Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

FROM VANITY FAIR

THE FOURTH MAN
Perugia, November 2nd, 2007.
At 7.00 AM a young blond man, with a white cap and a Napapijri jacket, washes his blood-stained hands in the fountain in Piazza Grimana, not far from the cottage of Meredith Kercher, yelling "I've killed her." In a few hours (after 1.00 PM) the city will be shocked by the discovery of the murder. In the meanwhile, the shopkeepers call 118.

This is not a new fact. We told you about this episode in Vanity Fair no 28, 2008. That young man, C P, was never part of the investigation. "Yet he was dressed like the small blond fellow described by Rudy Guede in the first interrogation, when he admitted to being present at the crime scene. In the beginning Guede did not mention the names of Raffaele and Amanda," lawyer Luca Maori, defence for Sollecito says today, and he adds,"The Perugian prosecutors did not want to follow alternative lines of enquiry and they did not believe Mario Alessi."

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/19361399.html

http://www.vanityfair.it/news/itali...sa-giovinazzo-usciti-carcere-sentenza-assolti


anyone else seen this?

The original story was covered by Franscesca Bene (very bottom of page) of Giornale dell 'Umbria and garnered her a delightful trip into the backroom of the Perugian police station under the tender auspices of Rita Ficarra I do believe. It also resulted in a charge of causing alarm by publishing 'false' information.

As for the incident, it apparently was determined it was a complete coincidence. He'd gotten in a fight with his wife or girlfriend or something, and his movements were accounted for thus he couldn't be involved in the murder.

I will say this, there's peripheral indications that someone else might have been involved in this murder, however the evidence is missing, outside the possibility of that semen stain and the reports we've heard of unidentified fingerprints and even that one article from a long time ago that said there was something like thirteen total DNA contributors at the scene, by which I think they meant the entire cottage not just the murder room. There's also those bloody napkins or whatever found outside the cottage, though that's more likely to be nothing as there's no evidence we know of that there was anyone else bleeding at the scene and it's not Meredith's blood.

The problem is the information source is a corrupt prosecution with a motive to cover up the possibility others might be involved, not necessarily because there was but because anything that might point to that made that marginal DNA 'evidence' of Raffaele and Amanda less incriminating. I suspect this is probably the true motive behind the refusal to determine the origin of that stain.

I've been curious about something ever since I saw the Kerchers repeatedly wonder about who the others 'involved' could have been, if it wasn't Raffaele and Amanda. Also, the very fact that would be an issue due to Mignini and Maresca insisting that Rudy's Motivations would frame the case for Raffaele and Amanda. That was just inane! Why were they saying something like that? It always bugged the hell out of me, as neither of them were stupid, and there's usually a method you can detect to Mignini's madness. I wonder if it has to do with them selling the Kerchers on a multiple attacker scenario as an absolute, as it was certainly absolutely necessary to promote their agenda? Of course it's just imaginary, as Massei must admit here:

The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person. With regard to this, it is nevertheless observed that the contribution of each discipline is specifically in the domain of the specific competence of that discipline, and in fact the consultants and forensic experts concentrated their attention on the aspects specifically belonging to forensic science: time of death, cause of death, elements indicating sexual violence, the injuries present on the body of the victim, and the causes and descriptions of these.

The answer given above concerning the possibility of their being inflicted by the action of a single person or by more than one was given in relation to these specific duties and questions, which belong precisely to the domain of forensic science, and the meaning of this answer was thus that there are no scientific elements arising directly from forensic science which could rule out the injuries having been caused by the action of a single person.

However the illusion gets created on the basis of other reasons that don't actually suggest multiple attackers, they just kinda sound like they do. Then Mignini and Maresca make a big deal about it and pretend that those additional 'reasons' that Massei is forced to come up with (because it was a guilty verdict and three total had been found guilty at that point) somehow are somehow validated by a higher court and become 'truth' when in reality the higher court is not even considering them. However since no one ever challenges them, they just reprint Maresca and Mignini's nonsense about the Supreme Court, it never dawns on the Kerchers or others that is meaningless and Mignini and Maresca insisting on it was in fact extremely curious.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Didn't Kokomani flee the country immediately after the murder too, apart from giving a transparently false story to the police accusing Raffaele and Amanda? If you're looking for an accomplice that alone would seem to make him by far the most obvious person to hang such speculation upon.

 

[Fine]

I fired Foxy Knoxy for hitting on customers: Patrick Lumumba reveals why he was framed over Meredith's murder

By ANTONIA HOYLE

HERE

_____________________________

I'm surprised that the audio tapes for this interview haven't surfaced. The interview was conducted in Perugia with Patrick's girlfriend and child present. In the interview, Patrick details the manner in which he was physically molested by the same cops that Amanda says molested her. Later, Patrick claimed that he was misquoted by Antonia Hoyle concerning the use of force. Ironically, Patrick blamed Amanda's hatred toward him as the cause of her accusation, though Amanda ---later---blamed this same use of force as the cause of her accusation against Patrick.

I see that Antonia still works as a journalist, HERE, specializing still in interviews. And she says that her policy is to permit the interviewee to review the report before it's published. Antonia said, on Twitter, that she followed the last day of the APPEAL court proceedings (October 3rd) and she found the verdict incredible, "Oh my GOD I don't believe it." (HERE) Hmmm. If she comes to understand that Amanda's original conviction was a miscarriage of justice.......will those audio tapes be released? Whether or not the tapes could be used in any future court proceedings it would be interesting to listen to Patrick describe how the Perugian cops resorted to violence against him. The same cops, the same day, Amanda says the cops molested her.

///

 

[Mary_H]

I fired Foxy Knoxy for hitting on customers: Patrick Lumumba reveals why he was framed over Meredith's murder

By ANTONIA HOYLE

HERE

_____________________________

I'm surprised that the audio tapes for this interview haven't surfaced. The interview was conducted in Perugia with Patrick's girlfriend and child present. In the interview, Patrick details the manner in which he was physically molested by the same cops that Amanda says molested her. Later, Patrick claimed that he was misquoted by Antonia Hoyle concerning the use of force. Ironically, Patrick blamed Amanda's hatred toward him as the cause of her accusation, though Amanda ---later---blamed this same use of force as the cause of her accusation against Patrick.

I see that Antonia still works as a journalist, HERE, specializing still in interviews. And she says that her policy is to permit the interviewee to review the report before it's published. Antonia said, on Twitter, that she followed the last day of the APPEAL court proceedings (October 3rd) and she found the verdict incredible, "Oh my GOD I don't believe it." (HERE) Hmmm. If she comes to understand that Amanda's original conviction was a miscarriage of justice.......will those audio tapes be released? Whether or not the tapes could be used in any future court proceedings it would be interesting to listen to Patrick describe how the Perugian cops resorted to violence against him. The same cops, the same day, Amanda says the cops molested her.

///

Why we should believe the Mail article is true given that the entire first half about Amanda's job is false? I believe Kate Mansey's "interview" with Raffaele was completely made up, and I believe this one was, too.

 

[Fine]

Why we should believe the Mail article is true given that the entire first half about Amanda's job is false? I believe Kate Mansey's "interview" with Raffaele was completely made up, and I believe this one was, too.

_____________________

Mary,

The issue is whether the statements attributed to Patrick are accurately quoted. As to their truth value,...I don't see why Patrick would lie about being mistreated by the cops.

But there could well be reason for Patrick to say that he fired, or demoted, Amanda, when in fact, she had quit. I don't believe that Amanda quit merely because she was scared to be out at night. She no longer wanted to work for the guy, and my guess is because he was hitting on her. One of the more revealing quotes from the article..........

Patrick: "I didn't find her attractive...." [!] And---for some reason or other---Patrick informs us that he never cheats on his girlfriend. Notice how many of the photographs in the article show Patrick as a family-values type guy? The Mail On Sunday printed version of the story is HERE.

And Patrick has also anticipated any future charge from Amanda about sexual harassment from her boss.........

Patrick: "Everything she says is a lie."

My prediction. If the audio tapes surface, all statements from Patrick, true or false, will be shown to be accurately quoted.

///

 

[theRealBob]

Didn't Kokomani flee the country immediately after the murder too, apart from giving a transparently false story to the police accusing Raffaele and Amanda? If you're looking for an accomplice that alone would seem to make him by far the most obvious person to hang such speculation upon.

Kokomani is easily Rudy's most likely accomplice if he had one.

He had to flee Italy because people wanted to kill him.
And then he came back anyway (hhmmm) in a brief period where Mignini was tossing aside his weekend pastime of burning young girls at the stake, to interview people about the possibility of burning young girls at the stake.

Kokomani talked a load of c***. Mignini thought it sounded alright.
But it's all wrong, and there's a new story that he only innocently parked his VW Golf (or something) outside the flat that night.

Sure Mignini and the cops are interested in Kokomani.

But what is he so interested in, outside of wearing silly disguises in court (so the defendents don't recognise him perhaps?)

I'll probably muck this up, but this may be a webpage with a photo of the very innocent Mr K testifying in Massei's court like thing where he's scared of everybody else except I suppose, the people gathering around this crime, which he has no prior involvement in)

http://crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11942&page=4

All this is ignoring the fact that even a liar like Massei said in his Motivations Report that there was no predeliction in the wounds evidence of the assault being carried out by more than one attacker (although people on the other side of the case tell us there had to have been more than one, without substantiation)

 

[Mary_H]

_____________________

Mary,

The issue is whether the statements attributed to Patrick are accurately quoted. As to their truth value,...I don't see why Patrick would lie about being mistreated by the cops.

I meant to question whether the interview ever took place.

But there could well be reason for Patrick to say that he fired, or demoted, Amanda, when in fact, she had quit. I don't believe that Amanda quit merely because she was scared to be out at night. She no longer wanted to work for the guy, and my guess is because he was hitting on her. One of the more revealing quotes from the article..........

Patrick: "I didn't find her attractive...." [!] And---for some reason or other---Patrick informs us that he never cheats on his girlfriend. Notice how many of the photographs in the article show Patrick as a family-values type guy? The Mail On Sunday printed version of the story is HERE.

And Patrick has also anticipated any future charge from Amanda about sexual harassment from her boss.........

Patrick: "Everything she says is a lie."

My prediction. If the audio tapes surface, all statements from Patrick, true or false, will be shown to be accurately quoted.

///

The article has always sounded made up to me. The first part is in service to the prosecution's story of jealousy and rivalry between Amanda and Meredith and is preposterous. The second part is just for sensation.

Patrick didn't speak much English at the time, yet they attribute this long, descriptive, conversational monologue to him. It's published only a few days after his release; I can't believe his lawyer would allow him to take an interview with the tabloid of tabloids, or to say anything about how he had been treated by the police.

 

[JREF2010]

The original story was covered by Franscesca Bene (very bottom of page) of Giornale dell 'Umbria and garnered her a delightful trip into the backroom of the Perugian police station under the tender auspices of Rita Ficarra I do believe. It also resulted in a charge of causing alarm by publishing 'false' information.

As for the incident, it apparently was determined it was a complete coincidence. He'd gotten in a fight with his wife or girlfriend or something, and his movements were accounted for thus he couldn't be involved in the murder.

I will say this, there's peripheral indications that someone else might have been involved in this murder, however the evidence is missing, outside the possibility of that semen stain and the reports we've heard of unidentified fingerprints and even that one article from a long time ago that said there was something like thirteen total DNA contributors at the scene, by which I think they meant the entire cottage not just the murder room. There's also those bloody napkins or whatever found outside the cottage, though that's more likely to be nothing as there's no evidence we know of that there was anyone else bleeding at the scene and it's not Meredith's blood.

The problem is the information source is a corrupt prosecution with a motive to cover up the possibility others might be involved, not necessarily because there was but because anything that might point to that made that marginal DNA 'evidence' of Raffaele and Amanda less incriminating. I suspect this is probably the true motive behind the refusal to determine the origin of that stain.

Thanks for the answer.

Just another point Raffaele's lawyer was making, it seems.
Moari, showing the prosecutor was so closed minded from the start.

So closed minded, Migninni press charges against those with other thoughts, and not only refusing to look into other possibilities, the prosecution minions press charges against those who even speak of anything other than the Amanda and Raffaele scenario.

So similar, Migninni did the same with the Preston/Spezi mentioning other possibilities in the MoF case. wow?

Migninni failed again, as he did on MoF, luckily Judge Hellman & Zanetti allowed the C&V work.

I realize now the bravery C&V took, even more so than Hellman.
C&V didn't present a weak, meek, report, instead they really spoke strongly which was needed in this case. I wonder if the Migninni Nazi's will press charges on them?

 

[Diocletus]

I think have explained already why my view is polarly different.
The last statement in your post, is false. The main argument of the prosecution has always been that, it is all what cames after the 05:54 statement, that is the key matter to determine the point.
The hand written note, and her subsequent position on the whole issue, is what nails Amanda.
And maybe you don't understand the argument in Massei's report.
The series of subsequent behaviours (and anyway don't forget the false accusation includes the hand written note), which include her silence for weeks, are not crimes that determine the calunnia, but they are considered evidence that what she did previously was willfull. Thye are not a crime per se, by they are evidence of a crime. The subsequent silence is not an accusation, it is evidence of the malice of the previous accusation. The logical mechanism by which this argument work is codified in Italian jurisprudence.

The alternative that you propose, your two points, are wrong; they constitute no real logical alternative. The point 1. is just false: she can be convicted. This is shown by the fact that she was convicted beyod reasonable doubt. Even by a court who thought she could be innocent of murder. And by the way, she was hit allegedly by police during interrogation, but not hit during the spontaneous statement released at 05:54 to the magistrate. For sure she was not hit during the writing of the hand written note.

Nor the point 2. is valid. It is not that Knox has the bearing of proof that coercion did occur. The issue is different: it is not just this, not about if there was or not an objective coercion, the issue is, if there was or was not malice. Malice consists in a will to have that statement as her position. This will is shown by her refusal to change it. She could have said "they hit me, I got scared, thus I lied in panic", but she should have said as soon as possible, possibly immediately, but anyway as soon as possible during the investigation. Instead of that, she wrote the hand written note and then refused to answer further for weeks. This determines malice.

1. Glad we agree that the 1:45 statement is no basis for criminal slander liability due to the real possibility that the cops hit the witness.

2. The cops don’t get a pass on the 5:45 statement, either. This was a part of the same transaction that created the 1:45 statement: same cops, same room, same night. Most importantly, Knox didn’t get the assistance of a lawyer. The 5:45 statement is therefore tainted by the same possibility of hitting that rules out the 1:45 statement, and therefore the 5:45 statement is no basis for criminal slander liability.

3. It is clear that Massei uses the 1:45 and 5:45 statements as the predicate acts for his slander conviction. He states that the crime occurred during the night of Nov. 5-6, therefore, the later statements/non-statements that you cite are not the predicate acts for his slander conviction.

4. I don’t think that you understand the concept of aggravation. An aggravating factor is not a basis, in and of itself, for criminal liability. Therefore, to the extent that Massei says that any later or continuing statement/non-statement is an aggravating factor, this does not mean that he is or could premise a self-standing criminal conviction on that statement/non-statement. If the 1:45 and 5:45 statements go away, then so does the alleged aggravation.

5. The “non-statements” that you reference as aggravating factors are not any basis for criminal liability for slander. A non-statement is actionable only where there is a duty to speak. Knox did not have a duty to speak. To the contrary, she had a right to remain silent. Her excerise of this right cannot be used to incriminate her.

6. If you accept the possibility of hitting, then you cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox acted out of malice. Knox did exactly what she needed to do to negate any suggestion of malice: she said that that cops hit her. If the cops hit a witness in their custody, then any resulting statement was coerced. Period. Once Knox said that she was hit (and she said that immediately), it became the obligation of the cops to disregard the statement or to demonstrate a lack of coercion. But they cannot demonstrate a lack of coercion, because we already agree that they might have hit Knox. Plus, where are the tapes? The bottom line is that the cops had custody of Lumumba and complete knowledge of the circumstances that led to his arrest. Knox could not release Lumumba, so if you accept that she might have been hit, then her resulting statements are the responsibility of the police, and you cannot find her to be the cause of his incarceration.

7. Finally, I find it incredible that you agree that the cops might have hit Knox and are just willing to accept this without demand for a formal inquiry. As far as I know, there is no law in Italy that allows the cops to do this, and the cops hitting a suspect in custody is an absolute outrage. You agree that the cops might have hit this witness and you seem ok with that, and on top of that, are satisfied that she was convicted of a crime as a consequence of this abuse. Incredible.

 

[RWVBWL]

Raffaele's Mother's death was not suicide.

Awaiting the sun to arise this morning, I was reading a few posts from PMF.org and this caught my eye:

In one of the Italian TV interviews I watched of Papa Doc chatting with reports, he remarked that as far as temperament, Raffaele was always rather introverted and withdrawn...and then pausing to think, Papa Doc said" "Raffaele is really very much like his mother that way. ..And by that, I mean his biological mother, not his stepmother." The same mother who committed suicide.

Now, I seem to recall reading that Raff's Mom' death was not a suicide, so I've spent the last 15 minutes trying to dig up the link from where I read this. SEarched here on the JREF, but didn't find it. Guess who had the info?

Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock recently had this to say about Raffaele's Mother's death:

“13 October 2006″, Raffaele writes on his blog that he was having strong emotions (his mother was just dead, etc.)."
+
"The cops tried to say that Raffaele’s mother had committed suicide, so to make people think he could have an hereditary madness. But Raffaele’s mother died of cerebral hemorrhage!
They have been able to use even the death of a mother.

Link:
http://perugiashock.com/2011/09/27/luca-maori-“the-police-are-nice-only-some-cops-are-criminals”/


So, in closing,
can someone please tell The 411 at PMF
that Raffaele Sollecito's dear Mother died from a cerebral hemorrhage.

She did not commit suicide.

Another lie exposed...

 

[Dan O.]

I fired Foxy Knoxy for hitting on customers: Patrick Lumumba reveals why he was framed over Meredith's murder

By ANTONIA HOYLE

HERE

_____________________________

I'm surprised that the audio tapes for this interview haven't surfaced.

///

What is the benefit verses cost of releasing the tapes? If the interview had never taken place, Patrick would have filed suit against the paper and author seeking a retraction. I don't see any downside here so this leads me to believe that there was an interview. The article though may have some minor embellishments that weren't part of the interview. Releasing the tapes or acknowledging that there are no tapes would give Patrick an opening to sue for defamation on the parts that aren't proven. I don't see any benefit for the author or paper from releasing the tape that would outweigh the potential cost of a lawsuit. They are at a standoff where neither party can afford to move forward so the tapes, if they exist, will remain secret.

 

[Paninaro]

I fired Foxy Knoxy for hitting on customers: Patrick Lumumba reveals why he was framed over Meredith's murder

By ANTONIA HOYLE

HERE

_____________________________

I'm surprised that the audio tapes for this interview haven't surfaced. The interview was conducted in Perugia with Patrick's girlfriend and child present. In the interview, Patrick details the manner in which he was physically molested by the same cops that Amanda says molested her. Later, Patrick claimed that he was misquoted by Antonia Hoyle concerning the use of force. Ironically, Patrick blamed Amanda's hatred toward him as the cause of her accusation, though Amanda ---later---blamed this same use of force as the cause of her accusation against Patrick.

I see that Antonia still works as a journalist, HERE, specializing still in interviews. And she says that her policy is to permit the interviewee to review the report before it's published. Antonia said, on Twitter, that she followed the last day of the APPEAL court proceedings (October 3rd) and she found the verdict incredible, "Oh my GOD I don't believe it." (HERE) Hmmm. If she comes to understand that Amanda's original conviction was a miscarriage of justice.......will those audio tapes be released? Whether or not the tapes could be used in any future court proceedings it would be interesting to listen to Patrick describe how the Perugian cops resorted to violence against him. The same cops, the same day, Amanda says the cops molested her.

///

Either Patrick Lumumba or Antonia Hoyle is lying through their teeth.

Somebody cares to contact Hoyle to try to get an answer? I will try if nobody else will, but I guess that a native English speaker or better still a British citizen will have more weight and stand a better chance of getting a straight answer.

 

[Justinian2]

She stated that she was sincere when she had these memories, that she actualy had these memories. And that the truth was that she didn't know what the truth was.
This is not a clear indication to distinguish what is false from what is true. This means that both could be true. And this is eviedence against Lumumba. And it is false: she is lying when she says she had these memories. She is not credble. To say that you have a memory that you think is unreliable, is not the same thing as to say you do't have such memory.
To say your account and report of fact is not usable, is not the same thing as declare it was false and replace it with the true account of facts.
I am really stunned that people attempt to defend a witness who give two versions at the same time and thinks about what "seems more real".
Either you give evidence that the witness had mental issues that lasted for a while, or you convict him/her.

'Verschärfte Vernehmung' is proven to give unreliable results.

The first use of a term comparable to "enhanced interrogation" was a 1937 memo by Gestapo Chief Heinrich Muller coining the phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung," German for (according to Sullivan) "sharpened," "intensified" or "enhanced interrogation" to describe subjection to extreme cold, sleep deprivation, and deliberate exhaustion among other techniques.

There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community's use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information.

The reason, obviously, is that 'Verschärfte Vernehmung' causes the prisoner to say whatever the authorities want to hear.

For you to deliberately confuse the results of 'Verschärfte Vernehmung' with the truth is not only a lie, but a deliberate lie.

 

[Fine]

I meant to question whether the interview ever took place.
The article has always sounded made up to me. The first part is in service to the prosecution's story of jealousy and rivalry between Amanda and Meredith and is preposterous. The second part is just for sensation.

Patrick didn't speak much English at the time, yet they attribute this long, descriptive, conversational monologue to him. It's published only a few days after his release; I can't believe his lawyer would allow him to take an interview with the tabloid of tabloids, or to say anything about how he had been treated by the police.

_______________

Mary,

According to this Italian story, HERE, it was Patrick's attorneys who arranged the interview, and Patrick was paid 70,00 euros.

///

 

[Paninaro]

What is the benefit verses cost of releasing the tapes? If the interview had never taken place, Patrick would have filed suit against the paper and author seeking a retraction. I don't see any downside here so this leads me to believe that there was an interview. The article though may have some minor embellishments that weren't part of the interview. Releasing the tapes or acknowledging that there are no tapes would give Patrick an opening to sue for defamation on the parts that aren't proven. I don't see any benefit for the author or paper from releasing the tape that would outweigh the potential cost of a lawsuit. They are at a standoff where neither party can afford to move forward so the tapes, if they exist, will remain secret.

Then Hoyle would remain a proven liar, as Machiavelli would put it, since Lumumba categorically denies to have claimed he was beaten by the police.

But perhaps a British journalist doesn't have to worry about credibility at all?

 

[Grinder]

She stated that she was sincere when she had these memories, that she actualy had these memories. And that the truth was that she didn't know what the truth was.
This is not a clear indication to distinguish what is false from what is true. This means that both could be true. And this is eviedence against Lumumba. And it is false: she is lying when she says she had these memories. She is not credble.
To say that you have a memory that you think is unreliable, is not the same thing as to say you do't have such memory.
To say your account and report of fact is not usable, is not the same thing as declare it was false and replace it with the true account of facts.
I am really stunned that people attempt to defend a witness who give two versions at the same time and thinks about what "seems more real".
Either you give evidence that the witness had mental issues that lasted for a while, or you convict him/her.

Don't think both could be true.

It is truly amazing that you don't seem to have any sympathy for her being locked up in isolation. She had been rewarded for giving the statement by having the extreme interrogation stop and getting food, drink and a toilet break.

She knew that if she totally withdrew the statements that they would start in on her again.

She had already given a true account of the facts but wasn't believed and was subjected to the rough treatment until she gave them what they wanted.

She did have mental issues. The ones caused by PLE that night.

 

[Grinder]

Does anyone know f the police checked Patrick's phone to see if the text "don't bother coming in. It's not busy" was on it?

This has probably been answered long ago. IIRC by the time they arrested Patrick his phone had been switched out. I fact they had a ping near the cottage from his previous phone. The phone stuff was one of the reasons they kept him for two weeks.

 

[Justinian2]

Don't think both could be true.

It is truly amazing that you don't seem to have any sympathy for her being locked up in isolation. She had been rewarded for giving the statement by having the extreme interrogation stop and getting food, drink and a toilet break.

She knew that if she totally withdrew the statements that they would start in on her again.

She had already given a true account of the facts but wasn't believed and was subjected to the rough treatment until she gave them what they wanted.

She did have mental issues. The ones caused by PLE that night.

Machiavelli seems to think he would tell the truth throughout these intense interrogations and under the extreme duress of knowing you might go to jail for a long time.

Heck, I would start telling stories under the threat of going to jail for a day!

 

[Fine]

And this Patrick adds in his last interview published yesterday by The Mail,


"Mr Lumumba said: 'One thing I could never understand is that Amanda has always said she was given a rough time by the police. But I was named as the one who killed Meredith, the black third-world African, and they never gave me any problems."

See: HERE

So, ermm---reading between the lines---if Amanda had been roughed up, her statements would have been coerced, and so she wouldn't have freely calunnicated nobody,.... in which case Amanda wouldn't owe Patrick nothing. Is that right?

///

 

[Grinder]

Didn't Kokomani flee the country immediately after the murder too, apart from giving a transparently false story to the police accusing Raffaele and Amanda? If you're looking for an accomplice that alone would seem to make him by far the most obvious person to hang such speculation upon.

Yes, I've been commenting about this for years elsewhere.

Koko was there. Koko had a car there. Koko had phones (more than one why?) that he threw away. Koko knew Rudy. Koko went to a lawyer first, then to Albania for a couple months. Koko later was convicted of drug dealing.

Koko is the most likely accomplice if there was one.