Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

once more with italics: Amanda and Patrick

Halides1

We have already dealt with this issue (in general) very recently.
[and it was probably covered several times earlier in the thread]

Kaosium may have forgotten or misinterpreted it but you were involved in the exchange IIRC.

If you don't accept the argument that cops are skeptical of the changing stories of murder suspects then go with " all cops are ******** " if you want. They are not even mutually exclusive !

The point is hardly obscure or pedantic - its simplicity itself. Once AK names PL and she is considered a serious suspect, the cops are always going to err on the side of caution.

.

Platonov,

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make, but I would like to state my position one more time. I have often read criticism to the effect that Amanda did nothing for Patrick during the period of their concurrent incarceration. The police knew that Amanda no longer believed that she was at the cottage because they listened to her conversation with her mother. They did nothing, which demonstrates that Amanda could not have freed Patrick just by saying so. The question of whether the police should have listened to Amanda as of November 10th is irrelevant to the point I made before and am reiterating here: Amanda could not have helped Patrick by talking to the police.

The only other possible argument I can see is that Amanda should have at least tried to free Patrick (even if the police were not going to listen to her, rightly or wrongly). Although it might seem like the right thing for her to do, I find serious fault with this argument. Whether one is innocent or guilty, one should never talk to the police without a lawyer present, and one should listen to his or her advice. Kestrel has done yeoman’s work documenting this point, and we should all be grateful for his or her citations. Moreover, someone within ILE leaked Amanda's diary, and the final form of a portion of this diary, being translated into Italian and then back into English, bore little resemblance to the original. In short, we have evidence specific to this case that bears out the general dictum to stop talking to police once one is incarcerated. Therefore, the argument that Amanda should have spoken to the police is meretricious and a complete non-starter with me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

reality versus illusion

LondonJohn,

By the way, another asymmetry that struck me in this debate is how it could end. It might be my bias coming out, but if they are acquitted, my feeling is that the pro-innocence camp would declare victory and go home. I don't think that a final conviction would cause the pro-guilt camp to pack up. What do you think?

Ultimately I suppose the news stories, leaks, quotes and transcripts will dry up and things will grind to a halt.

shuttit,

Good to see you commenting again. I will not "declare victory and go home" until I think that there is enough information publicly available to show that "Foxy Knoxy" is a character invented by ILE and the tabloid press, and that Foxy Knoxy is as similar to Amanda Knox as catfish are to cats.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi Machiavelli, thanks for the detailed response - I've cut and pasted some of your points so I can better reply to them.



This doesn't quite address what I was saying. Sure, you could make a case that the chances of the clasp coming into contact with the towels is weak. But the chances of Raffaele coming into contact with the tiny hook on the clasp - and only there, leaving traces nowhere else in the room, not a shoe print, fingerprint, bloody hand print, DNA, nothing - are also very weak. It would be easy to make a case for it being virtually impossible for Raffaele's DNA to end up only on the clasp, arguing in the same way you're doing here. And that's because the chances are miniscule that his traces would end up only on the hook of the clasp.

You have to start with the fact of the DNA on the hook (leaving aside the controversy on that for now) and then show why it's less unlikely that it ended up there through direct transfer than by secondary transfer. Arguing that secondary transfer is unlikely doesn't work, because direct transfer is also unlikely.

But my answer essentially is that I disagree on this specific point. This is an erroneous assumption which for some reasons seems a belief for some. I can't really understand why you think the direct transfer is unlikely. It is certainly possible for a human being to be in the room and not leave significant traces. So why only one DNA fragment should be unlikely?

In the case of Elisa Claps, the suspect serial killer Danilo Restivo sexually assaulted and stabbed the victim multiple times, though the DNA traces found of him were zero (while DNA of others was found near the body). It is possible to kill and not leave DNA ans traces, just depends on aspects of the dynamic. Rudy himself left only three DNA traces on items. But in this case it is not necessary. It is about being in the room and not leave traces.

Moreover, on what regards other phisical marks, one more datum to consider is the different situation with respect to the crime of Guede on one side, and Sollecito/Knox on the other. RS and AK are essentially implicatied for having taken part to a clean up, and their being there after the crime is for some time is an important aspect. While Rudy Guede probably committed phisically the crime, he didn't clean anything, made nothing except hasty movements. For the other tw we are talking about traces of people who were there after the crime, who altered the scene and had time to clean traces and remove items. They could (and did) clean footrpints and other marks, maybe they even cleaned some of Rudy's handprints. Almost for sure they cleaned some of Rudy's shoeprints. This difference in roles and timings and the later alteration is an anspect which, if assumed, doesn't make the lack of traces look unlikely at all.

To answer your specific points about the towel coming into contact with the clasp, the simple fact is we just don't know what might have happened to make that possible. What we do know is that the towels and the bra clasp were found in the same area of the floor; that the towels had been taken from the small bathroom; that Raffaele had visited the house the day of the murder and had most likely used the small bathroom. Since we don't know the specifics of the attack and where either the towels or the bra clasp were at any particular point, we can only deduce that contact between them was possible. And that means secondary transfer from them can't be ruled out. Just as it can't be ruled out that Raffaele only left traces on the tiny metal hook and on nothing else in the room (however unlikely that may be).

In this vision, the hypothesys are put at the same level. While in fact they are not at the same level. Because the seondary/tertiary transfer is simply random and simply very unlikely. The possibility of not finding traces of Sollecito instead is not unlikely, not a sheer random event, it is conditioned to the situation.

From what I posted earlier, it sounds as if the towels weren't able to be accurately tested for DNA, due to being mildewed/saturated with blood. I'd also point out again that only a few samples were taken from each towel, and that it seems highly unlikely that there was no DNA from anyone on the hand towels, assuming they hadn't been washed immediately before the murder.

The towels were not in the best conditions to be tested for DNA. But in fact they were not in the best condition to provide secondary transfer neither.

I don't think we can take the defence position on this as definitive. Not from a truth perspective anyway, as opposed to thinking of it in terms of legal strategy. And it's quite possible they simply missed the significance of the towels. After all, it wasn't until they filed the appeal documents that they finally linked the locked front door to Meredith's front door keys being taken, yet it was discussed here on the forum several months before that.

Actually, there is nothing really new in the appeal documents on most points. I would say the topical parts are surprisingly the same arguments that were used in court. I think the defence simply doesn't like the idea of finding any DNA of Raffaele on the towels at all. And they are probably right. The secondary transfer is simply so unlikely that further DNA would be simply further DNA of Sollecito. The towels that were tested yielded no DNA of Raffaele, this could not be found by lab experts. However, it managed to "find" and to transfer and stick to the bra clasp that was cut and was fallen under the victim's body. That's not realistic.

I think you're splitting hairs about Laura and Filomena not using the bathroom - it's entirely possible they may have occasionally used the smaller bathroom if theirs was occupied. If they had a cleaning roster, they may have cleaned it. At any rate, their presence there is more likely than anyone else's, and probably to be expected.

Their DNA is missing however from any of the items in that bathroom, and if the various towels are all from the bathroom (they belong to Meredith and Amanda) they also more likely would carry DNA of Meredith and Amanda. It is not that it is a total surprise to find Filomena's DNA on the towel in the small bathroom, but it is definitely unlikely, less likely than others, and if in a secondary you assume that two DNA traces were left at the same time on the same spot on the bra clasp in a secondary tranfer, from minor donors using someone else's towel.. this sounds absolutely not reasonable.

The fact is, the hypothesis is not likely at all, and at the same time there is no reason to think this is what happened.
So all this making remote hypothesis is not able to affect the fact that the bra clasp is a piece of evidence. It is not perfect, all other possitilities can not be strcitly ruled out with an absolute certanity, but this is evidence, and its value cannot be made disappear neither.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I understood this to mean that although they could obviously detect Meredith's DNA (it having been her blood) trying to find anyone else's DNA - inevitably in much smaller quantities - would have been useless.

I'd also point out that, even if this weren't the case, IIRC only two or three samples were taken from each towel anyway, which wouldn't rule out the possibility that Raffaele's or anyone else's DNA might have been elsewhere on them (Rudy's lawyers appeared to think there was at least an argument that was the case). It's hard to believe that no one's DNA was on the hand towels through normal use, not unless they'd just been washed that same day or something.

As Chris C. pointed out, one or more of the towels could have been used to swab the bathroom floor. In that case, there could be a lot of untested evidence on them.

 

[Mary_H]

It is not.

It is evidence of the clasp being handled. The two processes are not equivalent.

Apparently I was not being as facetious as LJ claimed. There is no question that the clasp was handled. Video evidence is not even required. Unless you are making the claim that you can see Sollecito's DNA being transferred to the clasp in that video then it shows nothing beyond that. The assertion that Sollecito's DNA (or anyone's, for that matter) was transferred at that particular moment is still only an assertion. It can be said that contamination might have occurred at that moment, but not that it certainly did.

Perhaps you think you are seeing something which others cannot.

That's why I'm sticking to the "tampered" versus "contaminated" theory.

 

[Alt+F4]

That's why I'm sticking to the "tampered" versus "contaminated" theory.

Yes Mary you have mentioned before that you think the DNA on the bra clasp was either planted there or that the evidence was somehow tampered with. Could you elaborate?

 

[Fine]

He's Making It Up

You got it. I had read somewhere that the clasp was cut off, and I assumed that was the case. But Hendry applied a methodology he has developed over the years, and he came up with many significant observations and insights that check out when one examines the photos closely.

_______________________

And here's another one of Hendry's significant observations and insights.....


"Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on the outside of Meredith’s hallway room door. " "EXPERT ANALYSIS"


The same expert who would have blood dripping from Meredith's boots 24 to 48 hours after the murder (!!!), leaving blood drippings under the bed, where the boots were later placed by the cops. The same expert who said the blood drippings under the bed---originally found covered by a Power Strip and a shopping bag--- were interpreted by the cops as evidence that the lovebirds were hiding evidence....


"The Scientific Police subsequently determined that this was important blood evidence that had been intentionally hidden by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito." MORE "EXPERT ANALYSIS"


///

 

[platonov]

PL was in custody because AK put him there

Platonov,

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make, but I would like to state my position one more time. I have often read criticism to the effect that Amanda did nothing for Patrick during the period of their concurrent incarceration. The police knew that Amanda no longer believed that she was at the cottage because they listened to her conversation with her mother. They did nothing, which demonstrates that Amanda could not have freed Patrick just by saying so. The question of whether the police should have listened to Amanda as of November 10th is irrelevant to the point I made before and am reiterating here: Amanda could not have helped Patrick by talking to the police.

The only other possible argument I can see is that Amanda should have at least tried to free Patrick (even if the police were not going to listen to her, rightly or wrongly). Although it might seem like the right thing for her to do, I find serious fault with this argument. Whether one is innocent or guilty, one should never talk to the police without a lawyer present, and one should listen to his or her advice. Kestrel has done yeoman’s work documenting this point, and we should all be grateful for his or her citations. Moreover, someone within ILE leaked Amanda's diary, and the final form of a portion of this diary, being translated into Italian and then back into English, bore little resemblance to the original. In short, we have evidence specific to this case that bears out the general dictum to stop talking to police once one is incarcerated. Therefore, the argument that Amanda should have spoken to the police is meretricious and a complete non-starter with me.

halides1
You seem to be missing the bigger picture .. whether you're argument is meretricious, mendacious or you are failing to appreciate the point is not for me to say.

Firstly and this is the point the Foakers refuse to accept .....
PL was in custody because AK put him there as she admits in court - she couldn't deny the contents of the Nov 10 conversation as the transcript was in the 'case file'.

Obviously the cops won't release PL, just by her recanting, without further investigation - but it
would have heped and doesn't alter the fact she didn't do so in a timely fashion - nor did her mother.

Your argument about talking to the police is merely an assertion and conveniently ignores point 1 & the fact she had a chance to speak when in front of a judge on the 8th and didn't take it - Nor did she get her mother or a lawyer to communicate this on her behalf.

As to the cops knowing from her conversation on the 10th that she wasn't at the cottage, this argument is nonsense ; The suspect was claiming in a situation she may have known was being taped that she wasn't guilty - Murder suspect are seldom never released on their own say so in this fashion.

Had she confessed we wouldn't be having this debate - well perhaps we might ; After all AK cant be allowed to speak for herself, others must interpret and say what she really means.

.

 

[Mary_H]

Kaosium

The confusion here seems to be yours I'm afraid

I dealt with a post by London John using Direct Testimony from AK which laid the matter to rest & used his logic to show he was now a 'guilter'

You interjected [as did Mary H] with musings about the Perugia cops and missing tapes.
Seemingly missing the fact that your insight [implication] was not the point & indeed has been dealt with several times including very recently - see my response to halides1.

What you believe about that testimony itself is neither here nor there as it seems uninformed by the fact that all concerned parties had access to the transcript of the original tape.

Your continued confusion and speculation over the original interrogation would be cleared up if you research the list of mine you have just quoted.
I'm not going to do it for you - as we have just seen when given direct testimony [this the kind of stuff my assumptions are based on ] you seem to misunderstand the thrust of it & Instead revert back to Talking Points or an argument seemingly based on a a belief that this is a Watergate movie and the missing tape will turn up in the finale !

PS To soften the blow in case this post seems brusque if you follow up my digging up Nixon ref you should be rewarded with a worthwhile piece/polemic.

.

My recollection is that I interjected not only with musings about the Perugia cops and missing tapes, but also with evidence that you had provided incomplete excerpts from Amanda's testimony, which were intended to mislead readers into misinterpreting her meaning. As I recall, your response to this demonstration was, "Stop already."

In an attempt to clarify how your approach was not successfully establishing support for your claims, I explained the deficiencies in your understanding of Amanda's intent in her testimony. You replied by highlighting the phrase, "Stop already."

After a night's sleep, you seem to have returned with a case of selective amnesia. No matter how many times and in how many ways you say it, it is never going to be true that Amanda told her mother she knew Patrick was innocent of the crime. All she knew was that she couldn't say he was guilty.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes Mary you have mentioned before that you think the DNA on the bra clasp was either planted there or that the evidence was somehow tampered with. Could you elaborate?

I believe the bra clasp was collected in the original collection of evidence in the week after the murder. When the shoe print evidence failed, Mignini told the investigative team to come up with some more evidence. They went through the stuff and found the bra clasp, which was ideal because it would link Raffaele to the sexual assault.

They took the bra clasp to the cottage and made the big production of "finding" it (do we have any videotapes of them also picking up and examining the two other items they took into custody that day?). Mignini then had Stefanoni manufacture some paperwork to make it look as if Raffaele's DNA had been found on the bra clasp.

 

[quadraginta]

Isn't it a shame that if the forensics team had done their jobs properly and simply photographed the clasp where it was found, then picked it up with sterile tweezers and placed it directly into a sterile bag, then we wouldn't even be having this part of the conversation....

Oh and it's even more of a shame that the forensics team didn't do all of the above on the 2nd-4th November, rather than 46 days later. It's known in the trade as "best practice", and it most assuredly wasn't followed in this case. Why not?

So. Are you saying that you agree with Antony that the clasp can be seen being contaminated in that video?

It's unclear to me what other parts of what I said to Antony you might be in disagreement with.

PS I'm pleased and proud to announce that I own the same knives as Tom_Ch: the Henckels 4-Star range. And my pride is expanded further by the fact that my collection is a great deal bigger than his, including an additional boning knife, two cleavers (Chinese and meat), a fish filleting knife and of course a smoked salmon slicing knife. And I can confidently say that I'd never take any of them on a picnic If only I could post a picture of the collection on here...... And that reminds me that Henckels actually send a man over with a huge knife-sharpening machine to Selfridges on Oxford Street at this time of year, and he re-edges and sharpens all Henckels knives for free (well, for a voluntary donation to charity). I must check if he's here yet.

I'm very happy for you.

Personally, I prefer to sharpen my own cutlery. Since that is a task best left to those who know what they are doing, or are willing to learn, it is good that you have this other option.

Once a year does seem like a long time to have to wait between sharpenings, though. I hope you don't need to do a great deal of food prep.

When Mrs. qg and I were married our neighbor gave us an elegant picnic basket, complete with two china place settings, wine glasses and built-in wine bottle cooler. It also has pockets for extra knives (other than the place setting cutlery), one of which is exactly the right size for my small chef's knife ... perhaps a little larger than the infamous Sollecito knife. We have added that knife to the basket nearly every time we used it.

On less formal occasions I would probably use one of the knives I backpack with, most of which are bigger but have their own sheaths. For unplanned expeditions I would always have my Benchmade folding knife as a fall-back option.

I confess to a certain amount of surprise that anyone would find the idea of taking a decent knife on a picnic to be so out of the ordinary. I'd be more surprised by people who would not.

 

[platonov]

Have you forgotten your own posts as well as AK's testimony

My recollection is that I interjected not only with (musings about the Perugia cops and missing tapes), but also with evidence that you had provided incomplete excerpts from Amanda's testimony, which were intended to mislead readers into misinterpreting her meaning. As I recall, your response to this demonstration was, "Stop already."

In an attempt to clarify how your approach was not successfully establishing support for your claims, I explained the deficiencies in your understanding of Amanda's intent in her testimony. You replied by highlighting the phrase, "Stop already."

After a night's sleep, you seem to have returned with a case of selective amnesia. No matter how many times and in how many ways you say it, it is never going to be true that Amanda told her mother she knew Patrick was innocent of the crime. All she knew was that she couldn't say he was guilty.

False Mary H

You interjected (the bracketed section referred to Kaosium alone) with this post (below) claiming my initial argument was based on a false premise.

After I posted the direct testimony you backtracked and claimed you knew what AK really meant and implied that everyone in the courtroom was mistaken - you haven't yet backed up this assertion.

Feel free to do so.

C&P from an earlier post of mine ...........

* Mary H thinks all parties are wrong on what this tape reveals - whether she can back up this assertion & provide an explanation as to why everyone else in court, including AK and her lawyer, is lying/mistaken on this point remains to be seen.
I predict not.

You start with the wrong premise, p, which is no doubt what LJ is getting at by asking you for a citation.

Amanda did not tell her mother Patrick was innocent.
And Kaosium is right. Nobody cared what Amanda OR her mother would have to say about Patrick at that time.

If they had, all they would have to do was listen to the taped conversation.

.

 

[Mary_H]

halides1
You seem to be missing the bigger picture .. whether you're argument is meretricious, mendacious or you are failing to appreciate the point is not for me to say.

Firstly and this is the point the Foakers refuse to accept .....
PL was in custody because AK put him there as she admits in court - she couldn't deny the contents of the Nov 10 conversation as the transcript was in the 'case file'.

Amanda reports during her testimony that when she spoke to her mother, Amanda believed she was responsible for Patrick being in custody. Under the circumstances of the period of the arrests, Amanda's beliefs did not necessarily reflect reality, particularly with regard to situations she had limited information about.

The only people responsible for taking Patrick into custody were those who went to his door and put him in the police vehicle. They broke a number of protocols and possibly laws to arrest him that way. Keep in mind, Amanda said a number of things during the interrogation period, but the police picked and chose from among them and ignored the rest. Their choices, not Amanda's, were predominant.

Police forces do not act on the bidding of 20-year-old girls.

Obviously the cops won't release PL, just by her recanting, without further investigation - but it would have heped and doesn't alter the fact she didn't do so in a timely fashion - nor did her mother.

Are you aware that Amanda's mother told the press that day about the jailhouse conversation? It was in the newspapers that Amanda told her mother she was not at the scene of the crime.

Like all guilters who want to make this argument against Amanda and her mother, your purpose is to condemn them. If you cared that Patrick was not freed from custody in a timely manner, you would be criticizing the police who put Patrick's alibi on hold for several days, and held him for an additional week after it panned out.

 

[quadraginta]

I think this conversation has run its course.

For me, it illustrates the contrast between the levels of proof demanded by the guilters of any contrary view, compared with the utterly shallow speculation which seems to be regarded as "proof" of the prosecution's case.

We concur on the issue of "levels of proof". Sadly, you seem to believe that you can assume whatever you wish to, and because you wish it to be "proof" it somehow is.

You wish that a video of the clasp being handled constitutes "proof" that it was contaminated, even though all it really proves is that it was handled.

I am not satisfied with that "level of proof". On this we agree.

It seems to me that you are the one confusing "proof" with "speculation". If you were limiting your conjecture to the "speculation" that contamination might have occurred at that time I would never have offered any disagreement.

 

[platonov]

Amanda reports during her testimony that when she spoke to her mother, Amanda believed she was responsible for Patrick being in custody. Under the circumstances of the period of the arrests, Amanda's beliefs did not necessarily reflect reality, particularly with regard to situations she had limited information about.

The only people responsible for taking Patrick into custody were those who went to his door and put him in the police vehicle. They broke a number of protocols and possibly laws to arrest him that way. Keep in mind, Amanda said a number of things during the interrogation period, but the police picked and chose from among them and ignored the rest. Their choices, not Amanda's, were predominant.

Police forces do not act on the bidding of 20-year-old girls.



Are you aware that Amanda's mother told the press that day about the jailhouse conversation? It was in the newspapers that Amanda told her mother she was not at the scene of the crime.

Like all guilters who want to make this argument against Amanda and her mother, your purpose is to condemn them. If you cared that Patrick was not freed from custody in a timely manner, you would be criticizing the police who put Patrick's alibi on hold for several days, and held him for an additional week after it panned out.

You are doing it again (channeling the living) - I will go with direct testimony where possible.

You think its that simple - cops don't act on the statements of 20 yr old suspects in murder enquiries. That can be left to stand as it speaks for itself.

Oh so she didn't confess - Wow, thats brand new .....But did she tell the press AK knew PL was innocent ?

.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium
Your continued confusion and speculation over the original interrogation would be cleared up if you research the list of mine you have just quoted.
I'm not going to do it for you - as we have just seen when given direct testimony [this the kind of stuff my assumptions are based on ] you seem to misunderstand the thrust of it & Instead revert back to Talking Points or an argument seemingly based on a a belief that this is a Watergate movie and the missing tape will turn up in the finale !

What I believe you have is an interpretation of those documents and videos. As you've probably noticed, others have come to different conclusions reading the same materials. I just want to know what 'talking points' you've accepted, to borrow your terminology. I laid out what I think might have happened, but I'm virtually certain that's not the whole story, and that's what I'm looking for. I just want to know where you're coming from regarding the interrogation.

I brought up those tapes to illustrate something, and quite frankly I think it more likely there's an innocent explanation for that 18 minute gap than there is for the Perugian police not taping that interrogation. I don't expect we'll ever see that tape, but it is one of the reasons I am extremely dubious of what they said about this entire case. I see indications of duplicity from the Perugian police and prosecutor that are staggering.

PS To soften the blow in case this post seems brusque if you follow up my digging up Nixon ref you should be rewarded with a worthwhile piece/polemic.

.

?

Nothing brusque about this post, though it bugs me I can't find your ref. It sounds so familiar for some reason, but my search was unproductive.

 

[Mary_H]

False Mary H

You interjected (the bracketed section referred to Kaosium alone) with this post (below) claiming my initial argument was based on a false premise.

After I posted the direct testimony you backtracked and claimed you knew what AK really meant and implied that everyone in the courtroom was mistaken - you haven't yet backed up this assertion.

Feel free to do so.

C&P from an earlier post of mine ...........

* Mary H thinks all parties are wrong on what this tape reveals - whether she can back up this assertion & provide an explanation as to why everyone else in court, including AK and her lawyer, is lying/mistaken on this point remains to be seen.
I predict not.

I could quote Amanda's entire testimony, but you know where to find it, and I know how you feel about long quotes, as you so graciously let RWVBWL know on the previous page:

A link with a couple of lines of text would do

Let's let this suffice for now:

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.

In looking for one of the other occasions I have cited Amanda's lengthy trial testimony on this thread, I came across an example of this very subject matter. I said it to some famous guilters back in June (all of whom have conceded defeat since then), but it fits as aptly today:

"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."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unsupportable

halides1
SNIP

(1) Firstly and this is the point the Foakers refuse to accept .....
PL was in custody because AK put him there as she admits in court - she couldn't deny the contents of the Nov 10 conversation as the transcript was in the 'case file'.

(2) Obviously the cops won't release PL, just by her recanting, without further investigation - but it
would have heped and doesn't alter the fact she didn't do so in a timely fashion - nor did her mother.

(3) Your argument about talking to the police is merely an assertion and conveniently ignores point 1 & the fact she had a chance to speak when in front of a judge on the 8th and didn't take it - Nor did she get her mother or a lawyer to communicate this on her behalf.

(2A) As to the cops knowing from her conversation on the 10th that she wasn't at the cottage, this argument is nonsense ; The suspect was claiming in a situation she may have known was being taped that she wasn't guilty - Murder suspect are seldom never released on their own say so in this fashion.

SNIP

Platonov,

I numbered your comments for ease of debate. (1) The police probably knew that Amanda and Patrick met on the afternoon of the 5th, and they surely knew of the text message. To say that Amanda put him there is an overstatement, and whether Amanda felt that she were responsible or not is irrelevant.

Point 2 is not germane to my previous comments, as I have previously noted. Your assertion (2) that her recantation would have helped is in contradiction to 2A. If Amanda said that she was not at the cottage (which is my understanding of her conversation with her mother), then she is necessarily saying that she has no reason to believe that Patrick was there. If the police think that Amanda (suspecting that she is being taped) will lie in saying that she was not there, then they have no reason to change their mind about Patrick. Therefore, Amanda could not help Patrick at this time.

Point 3 is peculiar. If the police won’t believe Amanda, then they won’t believe Edda. Amanda did not have the ability to communicate with her lawyer before the hearing on 8 November, so her choice not to speak is understandable. Once Amanda discussed the matter with her lawyer, attorney-client privilege prevents us from knowing what transpired, and your implicit assertion that she did not ask her lawyer to communicate this is unsupportable. She may have communicated her beliefs to her lawyer, and her lawyer may have particular reasons for choosing the time and the place to communicate the substance of this to ILE. Amanda made her position clear on the 30th of November, and the police still kept Patrick’s bar closed.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
Nothing brusque about this post, though it bugs me I can't find your ref. It sounds so familiar for some reason, but my search was unproductive.

Look for his post that contains the initials HST. You know, for Richard M. Nixon.

 

[platonov]

What I believe you have is an interpretation of those documents and videos. As you've probably noticed, others have come to different conclusions reading the same materials. I just want to know what 'talking points' you've accepted, to borrow your terminology. I laid out what I think might have happened, but I'm virtually certain that's not the whole story, and that's what I'm looking for. I just want to know where you're coming from regarding the interrogation.

I brought up those tapes to illustrate something, and quite frankly I think it more likely there's an innocent explanation for that 18 minute gap than there is for the Perugian police not taping that interrogation. I don't expect we'll ever see that tape, but it is one of the reasons I am extremely dubious of what they said about this entire case. I see indications of duplicity from the Perugian police and prosecutor that are staggering.



Nothing brusque about this post, though it bugs me I can't find your ref. It sounds so familiar for some reason, but my search was unproductive.

No, you are still not researching the list - wishing for tapes or speculating on the first interrogation as if nothing else happened in this case wont progress your understanding or the debate.

As to the ref I don't have a link, it was an obit I think - in RS maybe.

.