...you missed my point. I was answering PhantomWolf's question. Nothing you have said contradicts that answer, regardless if you believe Amanda was either lying or coerced.
Your answer didn't address his question, in part because it appeared you made erroneous assumptions regarding the 'admission.' That's why I suggested you read what that 'admission' amounted to. Also it appeared the main thrust of his question was something that has puzzled me for a long time regarding those who think her guilty: how did they go from that 'confession' of covering her ears in the kitchen to having her hold down Meredith whilst Patrick raped and murdered her without a single iota of evidence she was at the scene? The forensics wouldn't be completed for another week or two, yet they've already assigned her a 'role' in the killing of Meredith based on...what?
Once the contamination/secondary transfer/imagination/fabrication was found on the 'murder knife' they then elevated her role to rendering the killing blow, yet still they had zero traces of her at the scene. The 'murder knife' was found in Raffaele's drawer where it was for the entirety of the tragic event. Once Rudy was traded for Patrick, Amanda became the impetus of the event, again with no evidence presented to back that theory. What I do not understand is how those who think her guilty can swallow these absurd leaps of logic without question. I know I couldn't, and I initially thought her likely to be guilty myself--after all she'd been convicted!
What evidence do you have of this suspicion?
Her testimony, her 'gift' note, her bugged conversations with her mother, and--most importantly--that they arrested Patrick on the basis of those ridiculous 'statements.' Read them and tell me that is the sort of 'evidence' one arrests a man on and keeps them in prison for two weeks despite people coming forward within days to corroborate his alibi.
Well it appears that she told the police that Patrick was the murderer. If you were the police, wouldn't it be appropriate to consider Patrick as a possible suspect? And I would appreciate it than rather than trying to read what I am "suggesting", you simply quote what I said and let my words stand for what they say. Again, my answer was specific to the question that PhantomWolf asked, nothing more.
I was trying to subtly remind you of something: police conducting interrogations are
well aware the subject may attempt to lie and place blame elsewhere. They don't just 'go away' because the suspect has decided to tell them someone else did it, especially when they are the process of attempting to get a confession from them. They have to be
convinced that they are getting the truth from who they are interrogating, they don't just start taking orders on whom to arrest on the basis of a suspect's initial admission.
...cite that the police said they either forgot or were to busy to tape the proceedings?
Would a citation do any good? You're asking for common knowledge of the case. In response to your last post I dug up one and offered easy instructions on how to find other official information that would have been helpful to your understanding of the things you were posting about, and it appears you didn't bother to read any of them.
If you were the police, and during an interview with a witness the witness " 'vaguely' and 'confusedly' 'remembered' that person X was the murderer," what would you logically do?
Get more information from the subject so I could determine the verity of that vague and confused 'recovered memory,' and if convinced they were believable, investigate the person in question. It would also occur to me to have them interviewed by the police psychologist.
I am also confused that you consider the statement that you made "that Amanda convinced the police that Patrick was the murderer." to be logically and factually unsupportable. You admit that "Amanda 'admitted' to 'vaguely' and 'confusedly' remembering' that Patrick was the murderer." Lets for the sake of this logic exercise assume that Amanda's statement was coerced. Do you think that either (a), the police knowingly coerced a false statement or (b) the police unknowingly coerced a false statement?
I'm almost certain it is B.
If you believe (a), then we are in the correct forum, because it would undoubtedly take a conspiracy in order to make this happen. If you believe (b), then the statement "that Amanda convinced the police that Patrick was the murderer" is logical, even if the statement was coerced. If you actually meant something else, then please clarify.
What I meant is they set up an interrogation in the middle of the night, (Raffaele and Amanda arrived at the police station at 10:15 PM and it ended at 5:45 AM) with twelve policemen including the heads of both police forces involved, which culminated with the arrest of all three of them on the basis of 'vague and confused memories.' The idea that this wasn't a planned event is ludicrous.
Amanda didn't 'convince' them of anything, they were already convinced she was involved (they had both of their phones tapped for days and they referred to them as 'the cretins' in the transcripts as I recall) they then proceeded, from about 10:40 until 1:45 AM, to convince Amanda that she knew about the murder and that Patrick was involved, a phenomenon known as an internalized false confession. They then continued to interrogate her for more detail, culminating with the 5:45 AM statement.
...and of course, none of this has anything to do with my answer to PhantomWolf's question. I'm not entirely sure why you have posted what you have: it looks like you completely agree with everything I have said, yet you are trying to make it look like I said something I really didn't.
That was not my intention, I was hoping to offer you more information as your answer didn't really engage his question in my view, it dismissed it with erroneous assumptions.
As you are well aware, this case has spawned three massive threads containing thousands of posts and hundreds of links. A request for a cite should be respected as simply a request for a cite: there are thousands of "well known facts about the case" and the casual reader of these threads cannot be expected to keep up with every little detail.
I understand that, which is why I not only honored your request I told you where you could find additional information relevant to what you were posting about, and the points I was making. I didn't actually expect you to read all of her testimony before posting again, but I wished you to have it handy. I was kinda expecting you to read the two statements though, like I said, click on page 5 and scroll down until you see all the gray and there they'll be.
If this quote was so important to the case and to the defense of Amanda then where is the follow up to it? Again I've tried searching but google is not helpful. Did any journalist try to clarify the quote? Was he confronted with this quote by Knox supporters? What was his reaction? Has this been bought up on the appeal? Was it bought up in the original case? Was the quote originally in English, or has it been translated?
It was about a year between the time Amanda was arrested and the beginning of her trial. The two statements and the interrogation were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court as they were not obtained in compliance with the law. Thus they could not be admitted into court, however Patrick Lumumba filed a
calunnia charge against Knox and that trial ran concurrently which led to Amanda taking the stand about the interrogation in the summer of '09. Thus by the time it came up it had been eighteen months since her arrest and during that time the paparazzi and tabloids, seeded by police leaks, turned her into 'Foxy Knoxy' and that's all they talked about for the most part.
The 'case closed' statement I linked in the last post had all but been forgotten, and of course no one would actually know until the end of the trial that it turned out that much of what the police had claimed they had as evidence didn't actually exist. Early in the thread a list was made of all the mistakes/lies fed to the press by the police.
Incidentally, if you wish only to converse with
PhantomWolf perhaps you should do so by PM. If you post publicly evil creatures such as myself might pounce on your innocent post and reply to it, whether you wish them to or not, whether you ask them to or not. No one gets immunity from the other sinister denizens of the forum just because they replied to a particular person's post.
