10/14 thru 11/11

[Michael]

Originally Posted by KnoxCase

In police headquarters they tortured me psychologically, put to me
in shackles and made me strip in front of the scientific, I was even
barefoot. I'm not even able to offer guilt, given my deep fu**ing
stupidity for the fact that I smoke cannabis, I even forget what I have
eaten and also, for that, I carry behind a knife to nock the tables and
the trees and I carry it so often that I brought it also to the police
headquarters.

You mean he was handcuffed and strip searched like ALL prisoners are? My, the torture, the unbarable pain...

Look, I've no doubt the whole thing came as a shock to these middle class kids...but you seem to be making a rather big meal of it. You also seem to 'expect', that they be given preferential treatment because of their status (ie, treated like royalty). This was a MURDER enquiry, they were found at the scene, they had no alibi, they LIED, they were SUSPECTS for a brutal vicious sex murder, reality check!

You don't hear Rudy whinging about how he was treated and somehow, I suspect, you don't really care.

[KnoxCase]

Originally Posted by Michael

KC, we heard your 'logical' scenario ideas of what happened that night earlier and believe me, logic was not a feature. On the contrary, it seems that you are so determined to nail the crime in its entirety on Rudy Guede, that when you approach him you throw all logic out the window. At the same time, you ignore the truth, in terms of the actual 'facts' to a 'square coercion peg' into a round hole when the facts are clear, there was no interrogation involving the detailed story of Patrick, only a voluntary statement. Coercion, if it happenes anywhere, happens in interrogations, not statements. You know this as well as I do, so your solution is to ignore the fact, the 'truth', and keep referring to the statement as an inetrrogation. My advice is if 'truth' is 'really' your concern, rather then your own pre-defined end, then I would suggest that you actually pay attention to the truth and facts, rather then simply pay lip service to them with claimed aspirations to them.

you say "we" as if you arrogantly speak for other people, little follwoers of your sheep herd?

actually as I see it hear on this site most people don't buy your Mignini Fan Club Fiction theory.

they don't buy the Lone Wolf either...

Do you ever have anythign nmew to offer other than attacking anyone who doesn't agree to your Mignini Fable Fan Club?

You say "we".....who do you refer to as your followers specifically?

Are you a self appointed leader of all forums you troll to?

Why don't you offer something new other than the same old attacks, you do on PMF?

Offer your theory? All you do is attack others posts who don't align to your Mignini Religion.

Post your specific theory....timeline?

I don't think I've ever seen you have the courage to post it?

Or do you prefer to just antagonize?

Anyway, I'll stop responding to your posts as your obviously going to puke your Miginini religion endlessly until everyone with a different thought leaves.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by KnoxCase

actually as I see it hear on this site most people don't buy your Mignini Fan Club Fiction theory.

Careful, you're showing your colours, that's FOA rhetoric.

I don't reacall writing any posts praising Mignini. Therefore, your label of 'Mignini fanclub' must apply to those who, unlike you, aren't posting to condemn him. At least, your view of him is implicit in the above quote. Since I have no reason to condemn a great many people in the world, billions in fact, I would imagine that by you're logic, I'm a member of the fanclub for billions of people. That's fine by me, it makes me truly a man of the world . As long as they all don't demand subscription payments.

Originally Posted by KnoxCase

Are you a self appointed leader of all forums you troll to?

You're accusing me of being a 'troll'??? Things are starting to get nasty here.

Originally Posted by KnoxCase

Post your specific theory....timeline?

The TimeLine is on PMF. Have you not seen it? I posted it here a few weeks ago.

Originally Posted by KnoxCase

I don't think I've ever seen you have the courage to post it?

I've posted multiple scenario theories. If you don't know that, then you don't know me as well as you think you do and your post is out of line.

Originally Posted by KnoxCase

Anyway, I'll stop responding to your posts as your obviously going to puke your Miginini religion endlessly until everyone with a different thought leaves.

There is no such thing as a 'Mignini religion', although from what I've read over the last two years there is certainly an 'anti-Mignini Religion'. One is necessary for those that wish to bypass the facts and truth of the case and make Amanda and Raffaele into 'poor persecuted martyrs'. That can't be done without having 'someone' to blame. Someone has to be the scapegoat for their prediciment, for without one, their supporters might just have to start facing the truth that they may actually have a case to answer. If Mignini has a fanclub of anyone it's you, for you clearly have far more need of him then I.

I just need the facts and the evidence.

[Jester]

I usually ignore the names of people that are in the news for no particular reason other than the fact that they are doing their jobs. I pay attention to the names of people that are accused of crimes.

Knox, Guede, Sollicito ... these are the people accused and prosecuted for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Is Mignini the prosecutor? If so, he is a man that is doing his job; a difficult one at that. He is a gov't employee whose job it is to receive information and evidence gathered by police and analysts. It is his job to string that evidence together like a puzzle and present it in court such that an impartial judge and jury can determine guilt or innocence of the accused. There can be no reason to attack a prosecutor or judge for doing their jobs. Sometimes prosecutors get it wrong, but more often than not they get it right. Understandably some people don't like the evidence that is presented in court, but that is not a justification for attacking the prosecution. The prosecution did not manufacture the evidence, but rather received the information from police and analysts, and is presenting the information.

Being angry with the prosecutor is nothing more than that old saying of "shooting the messenger".

[Franklin]

Originally Posted by Michael: It's not interesting at all. That's because it has absolutely 'nothing' to do with 'this' case. It was not a 'false confession', it was a FALSE ACCUSATION. The police didn't want Amanda to accuse Patrick, they didn't even know who he was. A conspiracy against 'someone' requires the conspirers know who they are, unlike Patrick who was a complete stranger to them.

I don't see how completely unrelated cases in a country 3000 miles away with a completely different legal system and police culture has to do with this case, much less how they can be wielded as some sort of 'hard evidence' for the innocence (and victimhood) of Amanda Knox. It's a red herring and a distraction. This case must be judged on it's own merits and the actual facts.

Psychological tests are only officially recognized as valid if they are repeatable by anyone anywhere in the world, including in Europe. But now that you mention it, Amanda is actually American. I think she would likely be included in the eight out of ten who tended to falsely confess in this study. I don't think that somehow moving to Italy immunizes her from these tendancies.

ABC News Primetime about a study demonstrating how to get college students to falsely confess to something.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1783918&page=1

In the McMartin molestation witch-hunts of the 1980's it was eventually found to be the case that children will generate false memories to reconsile all the lies that the police/therapists were dishing out.

For instance the "thereapists" would say something to the child like "Billy and Debby and Nancy all saw you play that game with the teacher, are they all lying? It's bad to call others a liar. Are you a good boy?" The kids didn't wish to call their friends a liar, and were scared of the interogators and wanted to be considered a "Good Boy" by them, so they generated detailed false memories. The same techniques have been used experimentally so see if kids would generate false memories of space aliens etc., and they do.

(by the way, I am already aware that California isn't Italy, and that preschoolers aren't college aged, so I will save you the time)

[Franklin]

Originally Posted by Jester: It doesn't matter what Amanda says to explain her false accusations against an innocent man, and her two week silence even though she knew he was innocent. It doesn't matter what she says she was doing on the night of the murder as she has told too many lies about her activities that night. Nothing she says is worth anything. She can keep throwing statements around, hoping something will stick, but nothing she has said after falsely accusing Patrick is worth anything, and it never will be. It cannot be believed that she was hit in the head or that police forced her to say anything. She is incapable of telling the truth.

"her two week silence even though she knew he (Patrick) was innocent"

I don't think that Amanda knew all along that Patrick was innocent. I think that she thought he must be guilty, and that the police were hinting at her to help them nail the murderer of Meredith. Rudy had a history of robbery, and he is black. Somehow the police conveyed this knowlege to this eager to help American girl. She has claimed that she "was trying to help the police", but in doing so she stupidly placed herself at the crime scene with her stories. She then found herself in the same boat as she had placed Patrick, locked up for murder. Now she identified with Patrick, and felt bad for him. Later, when she realized that Patrick hadn't done it after all, she was glad he had alibis and could go free.

[Emerald]

Originally Posted by KnoxCase

interesting question...were they together or not!??? whats the truth?

I was taking a trip back into the pile of ignorant and incorrect media articles of Nov 2 to Nov ...2007. Incorrect reports plastered on the internet, then later retractions etc..
I was looking up Patricks stories today...and of course came across other early supposed quotes plastered in the internet media.


Accepting their story in public as their final statement, imo. Innocent until proven Guilty, I accept their story in court.

And the the evidence will be applied to their final story's. And one has to make a decision to believe it or not.

But which story will they publicly state? Amanda talked...Rudy maybe soon? will Raffaele?

As we see here with Raffaele' media quotes only...not as good as a public court statement but at least something.

He is proven incorrect in some of his tales.
If we apply a real-witness Popvic, who saw them physically and applying this timeline, then Raffele is incorrect. Popvic saw them at the Apartment at 5:30pm and again saw Amanda at 8:42pm.

This timeline doesn't align to Raffaele's stories below.


Raffaele spoke Nov 4 to Kate Mansey.
This is where he so strangely states :
He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends. "The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."


***
Then Nov 7 The Interrogators release yet a totally different version.
"I met Amanda at her house again at around one or 2.00pm. Meredith was there too, but she left in a hurry at around 4.00pm without saying where she was going. "Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don't remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8.30 or 9pm.

"At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner."
He goes on to say that Amanda returned to his house at around 1am and the couple went to bed, although he couldn't remember if they had sex.
He said she got up the next morning and went home for a shower at around 10.30am.

****************

Neither of his story's align to Popovic seeing them at Raffaeles apartment at 5:30pm and 8:40pm.
There was also Internet activity on his pc that was proven to be Amandas (unless Raffaele was searching for Amandas boyfirend David...which the internet was connecting to).

I'm not sure what Raffaele's next stories were in his diaries from prison?
When I say lies and ignorant reporting, its referring to only the time frame. People making judgments without knowledge of evidence, evidence not yet presented or found.
So yes, in all fairness Judge Matteini looked like a caveman making mathematical decisions of a space ship...the data she judged from was incorrect.


Nov 9-2007
In a 19-page document, Judge Claudia Matteini decided that there is enough evidence to keep Amanda Knox, 20, Raffaele Sollecito, 23, and Patrick Lumumba, 37, in prison, pending formal charges and a trial.

Lumumba told the judge at a hearing yesterday that 16 people could place him in his bar at the time of the murder, which is now thought to be between 10pm and 12am on the night of Thursday, November 1.

Matteini- verdict...wow?

while for Diya the desire to have carnal relations with a girl he liked and who was refusing him, and in the face of a denial from the victim, they did not have the presence of mind to desist, but tried to forced the will of the girl using a knife that Sollecito always carried with him.

case closed....?

Interesting research, KnoxCase. However, it was Amanda's testimony, in court, under oath which convinced me she was not with Raffaele all night.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Franklin

"her two week silence even though she knew he (Patrick) was innocent"

I don't think that Amanda knew all along that Patrick was innocent. I think that she thought he must be guilty, and that the police were hinting at her to help them nail the murderer of Meredith. Rudy had a history of robbery, and he is black. Somehow the police conveyed this knowlege to this eager to help American girl. She has claimed that she "was trying to help the police", but in doing so she stupidly placed herself at the crime scene with her stories. She then found herself in the same boat as she had placed Patrick, locked up for murder. Now she identified with Patrick, and felt bad for him. Later, when she realized that Patrick hadn't done it after all, she was glad he had alibis and could go free.

Sure she did.

"Indeed, when Lumumba's airtight alibi got him released from jail, after a couple of weeks, Knox wrote ecstatically about it in her prison journal ("Patrick got out today! Finally! Something is going right!") and later wrote of her remorse at ever having implicated him, saying it was under extreme duress and a result of police "brainwashing."

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...#ixzz0WEPlIXPh

There is nothing helpful about lying to police during a murder investigation. Are you suggesting that Amanda thought that she was going to help police solve the crime by telling lies? How could she at one moment think that Patrick murdered Meredith and later think that he hadn't murdered Meredith. She was a witness and was expected to be truthful.

[Franklin]

Originally posted by Michael: Amanda is a US citizen ... I think we can be sure that Amanda was treated quite differently than Patrick, and Italian accused by a nice American woman of murdering her roommate.

I doubt if Amanda was put under undue duress, or that her false accusations and false confessions were obtained under much duress.

But if we stipulate that Patrick was mistreated (wherever he was from originally) Then I would suppose that Amanda may have been treated similarly. Although we don't know. Flip a coin as far as I'm concerned unless you have it on videotape.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Franklin

[/i]

Psychological tests are only officially recognized as valid if they are repeatable by anyone anywhere in the world, including in Europe. But now that you mention it, Amanda is actually American. I think she would likely be included in the eight out of ten who tended to falsely confess in this study. I don't think that somehow moving to Italy immunizes her from these tendancies.

ABC News Primetime about a study demonstrating how to get college students to falsely confess to something.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1783918&page=1

In the McMartin molestation witch-hunts of the 1980's it was eventually found to be the case that children will generate false memories to reconsile all the lies that the police/therapists were dishing out.

For instance the "thereapists" would say something to the child like "Billy and Debby and Nancy all saw you play that game with the teacher, are they all lying? It's bad to call others a liar. Are you a good boy?" The kids didn't wish to call their friends a liar, and were scared of the interogators and wanted to be considered a "Good Boy" by them, so they generated detailed false memories. The same techniques have been used experimentally so see if kids would generate false memories of space aliens etc., and they do.

(by the way, I am already aware that California isn't Italy, and that preschoolers aren't college aged, so I will save you the time)

Amanda is an adult.

How is information about manipulating children relevant to this case?

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Franklin

I doubt if Amanda was put under undue duress, or that her false accusations and false confessions were obtained under much duress.

But if we stipulate that Patrick was mistreated (wherever he was from originally) Then I would suppose that Amanda may have been treated similarly. Although we don't know. Flip a coin as far as I'm concerned unless you have it on videotape.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I wrote that:

"Amanda is a US citizen ... I think we can be sure that Amanda was treated quite differently than Patrick, an Italian accused by a nice American woman of murdering her roommate."

Amanda claims she was slapped in the head twice. Police are so sure that this didn't happen that she has been charged for making these false statements.

Men and women are treated quite differently by police.

[Emerald]

Originally Posted by Jester

There was a lying eye witness that placed Patrick at the murder. It's truly horrible that Amanda accused Patrick, and then affirmed that accusation in a voluntary written statement to police. It's even worse that she kept her mouth shut until Patrick was released, and only then publicly stated that she was relieved as she had known all along that he was not a participant in the murder. If Amanda had not repeatedly accused Patrick of murdering Meredith, none of the above would have happened.

In spite of what happened, and in spite of the treatment Patrick received; which was significantly worse than what Amanda received, not once did he confess to a murder he did not commit. Neither did he falsely accuse anyone else.

Amanda placed herself at the scene of the crime when she falsely accused Patrick. It was not until the Investigators found there was no possible way he was there Amanda recanted Patricks presence at the crime.

That still places Amanda, by her own words, at the crime scene.

In order for her to make that false confession against Patrick stick, AMANDA HAD TO PLACE HERSELF AT THE CRIME SCENE.

It was Patrick's presence she recanted. Not her own.

JMO

[Emerald]

Originally Posted by KnoxCase

I disagree , I think the Interrogation links, absolutely have to do with this case.

The point is its a post about Interrogations.

Did this case have Interrogations?

Yes.


Its no different than bringing in Eyes Lies, or Misrepresented comparing other topics of a crime scene, which can shed light into this case.

How does it relate to the sworn testimony Amanda gave in Court? Who was violently or illegally interrogating her then?

[Emerald]

Originally Posted by Michael

KC, we heard your 'logical' scenario ideas of what happened that night earlier and believe me, logic was not a feature. On the contrary, it seems that you are so determined to nail the crime in its entirety on Rudy Guede, that when you approach him you throw all logic out the window. At the same time, you ignore the truth, in terms of the actual 'facts' to a 'square coercion peg' into a round hole when the facts are clear, there was no interrogation involving the detailed story of Patrick, only a voluntary statement. Coercion, if it happenes anywhere, happens in interrogations, not statements. You know this as well as I do, so your solution is to ignore the fact, the 'truth', and keep referring to the statement as an inetrrogation. My advice is if 'truth' is 'really' your concern, rather then your own pre-defined end, then I would suggest that you actually pay attention to the truth and facts, rather then simply pay lip service to them with claimed aspirations to them.

I don't read/speak Italian, but I'd bet the coerced confession is not a talking point in Europe. The only thing which could be accomplished is to gain support in the US. Nothing else has worked. The Mother going on tv saying how she wanted Amanda to flee the country was a H*U*G*E mistake. That lost a lot of potential public support.

If the Amanda Knox Family still has a PR team, they aren't doing a very good job.

Ultimately doesn't matter what the US public thinks. As a matter of fact, any US public interference would probably irritate the process in Italian Courts.

JMO

[Franklin]

Originally posted by Jester: "Indeed, when Lumumba's airtight alibi got him released from jail, after a couple of weeks, Knox wrote ecstatically about it in her prison journal ("Patrick got out today! Finally! Something is going right!") and later wrote of her remorse at ever having implicated him, saying it was under extreme duress and a result of police "brainwashing."

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...#ixzz0WEPlIXPh

There is nothing helpful about lying to police during a murder investigation. Are you suggesting that Amanda thought that she was going to help police solve the crime by telling lies? How could she at one moment think that Patrick murdered Meredith and later think that he hadn't murdered Meredith. She was a witness and was expected to be truthful.

You say "Amanda wrote ecstatically about Patricks rease" saying "Finally, something is going right".

Yes this shows that she finally realized that Patrick was innocent. He's Free! Something is fianally going Right!! she says.
She didn't say "Oh Damnit, he's getting released, my scheme isn't working"

And yes, I am saying that Amanda at one moment thought he was guilty, and then at the next moment thought he was innocent.

We all know that there is nothing helpfull about lying to police. "So stipulated" as Perry Mason would say.

And Yes, I am suggesting that Amanda thought she was helping the police solve the crime. That is what she has been claiming was her motive all along.

In the U.S. (3000 miles away with a different legal system) many of the ex-prisoners who have been exonerated with the advent of DNA testing were falsely picked out from lineups because the rape victim or whoever didn't want to dissapoint the police by not picking out anyone. So they just picked the one who had the closest resemblance to the culprit. The Republican Governor of Illinois a while back just went ahead and gave leniency to everyone on death row after so many DNA tests proved many things that most people refuse to believe about their trusted men in blue. Illinois, Louisiana, Georgia, and Texas are the most notorious for police shenanigans.

[Emerald]

I understand what you are saying, Franklin. Don't agree.

Amanda was glad Patrick was exonerated, but it does not explain Amanda placing herself at the scene of the crime.

Maybe her elation was in knowing that the innocent person she accused was set free. Only makes me believe Amanda knew he was innocent, because she knows the truth.

JMO

[Franklin]

Originally Posted by Jester: "Amanda is an adult.

How is information about manipulating children relevant to this case? "

You are being deliberately obtuse in your communications. The first half of my post explained the studies on college aged young people, yet you parse the post apart and ask about the second half of the post. I have already answered the question, as you already know. And mine and other peoples previous posts have listed historical cases and techniques for manipulating adults. (Roberto Rocha, for instance) http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Lega...&page=1&page=1 Or you can look on youtube if you want to know more about the topic.

Agreed, these posts have nothing to do with the Knox case if these things (brainwashings) haven't happened.

And if unscrupulous things have actually occured, then obviously these postings are relevent to anyone who wishes to better understand the mechanisms in action for these types of cases.

[Emerald]

JMO

If I believe the relatively brief interrogation caused the mental incapacity of Amanda, then the picture painted of the smart, independent woman sent alone to a foreign country for study is a complete fabrication.

Somebody is not telling the truth.

JMO

[Franklin]

Emerald... I don't think that Amandas intelligence and her story telling are mutually exclusive. I think that her instinct to conform to her immediate environment (the interrogation room) is an instinct that would serve her well in the corporate world. And in all of our primevil tribal pasts, there was also the tendancy for the witch-hunt mob to say "If she confesses to witchcraft she can repent, but if she denies it, we burn her at the stake". Better off to go with the flow then.

She would be a "real team player" on the corporate team as they say. Putting her finger to the wind and jumping on the bandwagon. (or so she thought as she accused Patrick, only to find that SHE was to be the target as much as Patrick after that.)

I wonder what her major was to be in college? I have been to college, and there are some pretty crazy people there who manage to get good grades. I think that her crazy tendancies are completely unrelated to her focus on learning classroom material.

[Emerald]

Conform?

Bringing strangers to the apartment, walking around in front of the room mates guests, frequently interrupting others in the apartment with guitar and singing, cartwheels in the police station, essentially moving in with Raffaele moments after they met, etc.

Doesn't sound like conforming to me.

Is she a child with an unbalanced social moral compass? In which case everyone is completely wrong who put their professional reputations on the line with recommendations for Amanda's abroad studies.

~~OR~~

Is she the mature, intelligent adult?

Can't be both ways. The police interview was stressful, no doubt. It just does not meet the criteria as the brutal interrogation and forced confession of Michael Crowe.



JMO

[Franklin]

Amanda initially may not have been conforming to the interrogators. She may have thought she was in charge, leading them, or "helping them. I think there are many ways to interpret her "confessions" after that.

When Amanda graduates from College, she will likely be overqualified to be accepted for employment as a Law Enforcement proffessional. Many of the people in law enforcement are even less balanced and much less educated than Amanda. If she (college girl) would help frame Patrick, they (police) could just as readily plant evidence to make their jobs easier. (or in this case make their jobs harder as it turns out)

Their immaturity is evident in the wild theories that they propose. That parents who mortgage their home to pay for her defense after paying to send her to Italy wouldn't send her a few hundred bucks in allowance (which I am sure they did regularly) thus forcing her to kill her roommate for a few hundred dollars. That a college girl, who budgets her study time to pass finals, and who plans for a future wouldn't know how to sell her computer or work a little to get the rent. (although she would have just had her parents wire the money) While Rudy Guede had the history of poor planning and quick money snatching fixes.

Or the one about the vampires in Raphaels comic books. Meridith is the one who actually dressed as a vampire for holloween. One might just as well theorize that Meredith payed Rudy to act out the Vampire fantacy. It is obvious that she had a deep rooted and unquentiable lust for vampire role playing. (I am thinking like a boorish prosecutor now)

[Franklin]

Emerald, In the Michael Crowe case not all the boys were as brutally interrogated as Michael Crowe. One of them jumped in quite willingly and wove fantastic and intricately detailed stories, as if he were playing a role playing fantacy game of Dungeons and Dragons with the interrogators. It was, by the way the kid with all the knife collection and comic books.

I saw the video of 20y/o Roberto Rocha's false confession, and although the interrogators were primative and stupid, they weren't particularly brutal. I guess some people just aren't as deeply rooted in reality as others.

[Emerald]

Franklin, your theories are interesting, but I'm not buying for this case against Amanda.

It is her testimony, under oath in court which convinced me. Her very own attorney was asking the questions. He let Amanda ramble on and on, contradicting herself from paragraph to paragraph. Why an attorney would allow this from his own client is a mystery.

JMO

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Franklin

You say "Amanda wrote ecstatically about Patricks rease" saying "Finally, something is going right".

Yes this shows that she finally realized that Patrick was innocent. He's Free! Something is fianally going Right!! she says.
She didn't say "Oh Damnit, he's getting released, my scheme isn't working"

And yes, I am saying that Amanda at one moment thought he was guilty, and then at the next moment thought he was innocent.

We all know that there is nothing helpfull about lying to police. "So stipulated" as Perry Mason would say.

And Yes, I am suggesting that Amanda thought she was helping the police solve the crime. That is what she has been claiming was her motive all along.

In the U.S. (3000 miles away with a different legal system) many of the ex-prisoners who have been exonerated with the advent of DNA testing were falsely picked out from lineups because the rape victim or whoever didn't want to dissapoint the police by not picking out anyone. So they just picked the one who had the closest resemblance to the culprit. The Republican Governor of Illinois a while back just went ahead and gave leniency to everyone on death row after so many DNA tests proved many things that most people refuse to believe about their trusted men in blue. Illinois, Louisiana, Georgia, and Texas are the most notorious for police shenanigans.

Amanda's reasons for staying in Italy have been that:
1. she wanted to help police solve the crime (not sure why a language student thinks she is a crime solver);
2. she wanted to tell Meredith's father what she knew; and
3. she was completely unaffected by Meredith's murder (diary notes) and wanted to complete her studies.

It is impossible for Amanda to believe that Patrick was involved in the murder and then to radically change her beliefs to the opposite. Only one can be true, and the truth of an eye witness statement cannot contradict itself. Either, according to Amanda, she knew Patrick was there or he wasn't. She cannot in good standing claim both to be true.

The only possible conclusion is that
1. Amanda is a liar;
2. Amanda hoped to deflect attention away from herself and buy herself some time by accusing Patrick (her mom was due to arrive any day);
3. Amanda was caught in a lie when Patrick produced an alibi;
4. Amanda had to revise her statement to sound as innocent as possible without admitting that she deliberately accused an innocent man of murder; and
5. Amanda inadvertently placed herself at the murder by initially stating that there was more than one person present at the murder, and that she knew one of the murderers was black.

As for American lab technicians that falsified tests, or police that perceived themselves above the law, that is not relevant to a murder trial in Italy in 2009.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Franklin

You are being deliberately obtuse in your communications. The first half of my post explained the studies on college aged young people, yet you parse the post apart and ask about the second half of the post. I have already answered the question, as you already know. And mine and other peoples previous posts have listed historical cases and techniques for manipulating adults. (Roberto Rocha, for instance) http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Lega...&page=1&page=1 Or you can look on youtube if you want to know more about the topic.

Agreed, these posts have nothing to do with the Knox case if these things (brainwashings) haven't happened.

And if unscrupulous things have actually occured, then obviously these postings are relevent to anyone who wishes to better understand the mechanisms in action for these types of cases.

As I've said before, this is a case involving a British student, an American student, an Italian student, and an immigrant from the Ivory Coast. There is no question that, from the outset, this case would draw international interest. There is no way that the Italian police decided to use illegal, or unethical, methods to solve the murder knowing full well that people from all over the world would scrutinize every aspect of the case.

You are welcome to believe, based on American studies and illegal practices, that the Italians are corrupt, but there is absolutely no factual basis for the belief. In fact, the opposite has been demonstrated. When Raffaele lied about the timeline of police arriving at the cottage, the police were able to demonstrate that they were honest, and that Raffaele was the liar.

If you want to criticize the current investigation based on historical illegal practices, it would be necessary to demonstrate that Italian police had used illegal and unethical practices when investigating an international murder in recent years. It would be necessary to demonstrate that Italian DNA labs had a history of falsifying DNA tests, that Italian police isolated 14 year old children for days and forced a false confession, or that Italian police put words in the mouths of young children in order to convict adults. There is no history of these problems in Italy.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Emerald

JMO

If I believe the relatively brief interrogation caused the mental incapacity of Amanda, then the picture painted of the smart, independent woman sent alone to a foreign country for study is a complete fabrication.

Somebody is not telling the truth.

JMO

According to reports, Knox was stoned quite a bit of the time while attending class. Her mind was intact enough to be stoned and learn, or be stoned and read Harry Potter in German, but when it came to being stoned and remembering the events of the evening when her roommate was murdered ... her memory was a sieve.

Amanda is full of contradiction. As you point out, we have the bright, independent, world traveler who makes a mockery of the people that helped arranged a government job and apartment in Germany for her, but who cannot hold her own when asked what she did the night her roommate was murdered. When she completely screwed up and couldn't keep her story straight, she resorted to complaining about the people that asked the questions. She chose to lie rather than tell the truth. She claimed pot wiped her memory - a lie. She claimed Patrick was a murderer - a lie. When asked difficult questions that she could not answer, just like in court, she chose to avoid the answers. Why would an innocent person do that.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Franklin

Emerald... I don't think that Amandas intelligence and her story telling are mutually exclusive. I think that her instinct to conform to her immediate environment (the interrogation room) is an instinct that would serve her well in the corporate world. And in all of our primevil tribal pasts, there was also the tendancy for the witch-hunt mob to say "If she confesses to witchcraft she can repent, but if she denies it, we burn her at the stake". Better off to go with the flow then.

She would be a "real team player" on the corporate team as they say. Putting her finger to the wind and jumping on the bandwagon. (or so she thought as she accused Patrick, only to find that SHE was to be the target as much as Patrick after that.)

I wonder what her major was to be in college? I have been to college, and there are some pretty crazy people there who manage to get good grades. I think that her crazy tendancies are completely unrelated to her focus on learning classroom material.

I don't think so. She thought she was smart enough to lie to the police and manipulate the situation, but she wasn't. People that cannot stand on their own two feet do not succeed in the corporate world ... it is people that have solid, well considered ideas and who are able to clearly articulate that information that are successful in business, not wishy washy people that crumble and feign amnesia when asked to further explain their ideas. Furthermore, when Amanda is asked a question, she wants to tell stories rather than address the point and move on.

Her studies were focused on learning language and creative writing. You should read her short story about rape ... it's wordy, unfocused, difficult to read, difficult to understand, and basically boring.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Franklin

Amanda initially may not have been conforming to the interrogators. She may have thought she was in charge, leading them, or "helping them. I think there are many ways to interpret her "confessions" after that.

When Amanda graduates from College, she will likely be overqualified to be accepted for employment as a Law Enforcement proffessional. Many of the people in law enforcement are even less balanced and much less educated than Amanda. If she (college girl) would help frame Patrick, they (police) could just as readily plant evidence to make their jobs easier. (or in this case make their jobs harder as it turns out)

Their immaturity is evident in the wild theories that they propose. That parents who mortgage their home to pay for her defense after paying to send her to Italy wouldn't send her a few hundred bucks in allowance (which I am sure they did regularly) thus forcing her to kill her roommate for a few hundred dollars. That a college girl, who budgets her study time to pass finals, and who plans for a future wouldn't know how to sell her computer or work a little to get the rent. (although she would have just had her parents wire the money) While Rudy Guede had the history of poor planning and quick money snatching fixes.

Or the one about the vampires in Raphaels comic books. Meridith is the one who actually dressed as a vampire for holloween. One might just as well theorize that Meredith payed Rudy to act out the Vampire fantacy. It is obvious that she had a deep rooted and unquentiable lust for vampire role playing. (I am thinking like a boorish prosecutor now)

To quote the police when questioning Casey Anthony, "how is lying to the police helping?" Even in the US, it is not helpful to lie to the police during a murder investigation. How can you say that Amanda thought she was helping the police by lying to them?

Liars make rather poor law enforcement officers. Have a look at your own links regarding illegal practices by law enforcement officers.

I'm not sure what a "boorish prosecutor" is, but I doubt it's anything that exists outside of fiction.

[Franklin]

Replies to Jesters Comments

Amanda's reasons for staying in Italy have been that:
1. she wanted to help police solve the crime (not sure why a language student thinks she is a crime solver);.....................
...............It is impossible for Amanda to believe that Patrick was involved in the murder and then to radically change her beliefs to the opposite.

No, it's not impossible for her to believe that Patrick was involved and then to later believe that he was innocent.
She was being a good vigilante.

There is no way that the Italian police decided to use illegal, or unethical, methods to solve the murder knowing full well that people from all over the world would scrutinize every aspect of the case.

Yes there is a way. That's just your opinion. In New York a policeman raped a male Haitian immigrant in the police department restroom. Is there no way that could happen either? The Haitian was international after all. (I am aware N.Y. is not Italy)
But that's all beside the point because I am not claiming, as you already know, that unusual interrogations tactics were necessary for this crazy girl to make up all this stuff.

If you want to criticize the current investigation based on historical illegal practices, it would be necessary to demonstrate that Italian police had used illegal and unethical practices when investigating an international murder in recent years.

No it wouldn't be necessary. Utter nonsense. I am only going to criticise the current investigation based on their (the police) recent and present stupidity. I am using history as a guideline though to see what people are capable of in general. If I was trying to entertain you specifically, I could do a doctoral thesis on the subject, But I think you are just playing games. (Paper, Rock, Scissors to be precise)

It would be necessary to demonstrate that Italian DNA labs had a history of falsifying DNA tests,

Who's claiming any labs falsified DNA samples? Not me. I tend to think more that either the DNA is not relevent, or that an ambitious or lazy policeman created the DNA evidence weeks after the murder, to make the conviction easier. (Another vigilante like Amanda). If he falsified the evidence properly, the honest Lab would get the matches they are looking for.

You are welcome to believe, based on American studies and illegal practices, that the Italians are corrupt, but there is absolutely no factual basis for the belief. In fact, the opposite has been demonstrated.

Straw-man, No Lo Follow, convoluted logic. Possible INTERNET TROLL with many screen names. But so what.

that Italian police isolated 14 year old children for days and forced a false confession, or that Italian police put words in the mouths of young children in order to convict adults. There is no history of these problems in Italy

You say: "There is no history of these problems in Italy." You are claiming an educated knowlege of a fact which you haven't bothered to verify. Just type in a few key words on any of these subjects and you will allways find that people are the same everywhere. It only takes a couple of seconds. You are showing an unusual prejudice sometimes to think that people of different countries have such different psychological tendancies and profiles.
The Dimitri trial in Italy:
"a notorious court case which took place in Bologna, the Dimitri trial (more or less the Italian version of the infamous 1980's McMartin trial in California)."

How can you say that Amanda thought she was helping the police by lying to them?

As you already know, I am citing Amandas claim that she thought she was helping the police by framing Patrick. The same way a policeman sometimes thinks he is promoting and upholding justice by framing someone.

Liars make rather poor law enforcement officers. Have a look at your own links regarding illegal practices by law enforcement officers.

I agree, that's why I posted those links.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Franklin

Replies to Jesters Comments No, it's not impossible for her to believe that Patrick was involved and then to later believe that he was innocent.
She was being a good vigilante. Yes there is a way. That's just your opinion. In New York a policeman raped a male Haitian immigrant in the police department restroom. Is there no way that could happen either? The Haitian was international after all. (I am aware N.Y. is not Italy)
But that's all beside the point because I am not claiming, as you already know, that unusual interrogations tactics were necessary for this crazy girl to make up all this stuff.
No it wouldn't be necessary. Utter nonsense. I am only going to criticise the current investigation based on their (the police) recent and present stupidity. I am using history as a guideline though to see what people are capable of in general. If I was trying to entertain you specifically, I could do a doctoral thesis on the subject, But I think you are just playing games. (Paper, Rock, Scissors to be precise) Who's claiming any labs falsified DNA samples? Not me. I tend to think more that either the DNA is not relevent, or that an ambitious or lazy policeman created the DNA evidence weeks after the murder, to make the conviction easier. (Another vigilante like Amanda). If he falsified the evidence properly, the honest Lab would get the matches they are looking for. Straw-man, No Lo Follow, convoluted logic. Possible INTERNET TROLL with many screen names. But so what. You say: "There is no history of these problems in Italy." You are claiming an educated knowlege of a fact which you haven't bothered to verify. Just type in a few key words on any of these subjects and you will allways find that people are the same everywhere. It only takes a couple of seconds. You are showing an unusual prejudice sometimes to think that people of different countries have such different psychological tendancies and profiles.
The Dimitri trial in Italy:
"a notorious court case which took place in Bologna, the Dimitri trial (more or less the Italian version of the infamous 1980's McMartin trial in California)." As you already know, I am citing Amandas claim that she thought she was helping the police by framing Patrick. The same way a policeman sometimes thinks he is promoting and upholding justice by framing someone. I agree, that's why I posted those links.

Now Amanda is a vigilante? A dope smokin' vigilante? That's a new one.

Doctoral thesis? Really???

What is the difference between police falsifing evidence and police creating DNA evidence? None.

Let me assure you that I am no troll and I am not playing games. I find the suggestion offensive. Let the post count speak for itself.

If Amanda believes that she is helping police by lying, or framing an innocent man, then she deserves to be in jail. Furthermore, your suggestion that this makes her a suitable candidate for the corporate world or law enforcement is baffling.

[Franklin]

Jester Posted: Furthermore, your suggestion that this makes her a suitable candidate for the corporate world or law enforcement is baffling.

Kids will descend into the state described in the movie "Lord of the Flies" if left to there own devices. I know of an elementary school where the kids drove one of the kids to suicide. When a teacher put up a big sympathy card banner in the cafeteria for the kids to sign and express their condolences for the parents, most of the kids tried to out-do each other by writing comments on the card like "I will see you in hell" and "I'm glad you're dead". They were just normal kids but they were under emotional pressure to fit in to the cult by continuing to outdo each other to fit into what was this school society. And to avoid being the next in line for persecution. (the principal was criminally inept but was never fired)

Adults often will descend into a "Lord of the Flies" society too, but a high enough percentage of adults have usually progressed enough in emotional developement to prevent all hell from breaking loose. (except for in Pol Pots Cambodia and other exceptions)

These are the types of environments that Amanda would fit well into. Cambodia, Lord of the Flies, and many corporate pecking orders that I have seen. She has no scruples, and to Jester- Yes, you are right, she does deserve to be in jail anyway. I think Amandas Patrick accusation was just a reflexive instinct to "fit in" to what she thought they wanted. Her type is not so rare that another of her kind wouldn't eventually come together with her in a bizarre twist of fate. The other one (or ones) like her I am referring to are the ones who are throwing monkey wrenches into the machinery of justice such that no amount of speculating can shed light onto what really happened to poor Meredith.

Not all sociopaths are serial killers. There are also the types who "Just Don't Give a Damn" to quote from the movie "HUD" with Paul Newman. They seem to be well meaning enough, but they will drag you down all the same.

[Emerald]

Amanda made choices. She needs to be accountable for them. Good ones and bad ones.

Psycho babble does not undo the crime against Meredith Kercher. Amanda is not the victim here.

JMO

[Michael]

This whole argument of using historical cases to in effect show that Amanda was either coerced, or simply dellusional 'but innocent' is completely irrelevant for the following reasons:

1. Amanda wasn't being interrogated either when she gave a detailed account of what happened at the cottage, including the meeting with Patrick and his subsequent actions, nor so when she wrote her two page note later that day. Also, as has been pointed out, no coercion was at play when Amanda has taken the stand, wrote her diary, or stood up in court to make spontaneous statements.

2. Multiple officers from a range of departments testified Amanda wasn't coerced and for them to be lying, it would require a conspiracy spanning multiple different departments, one of which was not even based in Perugia but out of Rome, a completely different jurisdiction. In addition, Amanda's own lawyers have stated on camera Amanda was 'not' hit. Moreover, Raffaele has never claimed coercion of any kind.

3. It is pointless trying to apply historical cases to the night of the 5th Nov 2007, when those doing so are hardly aware of the facts or the timeline of that night. Indeed, I have found myself frequently having to inform them of what they actually are and to a large part, they have been ignored. I can only think this is because the facts are ruining their own predjudiced views that they are trying to shoe horn onto this case. Finally, the historical case themselves at best, only known of on a superficial level by those wielding them as evidence. To compare an orange to an orange say, one has to be fully expert in the knowledge of what an orange is in the first place. That is not the case of some posters in regard to the night of the 5th. While they may have opinions, they cannot be regarded as being informed ones. In order to understand this case over the last two years, I have read literally thousands of different sources on this one case alone and still, while I know more then many, I don't know every piece of minutia that exists in this story. Therefore, these historical cases that the wielders are unleashing as a single comprehensive definitive package of facts tied up with a little bow, were accumulated from them via how many views, how many hours of studying and how many different sources, including primary sources? How many 'other' versions would be provided by all those others who were actually 'involved' in those cases? I would wager many. Therefore, those historical cases themselves, as they are presented here, may be flawed in that presentation? (Note: Perhaps if these people would spend more time studying 'this' case, instead of googling for related historical cases or searching the 'fasle confession' websites, they may find they are far more knowledgable about 'this' case).

4. But most importantly of all, in April 2008, the Italian High Court ruled that Amanda's initial questioning of the night of the 5th was made as a 'Witness' statement and therefore could not be used against her (although could be used against others). It also ruled that her voluntary statement made later that night, can also not be used aginst her because she was a 'Suspect' at that point and for suspect statements to be allowed to be used against the supect, there must be a lawyer present. Since there was no lawyer, neither can that statement be used against others. These rulings have held since, both throughout the pre-trial and the current trial. The reasons involved for Judge Micheli referring Amanda and Raffaele to trial had nothing to do with any of her statements on the night of the 5th. Likewise, if Amanda is convicted in this trial, it will have absolutely nothing to do with those statements. Amanda and Raffaele are on trial as a result of the actual evidence ammassed in the investigation alone, not those statements. Therefore, since those statements were effectively 'thrown' out over a year and half ago, they are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in regard to her charge and trial for murder. Or indeed, for the other charges of theft, transporting a knife and of fabricating a crime.

The only way they are relevant, is in regard to the criminal slander charge and Patrick's private suit, but even then only indirectly, since those statements have not been admitted by Massei even for the slander/Patrick suit. They rely rather on the 'consequences' of her statements (Patricks arrest and detention), rather then on the statements themselves, and on Amanda's two page note written on the 6th (which 'has' been admitted and indirectly brings her former statements into play for the slander charge). The only other relevance they have, is in the court of public opinion, which is not bound by the rulings of any court or law.

[Emerald]

In Italy, what percentage of verdicts are overturned in 2nd level trials?

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Emerald

In Italy, what percentage of verdicts are overturned in 2nd level trials?

To get an answer to that, I'll have to ask elsewhere. I'll find out for you

[Franklin]

Historically, there have been countless cases of people either falsely accusing, or falsely confessing to crimes WITHOUT coersion. So to repeat, History has demonstrated, YOU DON'T NEED COERSION for someone to lie. It is NOT necessary to convince most people that there was no coersion, although there may have been.

There are a plethora of other motives which I have already listed to motivate Amanda to lie. (Even excluding lying to hide guilt) They are crazy motives that only a crazy person would have, bu they are motives all the same.

College educated women have been caught on camera poisining there own child to promote the continuatiuon of a doctor/mother medical relationship. (called Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, usually afflicts higher status women) It is much more common than people wish to believe. This is just an example of a crazy motive. Amanda might have found the policeman to be attractive, and wanted him to find her to be fascinating. American woman have been accusing black men for centuries for this motive. (Although I cannot cite a list of American woman doing this in Italy in the 21st century, so it is absolutely irrelevent I am sure)

Now make a rule and bring on the reprimand for citing History as a basis for analysis.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Franklin

Historically, there have been countless cases of people either falsely accusing, or falsely confessing to crimes WITHOUT coersion. So to repeat, History has demonstrated, YOU DON'T NEED COERSION for someone to lie. It is NOT necessary to convince most people that there was no coersion, although there may have been.

Perhaps there have (and I covered that in my response with the line 'delluded but 'innocent' '), but I fail to see what specific elements make that applicable to this particular case, as opposed to most cases every other day. Whatever the reality of people in history confessing to cases they didn't commit or of making false accusations, it must also be accepted that they form the basis of an extremely small percentage, while actually the majority are valid. What makes this particular case fall into that small percentage? That really hasn't been adequately evidenced, rather the 'evidence' cited so far has been the mere existence of those historical cases in themselves, which may or may not be actually historically accurate in any case.

Now make a rule and bring on the reprimand for citing History as a basis for analysis.

I have no intention of reprimanding people for using historical cases perse. As I've said, I believe they have a place. It is one thing though to use them to argue a particular 'facet' or detail of a case and quite another to use them as a general argument offered as 'proof' that 'X' is outright innocent, or outright guilty.

For example, I will mention the Scott Peterson case. But only to support the argument that a court doesn't require provision of hard forensic evidence to produce a guilty verdict and this is true. I don't however, use it to argue that that case also proves 'this' case and means the accused are guilty. The Scott Peterson case is the Scott Peterson case and the Meredith Kercher case is...the Meredith Kercher case.

But, you are also side-stepping my final and most important point, that the statements are not at all relevant to the accused being committed to trial or their trial for murder. 'IF' the statements by the accused was the core of the prosecution case, I would be able to understand your fixation on them. Since those statements have been ruled inadmissable and don't figure as any part of the trial, I really don't understand the obsession with it. Surely, the focus should be on the actual case made against the accused and their subsequent defence of it? That isn't to say I don't think their statements should be off limits for debate, only that I don't think they merit taking up page after page of forum discussion. Wouldn't you agree?

[Pat]

Originally Posted by Emerald

Amanda made choices. She needs to be accountable for them. Good ones and bad ones.

Psycho babble does not undo the crime against Meredith Kercher. Amanda is not the victim here.

JMO

Great post. Short and to the point.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Franklin

Historically, there have been countless cases of people either falsely accusing, or falsely confessing to crimes WITHOUT coersion. So to repeat, History has demonstrated, YOU DON'T NEED COERSION for someone to lie. It is NOT necessary to convince most people that there was no coersion, although there may have been.

There are a plethora of other motives which I have already listed to motivate Amanda to lie. (Even excluding lying to hide guilt) They are crazy motives that only a crazy person would have, bu they are motives all the same.

College educated women have been caught on camera poisining there own child to promote the continuatiuon of a doctor/mother medical relationship. (called Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, usually afflicts higher status women) It is much more common than people wish to believe. This is just an example of a crazy motive. Amanda might have found the policeman to be attractive, and wanted him to find her to be fascinating. American woman have been accusing black men for centuries for this motive. (Although I cannot cite a list of American woman doing this in Italy in the 21st century, so it is absolutely irrelevent I am sure)

Now make a rule and bring on the reprimand for citing History as a basis for analysis.

So what. Sure, people converted religions during the Spanish Inquisition when faced with torture instruments from the middle ages, but that was not the case with Amanda Knox. She claims she was knocked about the head twice, but there is no one to corroborate her claims, and she has been charged with some form of slander as a result of her claims. So what.

Any statements that were questionable have not been admitted in court. It seems unusual for anyone to continually bring up statements not admissible in court, only to remind everyone that those statements contain extremely damning accusations and implications.

The only statement from Amanda that is relevant, in the context of the trial, is the one that was voluntary. That's damning too, but not nearly as serious as what Amanda said to police prior to her re-designation from witness to suspect.

History, as a factor in trial, is completely irrelevant in the murder of Meredith Kercher. There was no history, class, or creative writing in the murder. Neither is there any negative historical reference in connection with how the trial has been led.

Maybe the murder was a selfish act between Amanda and two of her admirers, maybe Amanda was pulling the splits between cartwheels & conversations ... only to realize that she's not seducing the nice police man, or Amanda, in her socially inept manner (see her mother's remarks), blurted out stuff about the murder because she was traumatized ... there is the corroborating incident of Amanda bursting into tears when she was first returned to the cottage to explain the scene. I think it was the knife drawer that brought her to a shaking fit.

There could be a lot of things going on, but coercion, dishonesty, and torture ... no.

[Jester]

Why has Rudy remained silent, in spite of the fact that he has been legitimately convicted of murder. Why would he protect Amanda? Amanda early on (too early) admitted knowledge of more than one assailant? Why doesn't Rudy spill the beans on whomever else was there and buy himself a deal? Deals aren't available in Italy?

Evidence indicates that Rudy is guilty, and that more than one person was involved (evidence). He knows if anyone else was present ... and if so, who it was.

If there is no deal to be made, then implicating others would only seal his own guilt, like it did with Amanda. She implicated someone in the murder; indicated early on that she knew that more than one person was at the murder. By knowing anything about the scene, she implicated herself. No reason for Rudy to make the same mistake.

She knew too much about the murder scene. In addition to knowing that there was more than one assailant, she also knew that Meredith's throat had been cut and that she bled to death, even though that was not revealed in the glimpse and gossip about the short time that Meredith's bedroom door was open. Amanda went from the murder scene to the police station, along with Meredith's England friends, and began using derogatory terms to describe how Meredith died. The English friends reported Amanda's remarks to police. Amanda should not have known what she knew at that time.

Amanda knows more than an innocent person should