anglolawyer
Banned
In that case you must think her guilty of deliberately diverting blame onto Patrick since confusion and altered consciousness must be resorted to otherwise.But at least what I'm saying relies on the substance of Amanda's statements, and doesn't depend on repression and confusion (by both Amanda and Patrick, or did Patrick delete his own message?). That's not to say those things aren't possible, it's just that replying on them makes your theory sort of unfalsifiable.
Then you must think that in the period 2nd - 5th November they had not tied Patrick to the exchange of texts.I explained this a couple times already. If they didn't have Patrick's incoming message, they can't have known for sure the message was from Patrick and that Amanda wasn't lying about that. Especially when, as far as they were concerned, she was lying about the content.
Have you got a tape? How do you know what they were asking her? Depending on which of her versions you want to choose, Amanda said various contradictory things about how Patrick's name came up. Because I think they were already onto Patrick I think they led her to name him.On the other hand, it makes even less sense if they actually did have Patrick's message. How does this work in your scenario - why were they asking her who the message was from and who she was protecting if they already knew?
In your opinion. But in your scenario the cops don't seem to do anything to actually investigate the case, despite all that cell phone information that De Felice mentioned at the press conference.Most of this is quite weak. Patrick's phone pinging and his phone calls to Amanda may only have assumed significance after he was arrested and his phone records were examined in detail.
How many of those people had she exchanged texts with on the night of the 1st?I'm sure Amanda met a lot of people in the four days after the murder and we have no confirmation the police saw that specific meeting.
I dug this up before. I won a yacht from Grinder. IIRC it's in her trial transcript. She asked why she never mentioned Lumumba.We don't know that she never mentioned Patrick - in fact she did include him on a list of men she knew just before her interrogation that evening. If she'd mentioned him a lot you could argue the police suspected him because of that, too.
Noted.Prior to that night the police weren't focusing on a "black guy" so much as they were focusing on "North African men" (in fact they'd hauled one such man into the police station at 2 a.m. the night before they questioned Amanda and Raffaele). "North African" doesn't describe Patrick or Guede, but someone of lighter skin colour - see Formica's testimony where she uncomfortably explains why the man she saw being "North African" rules out Guede.
Very gracious.I'll give you (6) and (12) as reasons they suspected Amanda and Raffaele, but those things don't implicate Patrick.
Do you think they hooked Patrick up with his cell phone number or not? If not, why did De Felice say cell phone records were crucial?All in all, this seems like confirmation bias: going through things which might have looked suspicious to police after they arrested Patrick and assuming they found those things suspicious before that time.
See if you can find it anywhere in her motivation. As far as I understand, that did not come out until a long time afterwards. You have to explain why it was suppressed.I don't know whether they passed the 'buona serata' part of the text message onto Matteini; I'd assume she had access to the raw phone information, but I don't know for sure. Yes, they did ignore that part of the message in their excitement over the 'see you later' part - of course, once they had the 'confession' they took that as confirmation they were right to do so anyway.
A conclusion made of what though? What's missing in this theory is why the third degree on the night of the fifth, with numbers of officers drafted in for an all night tag team session, the whole thing shrouded in mystery.As I said to Bill, what you suggest is possible, it's just I can't see anything to make that situation any more likely than one where the police are incompetent and under pressure, ignorant of coerced confessions, and where they rushed to a conclusion they've been trying to justify ever since.
Think about this: why does her 1.45 statement even refer at all to Lumumba's real message? Why is it there if the cops did not believe that's what it said? You think she forced them to put something true in the statement?