Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
No, as a matter of fact it's not how they work. That's part of my point, this is an extremely unusual way of conducting an 'investigation.' I happen to know that, however all I can hope for is that either common sense or logic would suggest to you that if the police actually worked that way they probably shouldn't.
When the police properly investigate a crime they produce evidence that supports their theories. That is something notably missing in this instance, which makes the last two sentences rather curious.
That would probably be because I have difficulty with the proposition that someone could look at what they did and conclude 'that must be proper police work.' What causes you to draw that conclusion?
I very much understand what you mean here, and what I am trying to illustrate is their 'story' of how they got from A to B doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There's something very important missing from their version of events, notably why that statement convinced them that Amanda actually was at the crime scene and kinda remembers Patrick was with Meredith when it happened, thus justifying the arrest of her, Patrick and Raffaele and racing through the streets of Perugia with sirens blaring concluding with the police chief announcing 'case closed.'
I find it absolutely fascinating. What three things make you firmly convinced she is guilty, and what exactly do you think she is guilty of? I ask the latter as I don't expect anyone to have to defend the crime as prosecuted, but allow that some might think her guilty of some association with it.
Did she?
1. Why did she meet Patrick at the basketball court? Why is that information missing, it would seem crucial to determining if the crime was premeditated. Questions would have been asked on this point and should be reflected in the statement, are we to conclude this is something she doesn't remember, like other things below?
2. She doesn't know if Meredith was there when they arrived and isn't sure of where she was (in the cottage) at the time, nor is there any estimate whatsoever of how long they were in the room together, which is pretty damned important information. Even a general phrase such as 'short time' or 'a little while' would be helpful, after all they're going to want to determine just what time the murder happened, and certainly would have pressed her on that point. Especially as they know at this juncture that Meredith returned to the cottage around 9 PM which is when her account starts.
3. "Then I do not remember anything, I am very confused."--What on earth does this mean? She doesn't remember the murder? Red flag.
4. She doesn't remember if Meredith was screaming or if she heard thuds and imagines what happened. Huh? What's that negative information doing in the statement? Is this girl coherent? Red flag.
You'd obviously investigate this of course, but to close the case on this basis is bizarre--unless they previously suspected Patrick Lumumba and her statement just corroborated that. If that's the case they might have pressed her on the issue of Patrick, past the point of her able to handle it in the condition she was in. They were telling her Raffaele said she left, that they had 'hard evidence' she was at the scene, that she must have witnessed it and 'repressed' the memory, and then threatened her with 30 years in jail, to never see her mother again, and then started hitting her. She probably just freaked out in her state. What was she supposed to conclude other than the police must be right?
I feel the same way.
As you might have noted it would include the existence of that statement as he offered his own interpretation of its meaning between my post and yours. That was what I was getting at.
I appreciate that and apologize for how I came across. I may have come off snarkier than I intended. Had a bad morning down under...Having said that, I reserve the right to use snark later on in this post!
No problem, I am not exactly unfamiliar with the concept of 'snark.'
Oh, it certainly could be rendered differently, but the essence stays the same and the context is after doing the 'victory lap' through Perugia and announcing "Case Closed."
Do you know what di Felice is describing here? Proper police work. That's how they really do it, they corroborate information and they insist during the interrogation that the results match as best as is humanly possible. In this case they thought so, they actually believed they had good reason to conclude Patrick was the murderer based on a number of indications revealed earlier in this thread, it just so happened they were errors due to confirmation bias and just plain misleading coincidences.
Incidentally, I initially assumed Amanda was probably guilty. Even after I came to the conclusion she was innocent, I still maintained for a while that police had simply made a mistake. However I came to eventually realize that was unsupportable in face of the evidence that the police were covering up the mistakes made during the interrogation, scapegoated Amanda for the arrest of Patrick Lumumba, and then lied about it in court in order to maintain the illusion that Amanda had just accused him to save herself or throw them off the track. There's a number of reasons I came to that conclusion, this is just one of them.
If you add the suspicion they had of Patrick Lumumba previous to the interrogation of Amanda Knox back into the puzzle that explains an awful lot. It shows why they set up the twelve cop overnight session, the 'vague and confused' statements, and then the dramatic arrest of Patrick Lumumba and the colorful transit through town and announcing the case was closed. They actually believed they had their three murderers, that's why they wouldn't let up on Amanda and then were happy with those pathetic statements, they probably were sure the forensics would show them their traces at the scene, thus it would hardly matter the 'confession' was weak tea.
Last edited:
