Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[loverofzion]

Its called caveman logic.

Found dead girl. She was murdered.
Found no evidence. It was cleaned up.

There was evidence found in the 4 instances of AK's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood and of course the DNA of RS found on the murdered girl's bra clasp.
And there was definite evidence of a clean up by the use of luminol which revealed footprints enbedded in blood.

Which part do you not understand?

 

[loverofzion]

What part of the Interrogation was a lawyer present for? They started surveillance on Sollecito and Knox before their interrogations, yet claim to not had time to record the interrogation.

Who said they had no time to record the interrogations?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What in your opiinion wsa "vague" about her confession?
Sure sounded real to the police officers.
What errors of fact were there in her confession?:
There was only vaugeness and prevarication when the convicted killer was lying about her whereabouts and activities the night of the murder.. When she gave her confession, there was no vagueness or non specific details.
And the police had no theories about Patrick, for instance. Which theories of theirs were they trying to coerce her toward?
You are being unclear.
Reread it yourself.

You are making a number of claims which we have already investigated and found to be incorrect. Patrick was already a suspect, the police pressured Amanda to name Lumumba as the killer, she stated at the time and immediately afterwards that she was not even sure she recalled the events she was recounting, Amanda claimed to hear a scream but nobody else heard a scream at the actual time of Meredith's death, and Meredith was murdered by Rudy not Patrick.

Now how do you explain the fact that the characteristics of Amanda's "confession" (vagueness, doubts about its authenticity, obvious errors of fact, conformity with police theories at the time, later retraction) match with those of an internalised false confession, a well-recognised and objectively documented psychological phenomenon? There is no evidence Amanda knew enough about such false confessions to fake one so convincingly, and indeed if she knew enough to fake one she would almost certainly know that such confessions often lead to the confessor being convicted. If it is highly implausible that she faked an internalised false confession, the only alternative was that this was a real internalised false confession.

You have not actually answered this question, merely talked around it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

There was evidence found in the 4 instances of AK's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood

Do you acknowledge that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood found in the house proves absolutely nothing, because it could have been deposited by completely innocent means before Meredith's death? If not, why not?

And there was definite evidence of a clean up by the use of luminol which revealed footprints enbedded in blood.

Those footprints were tested for the presence of blood and the tests were negative. Nobody, including you, knows whether those prints were in blood nor when they were made.

 

[loverofzion]

When do you believe she "became" a suspect?

Did she have a lawyer present during the interrogation that began on the 5th?

Did she have a lawyer present when she signed the first statement in the 6th?

Did she have a lawyer present during the subsequent interrogation on the 6th?

Are you aware of the reasoning that the Italian supreme court gave for not allowing the two statements signed on the 6th to be used against her?

Do you really think that shouting will override the facts that we've already researched and discussed?

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2
Apparently AK's interrogation began around midnight, and at 1:45 AM she officially was informed she was a suspect. She signed a statement, and the next day she elaborated upon it and gave the police her "gift" of a letter implicating herself as having been present at the murder (her "vision")..
Read the attached timeline.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on the putative semen stain

loverofzion,

A facile response to your question is that DNA cannot be dated either, so what does DNA testing prove for this case? However, let's assume it is semen and look further. If the semen belongs to her boyfriend (Giacomo?), then it can be ignored because he has a strong alibi. If the semen belongs to Raffaele, it would be the strongest clue against him. If the semen belongs to Rudy, it changes what we know about the sexual contact that took place. Whether or not it would lead to a rape charge is a question for someone else.

Judge Massei's report failed to give adequate reasons for preferring to believe one expert witness over another with respect to the bra clasp DNA and with respect to one of the knife wounds, as discussed upthread.

loverofzion,

You have failed to address the issues I raised above. I consulted page 357 of the Massei report, and he also indicates that semen cannot be dated. So does Massei's argument apply to every putative semen stain in every investigation of a possible rape or sexual assault? If not, why not?

 

[katy_did]

Because coerced/internalized admissions do not apply here.
No police officer- nor translator on this case- ever admitted to seeing any untoward treatment of AK.
She was given breaks, was NEVER cuffed as she claimed (see under her slander trial). was given food and drink.
Why would you believe her supporters on this?
There was never any documented proof of ill treament or coercion; I don't know where the "impicit" statement by the police chief comes from accusing the police and NOT Amanda for accusing Patrick.
Can you provide such a quote?

And your opinion is that unless police officers annotate a suspect's police statement with comments like "Whoops, think I might've suggested the bit about the text message, LOLZ", a coerced statement can't have happened? Seems to me you just don't believe confessions can be coerced full-stop.

But as I said, perhaps you can outline what in your view would make a confession 'coerced', and why this particular 'confession' doesn't fit that category (i.e. what are the clear differences which distinguish it from a coerced-internalized confession)?

 

[katy_did]

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2
Apparently AK's interrogation began around midnight, and at 1:45 AM she officially was informed she was a suspect. She signed a statement, and the next day she elaborated upon it and gave the police her "gift" of a letter implicating herself as having been present at the murder (her "vision")..
Read the attached timeline.

Someone recently linked to a statement from the interpreter, who said that she was called between 11 and 11.30 and asked to come into the station. Now, assuming that the three police officers spent 20-30 minutes talking to Amanda in the waiting room before taking her into an interrogation room, that means the informal interrogation started between 10.30 and 11 (which fits with Amanda's conversation to Filomena at about 10.30, which she ends by saying "Someone wants to talk to me"). So the interrogation started between 10.30 and 11, not at midnight; and for the first hour and a half to two hours she didn't have an interpreter.

 

[katy_did]

Sorry Chris wrong again.
Filomena was unanimously described as being very neat.

I've been looking for a cite for this ever since it was mentioned during the discussion over the clothes in Filomena's room. Do you have a source showing that "Filomena was unanimously described as being very neat"?

 

[Kestrel]

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2
Apparently AK's interrogation began around midnight, and at 1:45 AM she officially was informed she was a suspect. She signed a statement, and the next day she elaborated upon it and gave the police her "gift" of a letter implicating herself as having been present at the murder (her "vision")..
Read the attached timeline.

Did you ever notice that the PMF timeline doesn't indicate why they believe an event happened at a certain time? Many of the times, such as the start of the interrogation, are pure conjecture.

I also note that you don't understand the coercive nature of the police interrogation. Politely asking questions to clear up a few points doesn't take a dozen police officers. It may take that many if the goal is to intimidate a suspect using a tag team technique.

 

[Dan O.]

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2
Apparently AK's interrogation began around midnight, and at 1:45 AM she officially was informed she was a suspect. She signed a statement, and the next day she elaborated upon it and gave the police her "gift" of a letter implicating herself as having been present at the murder (her "vision")..
Read the attached timeline.

The PMF timeline is a bunch of garbage with little basis in reality. Around midnight is when the interpreter arrived and joined an interrogation already in progress. From Amanda's undisputed testimony we know that the interrogation that night started in another room out by the elevators and we have a very good record of the time it started from the recorded telephone conversation of Amanda talking to one of her roommates that ends "... now somebody wants to talk to me".

You acknowledge that Amanda was "officially" declared a suspect at 1:45. Did she sign the statement after she became a suspect? Was her lawyer present when she signed that statement at 1:45? Was her lawyer present for the subsequent interrogation which ended with another statement being signed at 5:45?

Have you actually read the letter that Amanda wrote the next day?

 

[Antony]

(msg #5627, p141)

Where did ANYONE on the Perugia police force ever say she accused Patrick due to coercion?

This is pointed out by Supernaut on p139 of this forum (msg #5534). The quote is here: http://www.newsweek.com/2007/11/14/death-in-perugia.html

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

Implicit, as I said. Amanda's Nov 6 statement was "an admission of facts we knew were correct", given after "she buckled" - i.o.w. gave in to police pressure. This is another way of saying that her statement was fed to her by police, and her agreement with it was coerced.

(msg #5534, p139)

Really - how much clearer could he have made it?

Back to your post ...

And the lies just go and on and on...

They do indeed; from the pro-guilt faction.

Amanda and Raffaele have been truthful and consistent throughout - except where they have been manipulated or pressured by the Perugia police.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

please explain what you mean by ease and familiarity

I had considered neither of the individuals' opinions which you have presently introduced - as such, there was obviously no intentional disregard of this evidence.



For the second time, you have made reference to Amanda's "interrogation" (as though there were only one?) as to insinuate that I hold this as necessary evidence for judgment of her poor character.

Again a larger question is suggested - how do you propose that a disinterested observer is to determine whether any given individual is unable to accurately recall pertinent events, or is instead simply dissembling?

Fuji,

Your question is a good one, but perhaps you should have asked it of yourself before making the statement that you did. You were the one who said that Amanda lies with ease and familiarity. That statement indicates that she lied on multiple occasions. I am once again asking you to explain exactly what you mean.

My previous comment referred to the interrogation of the 5th-6th. My point was that if that is the only instance of Amanda's alleged lying that you can find, we are going to have to agree to disagree. Her statements during that time were the product of very poor interrogation techniques. MOO.

You will find Amanda's teacher's impression of Amanda on the 5th of November in Murder in Italy, as well as Laura's and one of Filomena's friend's impressions.

 

[Mary_H]

What was the false information or logic exactly?

My observations are in the comment section of this article: http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/08/amanda-knox-email-analysis.html

 

[Mary_H]

She recalled SEVERAL different versions of the night in question; including one in which she said she was present in the cottage during the murder, holding her hands over her ears.
As a matter of fact this is what she wrote and gave the police as her "gift" to them.

I-yi-yi. If you would ever look for the documentation to support your claims, you might get a fact right once in a while.

 

[loverofzion]

The PMF timeline is a bunch of garbage with little basis in reality. Around midnight is when the interpreter arrived and joined an interrogation already in progress. From Amanda's undisputed testimony we know that the interrogation that night started in another room out by the elevators and we have a very good record of the time it started from the recorded telephone conversation of Amanda talking to one of her roommates that ends "... now somebody wants to talk to me".

You acknowledge that Amanda was "officially" declared a suspect at 1:45. Did she sign the statement after she became a suspect? Was her lawyer present when she signed that statement at 1:45? Was her lawyer present for the subsequent interrogation which ended with another statement being signed at 5:45?

Have you actually read the letter that Amanda wrote the next day?

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...he_prosecution_4_amanda_knoxs_multiple_confl/

Awfully suspicious in my book that one minute she's asleep in a cannibus induced amnesia with her boyfriend; the next she's at the cottage while Patrick is assaulting Meredith!
Until then the police had no reason to believe there had been any other person besides AK and RS involved, so there was no "coercion" or "fasle confession" due to mistreatment.

Read the attached timeline.

 

[loverofzion]

I-yi-yi. If you would ever look for the documentation to support your claims, you might get a fact right once in a while.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...he_prosecution_4_amanda_knoxs_multiple_confl/

Try this for "documentation".
Where is your own documentation?

 

[loverofzion]

Do you acknowledge that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood found in the house proves absolutely nothing, because it could have been deposited by completely innocent means before Meredith's death? If not, why not?



Those footprints were tested for the presence of blood and the tests were negative. Nobody, including you, knows whether those prints were in blood nor when they were made.

Then what innocent explnation do you give for Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in four different instances in the house?
And the police saying she buckled means she was brought down from her lying evasiveness "I can't remember"s and told a credible account, i.e. that she was present.

There is no mention of coercion in the policeman's statement.

 

[Mary_H]

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...he_prosecution_4_amanda_knoxs_multiple_confl/

Try this for "documentation".
Where is your own documentation?

If you think I'm going to read an entire page of TJMK to try to discern your claim, you've got another thing coming.

What you have written is false. I know this and other posters on this site know this because we have a lot of knowledge of the case. It would be one thing if you were here to learn something, but instead you appear to want to school the rest of us. Ain't gonna happen.

Don't ever rely on TJMK for information. Peter Quennell is a disturbed man with a fetish for Meredith Kercher. Everything he writes is veiled in deceptive language intended to mislead unsuspecting newcomers and true believers.

My documentation can be found in posts appearing in the last six months of this thread.

 

[Amazer]

This is pointed out by Supernaut on p139 of this forum (msg #5534). The quote is here: http://www.newsweek.com/2007/11/14/death-in-perugia.html



Implicit, as I said. Amanda's Nov 6 statement was "an admission of facts we knew were correct", given after "she buckled" - i.o.w. gave in to police pressure. This is another way of saying that her statement was fed to her by police, and her agreement with it was coerced.

No it isn't. You are reading a lot more into the statement then what it actually says.