Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #15

[Footwarrior]

No. Amanda Knox said he was there. AK said she heard her roommate scream and did nothing. AK put him there then left him languishing.

Some choose not to believe a PROVEN liar. And that doesn't make AK a murderer however, the courts decision does with their guilty verdict.

So to get the truth from anyone, all we need to do is keep them up for several nights in a row. Then follow up with an all night session were we yell and scream and shove them around.

12 officers were involved in Amanda's interrogation that night. Watching what really went on would be interesting, but this interrogation was supposedly not recorded. The police recorded every phone call that the suspects made, the police station itself was bugged, their jail cells were bugged, every conversation with their lawyers was recorded. So why not the interrogation?

 

[Myvice]

I'm baffled that some would blame the police for putting Patrick in jail. When someone accuses another person of such a heinous crime of course that person would be arrested.

I can't imagine that a 20 year old that was deemed by her parents to be capable of living on her own in a foreign country would think that lying to the police would be a good idea.

I also read somewhere today that AK had already had a year of Italian at Washington State, does anyone know if that's true?

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm baffled that some would blame the police for putting Patrick in jail. When someone accuses another person of such a heinous crime of course that person would be arrested.

And I'm equally baffled that some would think merely accusing someone else of a crime should result in police immediately arresting and throwing said person in jail without doing ... you know... an actual investigation and look at the person's whereabouts to ascertain ... you know... information.

The police are the ones with investigative responsibility. The police are the ones who have been given the power to detain and arrest and jail someone. With power comes responsibility. I'm baffled that seems to be overlooked and misunderstood.

 

[Linda7NJ]

In other words, you don't believe that anyone would make a false confession during a coercive interrogation.



Are you familiar with the Norfolk 4 case?

Confession is not the same as making a false allegation. No matter how many times or ways you say it... It simply is not true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jessica2012]

She attacks Moore because he's put himself out there with an opinion.

The truth is that no one knows what really went on in that apartment for sure except for Guede and Meredith. One is dead, the other admitted to a friend on Skype that no one else was there at the time (i.e. Amanda wasn't there) and once Guede lawyered up he changed his story so he could take advantage of a sweet deal. Everyone seems to discount that, but it doesn't change that it happened and that the Skype conversation occurred.

Madeleine, respectfully, no one is discounting that Rudy got a "sweet deal". The "sweet deal" simply does not exist. He opted for the fast track trial option where there is no jury. Amanda and Raffaele had this same option but decided not to use it. His story did change but not anymore than the other two (before they lawyered up where it changed even more). There were phone conversations between Amanda and her mom where she admits knowing Patrick is innocent and also that she was worried about the knife found in Sollecito's apartment. Not to mention all the phone discrepancies of Raffaele and Amanda on the night, morning of the murder. In my opinion Rudy is not anymore guilty than the other two. Amanda is the one that got the sweetest deal considering her 4 million dollar book deal about the murder for which she is convicted and the fact that she is roaming the streets of Seattle free doing paid interviews. Yet she has not given a penny of the money she was ordered to give to Patrick Lumbamba.

 

[Karmady]

Otto, that's incorrect. Knox had zero power to put anyone in jail. Zero. It's well known that police inquired about the message on her phone to Patrick, "see you later." That raised questions and started the police down a rat hole. Again, there was no requirement for police to arrest Patrick without ascertaining information about his alibi. They failed to do that. They are the ones in control, they are the ones with the power to detain and jail people. Why is that fact ignored?

I could run around my neighborhood accusing people of things but if the police arrested them based on that and didn't do any investigation into the allegations, the police would be (properly) blamed. You have to consider who has the power in situations. Who can make an arrest? Who can detain?

I'm confused about the opposing positions on this. Is/was Amanda credible, or is/was she not credible and suspected of participating in a murder? Did the police think she was credible when they arrested an innocent man based on her statement. If so, did they think she was credible and/or innocent at that point. If not, why would they arrest the man and jail him on her say so. jmo

 

[Myvice]

And I'm equally baffled that some would think merely accusing someone else of a crime should result in police immediately arresting and throwing said person in jail without doing ... you know... an actual investigation and look at the person's whereabouts to ascertain ... you know... information.

The police are the ones with investigative responsibility. The police are the ones who have been given the power to detain and arrest and jail someone. With power comes responsibility. I'm baffled that seems to be overlooked and misunderstood.

Actually, wasn't questioning AK investigative work? She told them she didn't have to work because it was slow at the bar so she essentially took PK's alibi away at the same time she accused him.

Aren't people in the states detained as well when an eye witness accuses them? Do we have to wait for DNA analysis before we detain someone?

 

[Footwarrior]

Confession is not the same as making a false allegation. No matter how many times or ways you say it... It simply is not true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I recommend watching Frontline: The Confessions to anyone who wants to understand false confessions:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/

The techniques used on the sailors in the Norfolk 4 case were basically the same as those used by the Perugia investigators on Amanda Knox.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Actually, wasn't questioning AK investigative work? She told them she didn't have to work because it was slow at the bar so she essentially took PK's alibi away at the same time she accused him.



Aren't people in the states detained as well when an eye witness accuses them? Do we have to wait for DNA analysis before we detain someone?

Witness statements are enough to make an arrest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I recommend watching Frontline: The Confessions to anyone who wants to understand false confessions:



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/



The techniques used on the sailors in the Norfolk 4 case were basically the same as those used by the Perugia investigators on Amanda Knox.

I suggest you look up the definitions for :

#1 confession

#2 allegation




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJae]

Actually, wasn't questioning AK investigative work? She told them she didn't have to work because it was slow at the bar so she essentially took PK's alibi away at the same time she accused him.

Aren't people in the states detained as well when an eye witness accuses them? Do we have to wait for DNA analysis before we detain someone?

Apparently. although eyewitness accounts are the ONLY evidence considered unimpeachable to a jury as it is considered DIRECT evidence, now we must wait to get that DNA before arresting any murder suspect with probable cause??

And I guess DNA can only be trusted to convict a man who had no PR machine to help run a scam on the public.

 

[Myvice]

Apparently. although eyewitness accounts are the ONLY evidence considered unimpeachable to a jury as it is considered DIRECT evidence, now we must wait to get that DNA before arresting any murder suspect with probable cause??

And I guess DNA can only be trusted to convict a man who had no PR machine to help run a scam on the public.

Well I guess one lesson to be learned from this is that PR campaigns may work for politicians since it's the public that votes.

In a trial, the only ones that matter are the jurors that sit in court and hear the actual testimony.

 

[CJae]

I'm confused about the opposing positions on this. Is/was Amanda credible, or is/was she not credible and suspected of participating in a murder? Did the police think she was credible when they arrested an innocent man based on her statement. If so, did they think she was credible and/or innocent at that point. If not, why would they arrest the man and jail him on her say so. jmo

She was not a suspect when she first went in for questioning. She was unknown to investigators other than she was a roommate of the victim and was at the cottage when they arrived.

 

[Footwarrior]

I suggest you look up the definitions for :

#1 confession

#2 allegation

Try following my Frontline link, you will learn a lot.

 

[Myvice]

IMO, the primary duty of a police force is to protect the community. I think some may have forgotten what a horrendous crime this was.

 

[aa9511]

Does that mean that in the Casey Anthony verdict, the court upheld the honor of the defense?

Upheld the honor of Jose Baez.....:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[CJae]

Upheld the honor of Jose Baez.....:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:::floorlaugh:

Somehow missed that one.

 

[Yellow]

But like ALL of the evidence in its totality-wouldn't you have to wonder Why? Why would anyone point to an innocent person, say they heard their murdered roommate scream with that person in her room, when it's all just a fabrication?

No one does that for no reason.

Unless you want your partners in crime to keep their traps shut!

Yet she does all that and does not flush the toilet, leaving clear DNA evidence of her supposed co conspirator? And she also fails to clean up the clearly visible bloody shoeprints of RG? I think people attribute too much to AK.

Police also led her to PL. they were asking about him. Even if you believe her to be guilty, I think claims there was some grand conspiracy on her part to frame PL is a bit much. I don't think she is that stupid. She knew PL ran a bar, she would have known unless she was stupid there was a pretty good chance he would have a rock solid alibi. Plus none of the DNA evidence would have matched PL.

It would be pretty stupid to frame someone who 1 ) you knew they had an alibi; and 2) (assuming you believe her guilty) you knew they had no DNA or fingerprints at the crime

Moreover, what would be the purpose? To buy more time for RG to run away? It does not make any sense. If you believe her guilty, she knew what the evidence would show. It would be a matter of time before it led straight to RG, especially since he was a local who was friends w the guys downstairs. Eventually evidence would have led straight to him so why frame an innocent person? It makes no sense.

Unfortunately we will never know what went on in that interrogation room. The fact that nothing was taped is very suspicious IMO.

 

[aa9511]

Otto, that's incorrect. Knox had zero power to put anyone in jail. Zero. It's well known that police inquired about the message on her phone to Patrick, "see you later." That raised questions and started the police down a rat hole. Again, there was no requirement for police to arrest Patrick without ascertaining information about his alibi. They failed to do that. They are the ones in control, they are the ones with the power to detain and jail people. Why is that fact ignored?

I could run around my neighborhood accusing people of things but if the police arrested them based on that and didn't do any investigation into the allegations, the police would be (properly) blamed. You have to consider who has the power in situations. Who can make an arrest? Who can detain?

They had an eye-witness telling them he did it. Someone who said she was there and knew he did it. Isn't that probable cause? I don't know much about the law, but sounds like a good reason for probable cause.

I think maybe some are confusing the past and the present. Presently, we know she was just lying. In the past, at the time she said it, they didn't know she was lying. So they could not just shrug it off or ignore what she said. IMO it's enough for probable cause to have an eye-witness to the murder sign a sworn statement that they were there and saw who did it.

 

[aa9511]

Otto, that's incorrect. Knox had zero power to put anyone in jail. Zero. It's well known that police inquired about the message on her phone to Patrick, "see you later." That raised questions and started the police down a rat hole. Again, there was no requirement for police to arrest Patrick without ascertaining information about his alibi. They failed to do that. They are the ones in control, they are the ones with the power to detain and jail people. Why is that fact ignored?

I could run around my neighborhood accusing people of things but if the police arrested them based on that and didn't do any investigation into the allegations, the police would be (properly) blamed. You have to consider who has the power in situations. Who can make an arrest? Who can detain?

bbm

Also I have to point out that in how many of those situations of running around and accusing people of things would you be in the situation of being involved with a murder?

Such as, let's say you accuse Joe of murdering someone named Samantha, but no Samantha exists who has been murdered in your town, or police cannot connect a murdered Samantha with the case you are referring to. Then no, that is not probable cause.