Ah, but there was an attempt to clean up the bloody barefoot prints. That is why they were not visible until revealed by luminol. If they had not been cleaned up, they would have been visible without luminol - right?
Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
Ah, but there was an attempt to clean up the bloody barefoot prints. That is why they were not visible until revealed by luminol. If they had not been cleaned up, they would have been visible without luminol - right?
12 inches, not 16.
This information is going to work against Knox in her upcoming trial on Saturday because she did not mention and "beatings" until after meeting with her father.
"Records show a consular officer visited Knox on Nov. 12, a day before her father did. The cables do not reveal any details from the conversation between Knox and the consular officer, nor do they mention at any time concern about her treatment during interrogation or detention."
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/amanda-kno...-has-monitored-Knox-1383417.php#ixzz1MjOPjb9I
Yes, she ought to have mentioned it, and cannot imagine why she did not, as she stood right there in court and imitated the strikes to her head.:waitasec:
ETACould it be that the cables, since they "did not reveal details of the conversations" as stated above, just did not mention it???
Nova
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 19,648
- Reaction score
- 4,645
Of course I don't think ILE published a list of persons of interest and their alibis. That was my point. I see nothing that justifies your confidence in ILE.
You know why I think Knox is innocent.
Nova
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 19,648
- Reaction score
- 4,645
Several possibilities:
1. She did mention it, but since she wasn't injured, the diplomatic officer didn't think it worth noting in his cables to the U.S.
2. She did not mention it because she didn't want to admit that she perjured herself in response.
3. She did not mention it because she wasn't injured and didn't consider it all that important until the head blows became her defense for falsely implicating PL.
4. She did not mention it because it never happened.
Personally, I don't know why the alleged slaps to the back of AK's head are such a big deal. She never claimed she was tortured or injured; she never claimed she was in fear for her life.
She claims she felt pressured by the interrogators which is obviously TRUE (head slaps or no), because she gave them a very ill-advised statement.
Somebody in Italy needs to exercise a little common sense: the charge against her for slandering the police should be dismissed.
I think it is #3. She did however tell her father as soon as he came the next day, I recall. I think the police should not have slapped her on the back of her head, calling her "a stupid little liar", and the interrogation ought to have been videotaped. I am willing to bet she would not be being sued for slander if it had. I know Italians, I had Italian father, uncles, aunts---the head slap is common. And it is a form of intimidation for sure.
OldSteve
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 4,946
- Reaction score
- 184
Searching for news, found this:
"Knox father: DNA experts missing key info from Italy police"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.93d17015584f9064f404da9c7737315f.5f1
"Knox father: DNA experts missing key info from Italy police"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.93d17015584f9064f404da9c7737315f.5f1
I fully expect those that would like Amanda and Raffaele to be innocent will find a way to argue that Amanda really was beaten, but it was omitted in the report.
That would reflect rather poorly in the Embassy representatives if that were the case. I would hope that one of the responsibilities of the Embassy is to report on any prisoner abuse. Furthermore, if Amanda alleged to the Embassy representatives that she was beaten into accusing Patrick during her 2 hours questioning, then the Embassy representatives will remember her accusations against Italian police. If there is no record of Amanda's allegations against police until after meeting with her father, after November 12th, then it has the appearance of a cooked up story resulting from discussion with Curt.
In any case, it looks like all allegations of abuse were non-existent until after November 12.
ETA: correction: Knox first mentioned the bops on the head in her Nov 6 voluntary statement to police " I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly" link
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Everyone in Perugia that was questioned about Meredith's murder had an unwaivering explanation and alibi for what they were doing at the time of the murder except Rudy, Raffale and Amanda. The three of them had very messed up explanations of what they supposedly did on the night of the murder.
Their claims of staying at Raffaele's apt. could not be verified. That is, their claims of watching a movie, et cetera, and having dinner as late as 10 or 11 were proven false. They have been unable to provide an alibi that was not proven to be a lie. They do not have alibis.
Amanda has stated that the only reason that she placed herself in the cottage on the night of the murder, and accused Patrick of murder (after 2 hours of questioning) is because police coerced her and bopped her on the head a few times. She has claimed that those bops on the head caused the lies to pop out of her mouth.
Without the bops on the head, all we have is Amanda being questioned for 2 hours and then telling horrendous lies in an attempt to deflect attention onto an innocent man. That's a bit problematic in the "I am innocent" story.
Making public (read: internationally reported) claims that Italian police beat information out of witnesses is extremely serious. For the police to leave those statements unchallenged would do a disservice to all Italian officers. They have no choice but to set the record straight, and that cannot be done by dismissing the charges.
We've been through the "video" discussion many times. Witness statements are not videotaped, suspect statements should be. It is completely irrelevant in terms of the guilty verdict, as neither statement was admissible in the trial.
Bops on the head are not unique to Italians. Even Americans have been known to bop people on the head.
Knox's parents asked her some tough questions during their visits. Mom asked Knox why she called in the middle of he night when nothing had happened, and didn't mom also ask about the story of Patrick? Mom kept Patrick's innocence a secret ... giving the impression that the parents were already doing whatever damage control they thought best. Curt's visit with Knox probably included questions about why she accused Patrick (he and Edda already knew that it was a lie). One has to wonder if the "bopping" story is just another lie where Knox is again attempting to deflect responsibility for what she said and did.
"The independent experts have made requests for specific information from the forensic police related to the DNA testing of the knife in particular... this data is not being provided," Curt Knox told AFP.Interesting....
Are you saying that Knox stood there in court , before her attorney, the judge, the press, and imitated these karate chops to the head, falsely???
:slap:Are you saying that Knox stood there in court , before her attorney, the judge, the press, and imitated these karate chops to the head, falsely???
Knox is no stranger to tall tales.
Are you saying that Knox was repeatedly bopped in the head during her two hours of questioning and none of the investigators or interpreter saw a thing?
No, she said she was hit twice on the back of the head, and called a stupid liar, and demonstrated this in court (seems like the video of this has now been pulled down). It is believable, and it is indeed an Italian thing, to slap on the back of the head. She also said she understood they were under duress. If she REALLY wanted to lie, as it was not taped, she could have said they kicked her, molested her, etc. It had the ring of truth to me. :snooty::slap:
I'm skeptical, but we'll have to wait to hear from the complainants about what they did and witnessed during the 2 hours of questioning Knox as a witness. It would help Amanda if Rudy, Patrick and Raffaele had also claimed they were beaten, but they haven't. It's a bit surprising that police would beat the American woman and leave the Italian men alone.
She was NOT beaten: That was Kurt Knox's word, being slapped twice is hardly being beaten. And Patrick WAS beaten, gave a long description of his horrible beating, and sued for half a million!!
:razz:ETA: I recall Doug Preston had the account of how Patrick was kicked and beaten by ILE on his blog, but I cannot find it now.
@Otto: This is an excerpt from IIP's account of the "beating" and the whole Patrick thing:
Amanda stated in court testimony that she was repeatedly slapped on the back of her head and called a stupid liar. The interrogator who slapped Amanda told her that she was trying to help her to remember. Amanda was told that they had proof that she was at the crime scene at the time of the murder. [. . . ]
Amanda was told that her boss, Patrick Lumumba was the man that attacked Meredith. She did not give Patrick's name to the police. His name was suggested to her.
The police took a text message on Amanda's phone out of context. The text from Amanda to Patrick, "see you later" was taken literally by investigators. In the US, this phrase, in the context that it was written, simply means goodbye. The police told Amanda the text meant that she planned on meeting Patrick on the night of the murder. The police also left out the second part of the message, "good night." When you put the phrase together, it explains the meaning even more clearly. Amanda had no intention of meeting Patrick that night. She was simply saying goodbye to Patrick in the text.
The interrogators told Amanda to imagine she was at the cottage. She was told to imagine that Patrick committed the crime. None of it seemed possible to Amanda. She tried to explain to the police that none of what they were saying made any sense. She knew that she was not at the cottage at the time of the murder. She had repeatedly told the interrogators the truth and now they wanted her to imagine something completely different.
The interrogators kept telling her over and over again to imagine that she was there. When she still could not imagine what they were saying, she was slapped across the back of her head.
Once again she was told to imagine that she was there. She still could not do it. She knew what they were telling her was simply not true. She was scared and confused. After many hours of interrogation, with nothing to drink, exhaustion started kicking in. Amanda was trying to remember, she was trying to help but it just did not seem possible.
Then came another slap across the back of her head! You stupid liar! You were in the cottage! You will spend 30 years in prison! You are protecting a murderer! You will never see your family again! You will imagine that this happened!http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/p/illegal-interrogation-of-amanda-knox.html
Amanda stated in court testimony that she was repeatedly slapped on the back of her head and called a stupid liar. The interrogator who slapped Amanda told her that she was trying to help her to remember. Amanda was told that they had proof that she was at the crime scene at the time of the murder. [. . . ]
Amanda was told that her boss, Patrick Lumumba was the man that attacked Meredith. She did not give Patrick's name to the police. His name was suggested to her.
The police took a text message on Amanda's phone out of context. The text from Amanda to Patrick, "see you later" was taken literally by investigators. In the US, this phrase, in the context that it was written, simply means goodbye. The police told Amanda the text meant that she planned on meeting Patrick on the night of the murder. The police also left out the second part of the message, "good night." When you put the phrase together, it explains the meaning even more clearly. Amanda had no intention of meeting Patrick that night. She was simply saying goodbye to Patrick in the text.
The interrogators told Amanda to imagine she was at the cottage. She was told to imagine that Patrick committed the crime. None of it seemed possible to Amanda. She tried to explain to the police that none of what they were saying made any sense. She knew that she was not at the cottage at the time of the murder. She had repeatedly told the interrogators the truth and now they wanted her to imagine something completely different.
The interrogators kept telling her over and over again to imagine that she was there. When she still could not imagine what they were saying, she was slapped across the back of her head.
Once again she was told to imagine that she was there. She still could not do it. She knew what they were telling her was simply not true. She was scared and confused. After many hours of interrogation, with nothing to drink, exhaustion started kicking in. Amanda was trying to remember, she was trying to help but it just did not seem possible.
Then came another slap across the back of her head! You stupid liar! You were in the cottage! You will spend 30 years in prison! You are protecting a murderer! You will never see your family again! You will imagine that this happened!http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/p/illegal-interrogation-of-amanda-knox.html
She was NOT beaten: That was Kurt Knox's word, being slapped twice is hardly being beaten. And Patrick WAS beaten, gave a long description of his horrible beating, and sued for half a million!!
ETA: I recall Doug Preston had the account of how Patrick was kicked and beaten by ILE on his blog, but I cannot find it now.
The only claims that Patrick was beaten were published in the Daily Mail rag mag, and the article makes several other claims about Knox that are not true. It doesn't seem quite right to allude to some of the false information in the article as true, and simultaneously claim that another paragraph or two is false.
Patrick has not claimed that he was beaten, but there was a story in the rag mag that said he was. Are there any other sources (good ones) where Patrick claims he was beaten?
Preston can't keep his facts straight and has claimed that his questioning as a witness was 3 hours and now 2 hours. He interfered with an unsolved serial murder investigation in a foreign country and now acts indignant because the local police want to ask him what he's doing. What exactly did he think would happen if he went to a foreign country and interfered with a murder investigation?
- Status