, but yet I believe Miss Kercher had, what was it, .043/liter BAC after she was found murdered?
If none of the English girls drank alcohol that night while watching "The Notebook", then I would make a good guess that Miss Kercher's .043 BAC was from the previous night/early morning's partying with the girls.
Hence, in my opinion it would be easy to see that Miss Kercher was possibly tired and a bit burnt out.
From what I have read, she wasn't even very hungry, and only ate a part of her pizza.

Too me, it sounds like Miss Kercher might have drank just a little too much alcohol the night before, that is keeping in mind her BAC many hours later when she was found dead.
Myself, after a late night of heavy drinking, I am usually exhausted, tired and burnt out
the next day and usually do not have much appetitie for food...

As you probably know, she borrowed a history book from Robyn that evening,
I think it was "Early Modern Europe, 1450-1789" to read a bit,
before giving it back to Robyn the next morning at class.

I can just imagine a gal, coming home to a cold, empty apartment, a bit tired and burnt out from partying with the girls, putting on her pajama's or night gown on, and climbing into bed to read herself to sleep. Can you?

But she wasn't found dressed that way, even though that borrowed book was found in her room afterwards. Miss Kercher still had her pants on when she was found. This leads me to believe that the murder, (though it doesn't fit in with the court's, and hence your own timeline), happened shortly after Miss Kercher came home.

And since Miss Kercher's bedroom was not found totally trashed, as one might think it should be if a brutal life ending struggle took place, it looks to me at least, that Miss Kercher was totally suprised by the murderer(s) when she came home that night, not even having time to put on her pajama's or nightgown on and get comfy...

Your thoughts Fulcanelli?
Thanks, RWVBWL

Ps-How'd you like C. Dempsey's work?
No, I'm not asking about Candace Dempsey, the author of "Murder in Italy"
but Clint Dempsey, who helped give us Americans a tie in yesterday's World Cup match with you English blokes! Great shot, huh?!!

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

The police took that unreliable information and arrested an innocent man. They claimed case closed and thought they had a slam dunk. That is poor police work.

The police did not have to run out and arrest Patrick. You can repeat that all you want. it is simply not true.

May I rephrase this matter?

Ms. Knox does not lie. Why should her information suddenly become unrelieable.

She tells: 'it was Patrick, he is bad, he wanted her. I was in kitchen, covering my ears....' (we all know the text)
What happens: they believe her (why not!) - no wonder why she is so confused,that was the reason - all te time we felt, that she knows something more!
she witnessed the murder! Or probably helped him?
We have to hurry and find out everything about this guy and prepare his arrest. And her arrest as well (for assumable aiding)

**
I know, I just imagine the situation - but the other way round can also not exactly be verificated.

 

[LiamG.]

This leads me to believe that the murder, (though it doesn't fit in with the court's, and hence your own timeline), happened shortly after Miss Kercher came home.

Rubbish,
we know that Meredith came home at about 21:00.
We know, that Meredith`s prolonged scream was heard at about 23:30 by Ms. Capezzali.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Amanda had NOTHING to be confused about. She knew either she was at that cottage, or she was not.

Yes, the police did have to arrest Patrick, this is a plain fact. They were ORDERED to arrest Patrick.

The statement that you made regarding Amanda's confusion shows me that you have never done any research on coerced confessions. If you have done the research then you have chosen not to believe the facts with regard to coerced confessions.

The police ran out and arrested Patrick with nothing more that bad information they obtained from a coerced confession. You can spin it anyway you like. Patrick as innocent. They arrested him with nothing else to go on. The facts are very clear in this matter. It was very poor police work.