A False (On planet earth anyway) - he broke both their alibis and admitted to lying about said alibis. !!!
Not quite, he admitted in his diary he told the cops a 'load of crap' because he was stoned. His statement suggests the reason he did that is he was also stoned the night of the murder and he'd just accepted Amanda's recollection as he wasn't sure, or he'd misunderstood what she had said previous due to language difficulties and hadn't thought out the 'contradictions'--which incidentally would turn out to be entirely imaginary. One can also get the impression from his diary that in his fogged state he just blew them off, told them what they wanted to hear so they'd go bug Amanda about it and leave him alone.
This process took a total of twenty-five minutes from the moment Raffaele and Amanda walked into the police station until the time of the statement Raffaele signed. That suggests to me that Raffaele didn't think any of this was a big deal and certainly didn't think he was recanting an alibi for a murder, after all Raffaele has no reason to think when he walked in there that the police would ever suspect him or Amanda of murder. My guess is they told him, like they did Amanda, that they had 'hard evidence' she was at the scene, and he just succumbed to their version as what's a stoned college student going to do in that situation,
argue with them about it?
B False
halides1 - are you trolling or are you still unfamiliar with the basic facts of the case after 45K posts.
Did you ever wonder
why Raffaele is barely mentioned in the statements? Here this is supposed to be a 'confession' to murder by three people, and all Raffaele gets is a one-liner in the first statement where she's not sure whether he was with her, and nothing at all in the second statement. Don't you suppose they might have been
asking her about Raffaele? One would imagine that would be reflected by the second statement.
I think I know why Raffaele is hardly noted and wasn't the subject of intense inquiry, it's because when she walked in there they thought she had conspired with Patrick, and Raffaele wasn't involved. It wasn't until later when they thought they'd gotten a 'confession' and they noted Raffaele's shoe tread was similar to the pattern of Rudy Guede's in the murder room that they actually arrested Raffaele. Previous to that all they wanted from Raffaele was to 'confirm' their suspicion that Amanda had left that night.
Not
that this is of any relevance whatsoever, as outside of CT - Cartwheel world, the issue of the arrests has never been challenged* by lawyers for AK or RS
or anywhere in the real world.
* What would they say -
'well OK there's lots of evidence against the pair and they will be/have been found guilty but you had no right to arrest them - so there' and flounce off in a strop
It was challenged from the start, that's why those statements were taken all the way to the Supreme Court and ruled upon. However, your asterisked notation underlines why I tend to think of you as the 'White Knight talking
backwards.' It seems there you take the position that because they were found guilty that's proof positive they were arrested properly, despite the fact you
know they are innocent of the crime they were arrested for. Amanda and Raffaele did not conspire with Patrick Lumumba to murder Meredith Kercher and then then 'stage' a break-in to make it look like an outsider.
All the 'evidence' that the above occurred that they produced for the Court of Freedom is of course bogus or a misunderstanding. What you're failing to take into account is the possibility that
because they were arrested improperly, that additional 'evidence' was compiled against them anyway, and as a result they were found guilty
when they shouldn't have been. That what was produced in court is the sort of thing one would find when attempting to gather evidence of innocent people, it just happened to be enough for a jury who had numerous reasons to believe they were guilty due to the conditions of the time, and the nature of the Italian system which often gives the prosecution a wide latitude in trials of the first instance.
Clever is relative - in certain company I'm a veritable genius
But never mind all that - are you ready to get with the program and join the team ... Get on board for the big win, win one for the fair lady.
The money isnt great - the odd 9 bob note might fall your way - but there is the promise of fringe benefits.
What say you sir ?
I like your analogy, I see you as a carnival barker here. It just so happens that right now you're standing behind the curtain. It was going through this part right here that caused me to see just what had happened in this case. I'd gone through the evidence piece by piece only to find it was either so embarrassing it indicted the prosecution ('murder knife' and bra clasp) or was irrelevant in the sense it was expected to be found whether they were involved in the murder or not.
However, I still maintained a lingering suspicion that Amanda and Raffaele might be involved somehow, after all perhaps the cops 'knew' she was involved, they just couldn't assemble a good enough case and just threw everything they could at her and went beyond the bounds of propriety; I understand 'greater good' arguments. So I decided to read up about the interrogation and the arrest of Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele and see if they had legitimate reasons to be suspicious of her, and just what the 'confession' and the 'gift note' amounted to, as I'd seen excerpts but hadn't read the source material for myself.
Now I want you to do it. You seem to have suggested above that arguing about whether they should have been arrested is pointless, as they'd be found guilty and evidence was presented that was accepted by a jury thus 'obviously' they must have been arrested properly. I think you're applying a little 'retro-causality' style thinking, as there is another possibility here: that
because Amanda and Raffaele were arrested,
then evidence was compiled against them which was tainted by investigator bias which would explain why it's all embarrassing or irrelevant, and why no one making the guilt argument ever wants to talk about the evidence anymore.
You have to 'remember, remember the Fifth of November' because that's where all this starts, when the cops put the pressure on a stoned college student and he folded like a cheap tent and told them what they wanted to hear, and then put the screws to a girl barely out of her teens and she eventually freaked out. As a result of that they arrested all three of them for a crime they didn't commit. I've outlined what I think happened, subject to better information of course, now why don't you produce the
police's version of the interrogation and the arrest of Raffaele, Amanda, and Patrick? Note,
not the PMF version, which I can still see some adhere to, notably when Tsig naively suggested Amanda could have just walked right out of there. You know better than that, the moment Raffaele 'dropped' her alibi Little Miss Cartwheels wasn't going
anywhere.
Back on page
eight I compiled some links detailing what the police said about the interrogation in court. Why don't you use them to try to explain to us all what the police version of the interrogation and the arrest of the 'murderers' actually is? I found that while Amanda's story is
unusual it conforms to a known phenomenon, and when considering the circumstances is not as unlikely as one might think. The police's story in comparison is absolutely ridiculous and is shrouded by missing tapes and absurd leaps of logic that to this day have not been explained.
If you
can't produce the police's story, if you don't even know it and think the PMF theory is what happened, doesn't that tell you something?
Why is it this isn't common knowledge? Why instead of making fun of 'waterboarding' and the like you haven't hammered all us 'FOAKers' with the 'truth' of the interrogation by recounting the police's version of events so many times we're sick of hearing it? Shouldn't the 'official' account have some bearing, shouldn't you all be proud to regale all us 'groupies' with its infinite wisdom?
You're standing behind the curtain, Platonov. Do some real thinking and it will open your eyes.
- that was easy.
