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.
Maybe because real life doesn't always comply with the textbooks, and doesn't always measure up to TV show standards.
Patrick may well have been ID'd early ... as an employer. Until he was explicitly fingered by Knox there wouldn't have been any particular reason to single him out early on as a suspect. Guede wasn't a regular associate. Interviews could have easily not mentioned him in the early stages. Some witnesses are not always available or uncovered on Day One or even Day Two or Three.
Armchair quarterbacking and 20/20 hindsight is the lazy man's argument. Quoting from textbooks sounds authoritative, but means less when applied to reality. I doubt that very many investigations from the real world would fit into a neat one hour format ... with time out for commercials.
In spite of much handwaving I've seen little to suggest that this particular investigation suffered from the sort of massive blunders and evil conspiracy so loudly alleged by those who cannot contemplate the idea that Knox may actually be complicit in this crime. Or allow any such suggestion to go unchallenged by whatever means available, no matter how exaggerated. It seems more to be a few of the hairy warts of real life seized upon and magnified for the benefit of rhetoric, combined with misdirection and misrepresentation.
I think we have perhaps even made a little progress here. No one seems to be arguing anymore that Knox was convicted "all because of a cartwheel". The 30, or 40, or 50 hours of brutal interrogation has now shrunk to 4, or 3, or maybe 1:45 hours of meanie cops saying confusing stuff in a harsh manner. The "primitive", "archaic", "third world" Italian judicial system has turned out to look pretty good compared to those of some of the xenophobes lambasting it.
I await the Massei Report translation with great interest. Perhaps there may be more primary source data available there than what we have been able to uncover in these threads. Much of the disagreement of fact we have left seems to be involved in conflicts among sources of less than stellar provenance, as well as in interpretation.
I am under no delusions that it will alter the positions of those who are already adamant in their beliefs ... on either side, but for me at least it may also provide some insight into why the jury (or judge's panel if you prefer) came to the decision they did.
I have no idea where you got the notion that I think real life complies with TV shows and textbooks. I think we can agree that TV shows are by their very nature distortions of reality. Textbooks are often outdated.
I posted an excerpt from an article written by Special Agent John B. Edwards, the head of the Statesboro office of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. I also provided links to the full article in html and pdf format so the portion I quoted coud be read in context.
The point I was trying to make is that the three persons I mentioned should have been questioned as a matter of routine.
You may be right about Guede though, because it's very possible that his name may not have came up, now that you mention it. I thought TJMK had information showing that the victim knew Guede(and maybe even well enough to allow him into the flat) - but am unable to locate it now.
As far as Curatolo is concerned, the guy lived on a bench, near the cottage. I would think that the officers who patrol the area would be very familiar with him, and ask if he'd seen or heard anything unusual that night(unless they thought he was unreliable).
The failure to contact Mr. Lumumba puzzles me the most and here is why:
A staged break-in was suspected and AK couldn't be ruled out as a suspect, so why not contact her employer? Not as a suspect, but just to ask some basic questions. Questions such as, 'when did you last see Amanda?', 'when did you last speak with Amanda?'. I think a junior member of the team or even a uniformed officer could have gone to his home or business to simply ask a few questions.
You'd be absolutely right to say hindsight gives us an advantage over the investigators, who were operating in real time. They had no way to know how enlightening an interview of Mr. Lumumba may have been.
But that was my reason for quoting the article. My understanding of the way these things go, is that as much information as possible is gathered while it's fresh and untainted. Significance can be determined later.
I hope I'm being clear. I am happy to be shown where Im mistaken.
As to the last four paragraphs of your post, I'm sure they weren't directed at me specifically, so I'll not comment, except to say that I agree with much - but not all - of what you wrote there.
