Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

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.

Amanda testified that this was her understanding of her note:

CP: In the memorandum of the 7th, why didn't you mention Patrick?

AK: I think I thought that everything would be clear since I had written that everything I had said in the Questura wasn't true. So that meant also the fact that Patrick--

CP: But you didn't mention Patrick.

AK: I said what I had done myself, and that was the important thing. The fact that I hadn't been with him, for me that showed that I couldn't say what had happened that night, in the house. I could only say what happened to me, and the fact was that I wasn't with him.

If the police, as you suggested above, found Amanda or her note to be "full of wishy-washy non-answers, weasel words, obfuscation, avoidance and general obstruction," then it is more questionable than ever that they would follow her lead in suspecting Patrick.

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.

Raffaele and Amanda were not suspects before that night. The police hadn't presented Raffaele with the same "inconsistencies" they presented him with that night, and they hadn't interrogated Amanda under so much pressure. If they had, the arrests would have been made earlier.

Fulcanelli, BobTheDonkey and Fiona, I've noticed that all of you give Amanda a great deal of credibility. In just the last three pages you have referred to Amanda's "testimony" or "statement" at least fifteen times, and you have quoted her many times more than that. You try to use her words to support your arguments that she is guilty.

Amanda, however, has repeatedly testified and stated that she is innocent. About 95% of her words support her claims of innocence and about 5% are open to question. The theme, thrust and intent of her position and her testimony have been, "I did not have anything to do with this crime." I think if someone who knew nothing about this case were to read her complete testimony and then read your arguments, they would say that your points of view are glaringly biased and personal, and they would wonder why you were trying to make something out of nothing.

If you want your arguments to be consistent and valid, then you should not help yourselves to Amanda's words when their meaning is clearly different from what you are trying to present.

 

[stilicho]

Depending on the timing, there's another way to look at the Knox interview. Perhaps the police were suspicous of Sollicito because the change in his story meant that Knox couldn't alibi HIM.

It's the sequence of events that's important. People are trying to attach great relevance to specific times when none of this is particularly meaningful.

1. Raffaele was called to the Questura on the evening of 05 NOV 2007.
2. Raffaele was the subject of the first interview.
3. Amanda was not called in to the Questura.
4. Amanda was called in for an interview after Raffaele changed his story.
5. Amanda changed her story to accuse Patrick of murder.

Those are really the most important points. It is slightly interesting but hardly vital to know that these events passed in a quick four hours.

Sollecito was obviously the subject of intense police scrutiny from the time he was discovered on 02 NOV 2007 at a place where he had no real business. Interest in him only deepened upon the investigations of his flat and his computer and phone records.

At some point on the evening of 05-06 NOV 2007, he pulled the rug out from under Knox and left her to fend for herself. There has never been an adequate explanation from the FOA types for why he did this or how it fits into the trope that the police were merely interested in setting up Amanda.

Moreover, we have no evidence that the police lied to Amanda about Raffaele's words and actions. This is not disputed by the FOA types. They know that her interview was entirely dependent on Raffaele lying and telling the police she was not with him after 21:00 on 01 NOV 2007.

How did the police know that Raffaele would deny Amanda her alibi? The easy answer is that they didn't and couldn't have. Nobody argues that Raffaele's statements were coerced.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Amanda testified that this was her understanding of her note:

CP: In the memorandum of the 7th, why didn't you mention Patrick?

AK: I think I thought that everything would be clear since I had written that everything I had said in the Questura wasn't true. So that meant also the fact that Patrick--

CP: But you didn't mention Patrick.

AK: I said what I had done myself, and that was the important thing. The fact that I hadn't been with him, for me that showed that I couldn't say what had happened that night, in the house. I could only say what happened to me, and the fact was that I wasn't with him.

If the police, as you suggested above, found Amanda or her note to be "full of wishy-washy non-answers, weasel words, obfuscation, avoidance and general obstruction," then it is more questionable than ever that they would follow her lead in suspecting Patrick.



Raffaele and Amanda were not suspects before that night. The police hadn't presented Raffaele with the same "inconsistencies" they presented him with that night, and they hadn't interrogated Amanda under so much pressure. If they had, the arrests would have been made earlier.

Fulcanelli, BobTheDonkey and Fiona, I've noticed that all of you give Amanda a great deal of credibility. In just the last three pages you have referred to Amanda's "testimony" or "statement" at least fifteen times, and you have quoted her many times more than that. You try to use her words to support your arguments that she is guilty.

Amanda, however, has repeatedly testified and stated that she is innocent. About 95% of her words support her claims of innocence and about 5% are open to question. The theme, thrust and intent of her position and her testimony have been, "I did not have anything to do with this crime." I think if someone who knew nothing about this case were to read her complete testimony and then read your arguments, they would say that your points of view are glaringly biased and personal, and they would wonder why you were trying to make something out of nothing.

If you want your arguments to be consistent and valid, then you should not help yourselves to Amanda's words when their meaning is clearly different from what you are trying to present.

I'd like to point out that none of us really give Amanda credit for being overly honest. In fact, that's very much counter to the arguments regarding her accusation of Patrick and what happened that night.

I can't speak for Fulc and Fiona, but I can assure you, I rely on Amanda's version only because if I don't, my arguments will be dismissed summarily because "That's just the Police covering up for themselves"...

In no way does that lend credibility to the rest of what she says. In fact, it only hurts the credibility of those arguing for her when they don't agree with what Amanda says happened... *shrug*

 

[stilicho]

Amanda, however, has repeatedly testified and stated that she is innocent. About 95% of her words support her claims of innocence and about 5% are open to question. The theme, thrust and intent of her position and her testimony have been, "I did not have anything to do with this crime." I think if someone who knew nothing about this case were to read her complete testimony and then read your arguments, they would say that your points of view are glaringly biased and personal, and they would wonder why you were trying to make something out of nothing.

If you want your arguments to be consistent and valid, then you should not help yourselves to Amanda's words when their meaning is clearly different from what you are trying to present.

Most of Amanda's words and testimony consist of "don't knows" and "can't remembers". Her words without those qualifiers are the important ones. That includes her clear assertions created in the alibi email and her precise naming of Patrick as Meredith's murderer. The others don't matter much and didn't enter into the verdict and sentencing.

Prior to her arrest, Amanda said plenty of contradictory things that led eventually to her arrest and conviction. You are correct that we cannot form much of an opinion from anything she said after 06 NOV 2007. Her "can't remembers" about the phone call to her mother was corrected, under oath, by her own mother in the courtroom.

Others, including Filomena, also fixed the errors in Amanda's faulty memory.

Amanda is a perfectly good liar and kept it up longer than her own mother could. It was Raffaele who buckled under pressure and threw her under the bus.

 

[Fiona]

No Fulcanelli, not according to what Amanda's lawyer stated in court. She said that Amanda's first statement - made as a witness - could be used as evidence against other people, but not as evidence against herself. But that second statement was unusable against ANYONE - whether Amanda or anyone else - because although she was "substantially a suspect", no lawyer was present when she made it. The only time at which that statement could be used was during the slander trial, which is covered by different rules. So you are wrong to keep saying that both statements were only not usable against Amanda because she was a witness when she made them. The Supreme Court ruled her rights were violated because she did not have a lawyer present, and declared the second statement unusable "for any purpose". I'll re-post the statement from Dalla Vedova, since you don't seem to have read the relevant parts:



The first statement was usable against others, but not against Amanda. The second was not usable against anyone. I think that's pretty clear from this statement. You quote Mignini, but neglect to mention the way the Supreme Court actually ruled on this issue. That almost seems like deliberate misinformation.

I agree that the 5:45 statement was not admissable because at that time Knox was a suspect and therefore entitled to a lawyer. I do not see how anyone can dispute that. But what was done is exactly in line with what happens in this country when a suspect insists on making a statement. I have already linked to the HSE guidance with respect to this. Here is the relevant passage again:

Written statements under caution 36

60. Paragraph 12.13 of Code C refers to “written statements made … under caution”. Since interviews under caution in HSE are audio-recorded or (where necessary) contemporaneously recorded, and the written record is signed by the person interviewed, it is normally not necessary for a suspect to be asked to make a written statement under caution. A written statement under caution should normally be taken only at the express wish of a suspect. You may, however, ask if the person wants to make a written statement. 37 Written statements under caution should be made on form LP77. These statements should only be made in person and not in correspondence.

61. Where a suspect has requested to make a written statement under caution, they should always be invited to write down what they want to say 38. Where the person writes their own statement, it should begin:

"I make this statement of my own free will. I understand that I do not have to say anything but that it may harm my defence if I do not mention when questioned something which I later rely on in court. This statement may be given in evidence."

62. You should not prompt a person who is writing their own statement, except to indicate what matters might be material or to question any ambiguity in the statement.

63. If the suspect wishes you to write the statement, you should take down their exact words, without editing or paraphrasing. Any questions that are necessary (e.g. to make the statement more intelligible) and the answers given should be recorded contemporaneously on the statement form. Where you write the statement, you should ask the suspect to sign the following declaration before you begin:

"I wish to make a statement. I want someone to write down what I say. I understand that I do not have to say anything but that it may harm my defence if I do not mention when questioned something which I later rely on in court. This statement may be given in evidence."

64. When you have finished writing the statement, you should ask the suspect to read it and to make any corrections, alterations or additions, and then to sign the following certificate at the end of the statement:

"I have read the above statement, and I have been able to correct, alter or add anything I wish. This statement is true. I have made it of my own free will."

65. If the suspect cannot read or refuses to read or to sign, you should read the statement out and ask for any corrections, alterations or additions. You should certify on the statement what has occurred.

The fact that there is guidance shows that this kind of thing happens. The content is exactly in line with what seems to have happened.

There is similar provision in the US: the best I could find was this

http://peacesecurity.suite101.com/article.cfm/miranda_warnings_using_incriminating_statements

And it shows that statements made voluntarily after the suspect has been advised of their rights are admissible in the USA if they are advised that they are waiving their constitutional rights

A person may make a statement despite being properly warned of his rights. Choosing to speak with the police while in custody is a waiver of Constitutional rights, and statements given under those circumstances may be used in court. The waiver must be knowing and voluntary.

A statement voluntarily given while in custody and after being warned may be used against the accused in court.

Perhaps others can find a better source for this. There is also a wiki article which seems to show that the situation has changed a little very recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

In any case it seems that the situation contains the same (or rather better) safeguards for the accused in Italy. Knox was told of her rights at 1:45. The questioning stopped at 1:45. She wished to make a statement and she did so. The court ruled it not admissble because she was a suspect and had no lawyer with her. It may be that such statements are never admisssible in Italy. It may be that the court ruled them inadmissible because Knox is not Italian and they held that she may not have understood the implications because of that. Or for some other reason: I do not know. But Mignini has stated he acted as a "scribe" which is entirely in line with what should happen in this country per the HSE guidance. I understand that many will not believe him. But this is the evidence we have so far as I can see.

 

[Fiona]

It's the sequence of events that's important. People are trying to attach great relevance to specific times when none of this is particularly meaningful.

1. Raffaele was called to the Questura on the evening of 05 NOV 2007.
2. Raffaele was the subject of the first interview.
3. Amanda was not called in to the Questura.
4. Amanda was called in for an interview after Raffaele changed his story.
5. Amanda changed her story to accuse Patrick of murder.

Those are really the most important points. It is slightly interesting but hardly vital to know that these events passed in a quick four hours.

Sollecito was obviously the subject of intense police scrutiny from the time he was discovered on 02 NOV 2007 at a place where he had no real business. Interest in him only deepened upon the investigations of his flat and his computer and phone records.

At some point on the evening of 05-06 NOV 2007, he pulled the rug out from under Knox and left her to fend for herself. There has never been an adequate explanation from the FOA types for why he did this or how it fits into the trope that the police were merely interested in setting up Amanda.

Moreover, we have no evidence that the police lied to Amanda about Raffaele's words and actions. This is not disputed by the FOA types. They know that her interview was entirely dependent on Raffaele lying and telling the police she was not with him after 21:00 on 01 NOV 2007.

How did the police know that Raffaele would deny Amanda her alibi? The easy answer is that they didn't and couldn't have. Nobody argues that Raffaele's statements were coerced.

Not sure that #4 is correct.Stilicho. I think that they decided to interview here first and that in the course of that RS changed his story and that information was conveyed to those who were interviewing her. That is what Knox testified and I think it is also what the police testified (no time to check that at present)

 

[Fiona]

The only new bit of evidence you mention appears to be the 'cartwheels' happening at 11pm. Do you have a source for this or...not?

It is not new. The police testified to this in court

 

[Mary_H]

I'd like to point out that none of us really give Amanda credit for being overly honest. In fact, that's very much counter to the arguments regarding her accusation of Patrick and what happened that night.

Apparently you do credit her honesty. Whatever words of hers you can use to your advantage, you use, and lately that has been quite a few -- look at all the citations in just the last three or four pages. Then, like the police, you disregard her version of things at your convenience. Hey, either she's a liar or she isn't -- pick a position and stick with it.

I can't speak for Fulc and Fiona, but I can assure you, I rely on Amanda's version only because if I don't, my arguments will be dismissed summarily because "That's just the Police covering up for themselves"...

In no way does that lend credibility to the rest of what she says. In fact, it only hurts the credibility of those arguing for her when they don't agree with what Amanda says happened... *shrug*

I'm not sure anyone who supports Amanda disagrees with anything she said, other than during the coercive interrogation, when words were put into her mouth. Our arguments are consistent with our belief that she is truthful, whereas your arguments are based on applying logic intermittently -- that is, she is truthful when you need her to be truthful and she is a liar when you need her to be a liar. It's unfair.

 

[Mary_H]

Most of Amanda's words and testimony consist of "don't knows" and "can't remembers". Her words without those qualifiers are the important ones. That includes her clear assertions created in the alibi email and her precise naming of Patrick as Meredith's murderer. The others don't matter much and didn't enter into the verdict and sentencing.

I certainly hope it wasn't just her "alibi e-mail" and her (extremely imprecise) naming of Patrick that entered into the verdict and sentencing. The court could have saved themselves 11 months if that were the case. Her actual court testimony is not vague -- it is quite descriptive (when she is not constantly being interrupted by lawyers and judges). Describing herself as having been confused during the interrogation is not the same as being confused on the stand.

If Amanda's "unimportant" court testimony didn't enter into the verdict and sentencing, we will have to hope for a more attentive judge and jury panel at appeal.

Prior to her arrest, Amanda said plenty of contradictory things that led eventually to her arrest and conviction. You are correct that we cannot form much of an opinion from anything she said after 06 NOV 2007. Her "can't remembers" about the phone call to her mother was corrected, under oath, by her own mother in the courtroom.

Others, including Filomena, also fixed the errors in Amanda's faulty memory.

Amanda is a perfectly good liar and kept it up longer than her own mother could. It was Raffaele who buckled under pressure and threw her under the bus.

I have never said we can't form an opinion from anything she said after November 6th; in fact, I have always said the opposite, as you should know. We have no concrete record of anything she said before November 6th, except for her e-mail. Whether or not she said contradictory things before that, then, is what we cannot form an opinion about.

The only contradictory things anyone can ever seem to come up with from before Amanda's arrest are insignificant, picayune details such as when certain phone calls were made and to whom, none of which has any bearing on whether or not she was involved in the crime. Given that these memory lapses have no evidentiary value, referring to them is simply grasping at straws in an attempt to destroy her credibility, and it's pretty slim pickin's.

Is there actually any evidence anywhere that shows that the police were interested in Amanda because she contradicted herself? Did the police ever say she contradicted herself before the interrogation?

 

[katy_did]

I agree that the 5:45 statement was not admissable because at that time Knox was a suspect and therefore entitled to a lawyer. I do not see how anyone can dispute that. But what was done is exactly in line with what happens in this country when a suspect insists on making a statement. I have already linked to the HSE guidance with respect to this. Here is the relevant passage again:

The fact that there is guidance shows that this kind of thing happens. The content is exactly in line with what seems to have happened.

There is similar provision in the US: the best I could find was this

http://peacesecurity.suite101.com/article.cfm/miranda_warnings_using_incriminating_statements

And it shows that statements made voluntarily after the suspect has been advised of their rights are admissible in the USA if they are advised that they are waiving their constitutional rights

Perhaps others can find a better source for this. There is also a wiki article which seems to show that the situation has changed a little very recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

In any case it seems that the situation contains the same (or rather better) safeguards for the accused in Italy. Knox was told of her rights at 1:45. The questioning stopped at 1:45. She wished to make a statement and she did so. The court ruled it not admissble because she was a suspect and had no lawyer with her. It may be that such statements are never admisssible in Italy. It may be that the court ruled them inadmissible because Knox is not Italian and they held that she may not have understood the implications because of that. Or for some other reason: I do not know. But Mignini has stated he acted as a "scribe" which is entirely in line with what should happen in this country per the HSE guidance. I understand that many will not believe him. But this is the evidence we have so far as I can see.

I don't what the laws are in the UK or the U.S., but it seems obvious that the laws in Italy prevent someone considered to be a suspect from making a statement without a lawyer, which seems like the important thing. Dalla Vedova says quite specifically that the statement was deemed unusable and that the Supreme Court ruled her "rights were violated" for this reason - because she didn't have a lawyer, not because she didn't understand a legal term (not to say that she did understand it, but that's not why it was ruled unusable).

I asked Fulcanelli the same question, but what evidence do you have that Amanda "insisted" on making a statement that night? Is it just the technical question of it being a 'spontaneous statement' - something I very much doubt Amanda fully understood - or is there something else? I think by far the most likely explanation as to why she was questioned again is that Mignini understandably wanted to interview her himself. Well you would, wouldn't you, if you'd just gotten the big news that a suspect had 'confessed'? It's very difficult to believe that he was woken from his bed on Amanda's insistence - particularly since the arrest of Patrick occurred only after they'd gotten that second statement from her.

If you compare the second statement to Amanda's handwritten statement, it's pretty obvious the second isn't written in her words (another poster pointed out that the text message is cut short in the second statement to make it sound more incriminating towards Amanda). I'm guessing the process of obtaining that statement would've been very similar to the first: that is, they'd interrogate Amanda writing down the questions and her answers, put together a statement at the end of the session from those answers, and then ask her to sign it. I suppose technically you could describe the person typing that up as a 'scribe' too, since any police statement is obviously supposed to be an accurate summary of what the person said. The only difference I see between the first and second statements are this question of the second being 'spontaneous', a term with legal implications which, as I said, I very much doubt Amanda understood, and which the Supreme Court obviously didn't consider enough to stop it being a violation of her rights.

 

[Mary_H]

It's the sequence of events that's important. People are trying to attach great relevance to specific times when none of this is particularly meaningful.

1. Raffaele was called to the Questura on the evening of 05 NOV 2007.
2. Raffaele was the subject of the first interview.
3. Amanda was not called in to the Questura.
4. Amanda was called in for an interview after Raffaele changed his story.
5. Amanda changed her story to accuse Patrick of murder.

Those are really the most important points. It is slightly interesting but hardly vital to know that these events passed in a quick four hours.

Sollecito was obviously the subject of intense police scrutiny from the time he was discovered on 02 NOV 2007 at a place where he had no real business. Interest in him only deepened upon the investigations of his flat and his computer and phone records.

At some point on the evening of 05-06 NOV 2007, he pulled the rug out from under Knox and left her to fend for herself. There has never been an adequate explanation from the FOA types for why he did this or how it fits into the trope that the police were merely interested in setting up Amanda.

Moreover, we have no evidence that the police lied to Amanda about Raffaele's words and actions. This is not disputed by the FOA types. They know that her interview was entirely dependent on Raffaele lying and telling the police she was not with him after 21:00 on 01 NOV 2007.

How did the police know that Raffaele would deny Amanda her alibi? The easy answer is that they didn't and couldn't have. Nobody argues that Raffaele's statements were coerced.

Huh? Hold on there, pal -- I will argue that Raffaele's statements were coerced. I sure hope you are not Mr. D's only source of information on this topic, because most of what you have written here is highly questionable, to say the least.

First, Raffaele wrote in his prison diary on November 7th that, "In police headquarters they tortured to me psychologically, put to me in shackles and made me strip in front of the scientific, I was even barefoot."

Hm -- no coercion there, eh? Does it sound like Raffaele was perfectly okay with all this?

Second, what is this about being in a place on November 2nd where he had no business? What, specifically, are you referring to? And as far as I know, the police had access to phone records, but they didn't investigate Raffaele's flat and computers until after he was in custody. Ergo, it is wrong to say that is what led them to suspect him.

Third, as for Raffaele "pulling the rug out from under" Amanda, he makes it very clear in his diary that what he has been told about Amanda -- that she could have been involved in the crime -- is extremely hard for him to believe. In fact, as the days go on and he regains some confidence, he outright refuses to believe it. Raffaele never reported that he spontaneously told the police he knew Amanda had gone out that night. On the contrary, it is plain that it was information that was given to him by the police, and that he had to struggle to rationalize.

I think it is pretty much accepted by the "FOA" types that the police lied to Raffaele, and then they lied to Amanda. No dispute. There is not a lot of distinction between whether they lied to Amanda about what Raffaele said or whether he actually said it, since they put the words in his mouth in the first place.

According to Fiona and Fulcanelli, Amanda was not called into an interview after Raffaele changed his story -- he changed his story while Amanda was being interviewed.

And finally, "It is slightly interesting but hardly vital to know that these events passed in a quick four hours." ??? A bit subjective, wouldn't you say? Who decides whether the four hours were quick or slow -- you, or the guy in handcuffs and bare feet? You, or the girl who got whacked in the back of the head while getting yelled at in a roomful of cops? Quick for you, maybe -- a lifetime for them.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

I have a linguistic and psychologic problem I am thinking about quite a lot of time:

It is the text of this message we are talking about for quite a time.
"See you later" - if I am correct.

that sounds so formal, so correct - It does not sound like all the young college and university-folks would express. They would write: 'ciao', or 'see U' or 'OK' or something like that. There is now established a specific SMS-slang with lots of abbrevations - if you are not 'in' - you would barely understand anything.
That 'see you later' does not at all fit in the picture. Its like you have inserted the wrong jig-saw piece.
**

I have also my problems with the expression: I was so scared! (you know, at this 'famous' interrogation)

First she waited in the waiting room, then started to do some homework (which would require sort of concentration), then did her notorious cartwheels and splits. **
Police came and sit beside her and started to ask her some questions, the same questions she already has been asked over and over again.
And now she is scared. But why scared??

I would find much better fitting expressions:
fed up, pissed off, ****** off, angry, upset, annoyed, tired - whatever you like, but not scared, that does not fit either.

Maybe I notice this because of reading and writing mostly with the help of my dictionary.

 

[Agatha]

In the text, Amanda wrote in Italian, a language in which she was not fluent, so that may be why she used more formal language than she might have done had she been writing in English.

 

[43degreesNorth]

I have a linguistic and psychologic problem I am thinking about quite a lot of time:

It is the text of this message we are talking about for quite a time.
"See you later" - if I am correct.

Wasn't the 'See you later' written in Italian that Amanda knew? Has a slight different meaning in Italian.

 

[Supernaut]

From all of this taken together it seems to me that Knox still said she could not remember who the text was to, even after being shown it:

Yes, she almost certainly didn't remember who she'd sent it to - she was trying to read a text, written in her beginner's Italian nearly a week earlier, on a tiny mobile-phone screen being thrust into her face by the cops while they yelled at her what they thought it said - " I will meet you".

Which is, apparently, what Amanda herself finally remembered writing.

She said so "in her own words" in her signed "statement" later on, right?

 

[stilicho]

Not sure that #4 is correct.Stilicho. I think that they decided to interview here first and that in the course of that RS changed his story and that information was conveyed to those who were interviewing her. That is what Knox testified and I think it is also what the police testified (no time to check that at present)

That's true. I don't think we know why they decided to interview her since she hadn't been called in to begin with. If we had to guess, there must have been something Raffaele said before he openly recanted his alibi for her. It's plausible that his story began to change slowly as the contradictions mounted.

The main point I was trying to make is that the police--if they were out to get Amanda--did it by the most circuitous route possible. They didn't invite her to the Questura in the first place and she wasn't the one who withdrew her alibi first.

 

[Kestrel]

I have a linguistic and psychologic problem I am thinking about quite a lot of time:

It is the text of this message we are talking about for quite a time.
"See you later" - if I am correct.

that sounds so formal, so correct - It does not sound like all the young college and university-folks would express. They would write: 'ciao', or 'see U' or 'OK' or something like that. There is now established a specific SMS-slang with lots of abbrevations - if you are not 'in' - you would barely understand anything.
That 'see you later' does not at all fit in the picture. Its like you have inserted the wrong jig-saw piece.
**

The message Amanda sent to Lumumba was "Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata" It was in Italian, not in English.

The message was sent to her boss, such messages tend to be a bit more formal than messages to friends. Amanda probably wasn't sure what was the Italian text message equivalent of "cul" or "see u", or that Lumumba would understand English abbreviations commonly used for text messaging. I don't find it at all strange that she spelled out the words.

I have also my problems with the expression: I was so scared! (you know, at this 'famous' interrogation)

First she waited in the waiting room, then started to do some homework (which would require sort of concentration), then did her notorious cartwheels and splits. **
Police came and sit beside her and started to ask her some questions, the same questions she already has been asked over and over again.
And now she is scared. But why scared??

I would find much better fitting expressions:
fed up, pissed off, ****** off, angry, upset, annoyed, tired - whatever you like, but not scared, that does not fit either.

Maybe I notice this because of reading and writing mostly with the help of my dictionary.

Amanda wasn't scared when she was doing her homework and even the cartwheel. She became scared after the police started using heavy handed interrogation techniques on her.

 

[Bob001]

In the text, Amanda wrote in Italian, a language in which she was not fluent . . . .

Isn't this at the heart of a lot of this discussion? There is no recording of Knox's interrogation. We don't know who said what or when. We only know what the police claim, and what she claims, and as she didn't speak Italian very well at the time, she herself may not have fully understood what she was being asked or how to give a complete, nuanced answer. I continue to believe that there are legitimate questions about translation errors and misinterpretations. And her written statement simply summarizes what the police say she said, not why she said it or what preceded it or what she believed to be true. Language students start with the present tense: "I go to the market." It requires a more sophisticated understanding to use conditionals and subjunctives and tenses: "I would have gone to the market if I had needed bread, but I since I still had the bread I bought the day before, I didn't need to go to the market that day." Even if the police were acting in good faith (a huge "if") it's entirely possible that they were asking hypothetical questions, and she didn't have the language facility to answer conditionally. To take one example: about those messages, if the police were asking "Who did you go to meet?" or "Who did you say you were going to meet?," the cops could legitimately have believed that "see ya later" in Italian was her promise to meet someone soon. But since Knox didn't mean it that way, she could quite legitimately have said "I don't know" or "I don't remember" because in her mind "See ya later" was not an agreement to meet anybody, and she hadn't in fact met anybody. If they had asked her to imagine a hypothesis they proposed, would she have been able to say, "Hypothetically, if I had been there, which I wasn't, I might have heard screaming, which I didn't, and then maybe I might have covered my ears, which I didn't?" Or might she have said something like, "I hear scream, I cover ears." And if the translator was telling her that the police knew she was there and she was too traumatized to remember it, that's certainly evidence that the translator was not an unbiased observer. The police clearly expected certain answers (whether you call that "coerced" or not), and it looks like she tried to give them what she thought they wanted.

"It is slightly interesting but hardly vital to know that these events passed in a quick four hours . . . "

Four hours might pass quickly or slowly depending on what you are doing (epic movie or dentist's chair?). What's critical is that she surely didn't know how long the interrogation might last: four minutes, four hours or forever. If she was frightened and confused and self-doubting (the police were telling her that she was too traumatized to remember the truth), and she came to believe that her only chance of getting out of that room was to tell the cops what she thought they wanted to hear, four hours would be plenty of time to break her down.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

From the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Jan. 2005

Focus on Investigations
Homicide Investigative Strategies
By John B. Edwards

General Coverage
While teams of investigators address those specific focus issues, a second team should handle the general coverage issue, which comprises four areas. First, they should conduct neighborhood canvasses, which deal with people in close vicinity to others, and make observations or assessments regarding situational environmental issues in connection with proximity. Second, interviews of friends, families, and associates may determine victimology or suspectology information while such information is fresh and untainted by the direction of the investigation. Third, coworkers or employers may provide other information regarding victims and suspects. Finally, construction of definite victim/suspect timelines should outline the environment, proximity, locations, and times.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2005/jan2005/jan2005.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=publications/leb/2005/jan05leb.pdf

I've never been able to understand why Guede, Lamumba and Curatolo were not identified, located, and interviewed - early in the investigation.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Apparently you do credit her honesty. Whatever words of hers you can use to your advantage, you use, and lately that has been quite a few -- look at all the citations in just the last three or four pages. Then, like the police, you disregard her version of things at your convenience. Hey, either she's a liar or she isn't -- pick a position and stick with it.



I'm not sure anyone who supports Amanda disagrees with anything she said, other than during the coercive interrogation, when words were put into her mouth. Our arguments are consistent with our belief that she is truthful, whereas your arguments are based on applying logic intermittently -- that is, she is truthful when you need her to be truthful and she is a liar when you need her to be a liar. It's unfair.

Just because I use her statements doesn't mean I necessarily agree with her version of events. Rather, I use her statements because you must agree with her version. That even in the "best-case-scenario" of her own testimony she's not looking too rosy is not my problem. That problem belongs to her as well as to those who would claim she is innocent.

You choose to find her testimony credible. I do not. However, if I were to argue using only the Police testimony, it would be slammed as nothing more than catering to the conspiracy to cover up what really happened. By using Amanda's own testimony, that cannot be raised as an issue.


I know...life's not fair when people don't play the way you want them to...