Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[wasnt_me]

I think you are exactly right. The "boogie" was an attempt to explain "smearing" that ILE told her they had found. The accusation of Patrick was a response to ILE insisting they have proof he was there. Still not right, but far short of evidence that she committed murder.

And continue in the same vein, RS' brief retraction of AK's alibi was in response to ILE insisting they had proof that AK was at the cottage that night.

What's really scary is how many cases (not just in Italy) are built with this exact chain of LE lies.

Yes, like someone else was saying, you keep hearing a conflicting version of something you really weren't paying that much attention to in the first place, and you start to question whether or not your own memory is right. Which was probably the case with RS. He had to start looking at the possibility that AK left when he was asleep or when he was in the bathroom or something like that.

As I said before, I've had these conversations with people plenty of times, where they swear something happened differently than I remember, and i keep telling the what really happened, but they are equally as confident with their version. Then after a while, I ( or they start) questioning what exactly I or they remembered. The mind is so weird like that. You think you're crazy sometimes when it happens and the other person is just completely adamant.

 

[wasnt_me]

yeah, that bathmat story...maybe that's why the MOT report just summarized it as she used the bathmat to get to her room. I readil assumed she used it to shield herself from the open door, but this other story....I can't think of anything but a cover, just like the knife story of RS's.

I don't know what made her tell this story because she gave it December 17th, before the luminol testing. if you look at the statement she gave on Dec 17th, she does phrase it more as if she used it in the manner I set forth, but then in court, her testimony becomes the bathmat boogie.

The

young American also has an explanation for these strange findings. She said this to the investigators during an interrogation in prison. you want to know about that morning? …When I woke up, I got up and Raffaele was still in bed. I got dressed and went to my house…I went into the house and closed the door… I went to my room, got undressed, went into the bathroom and had a shower….and I used the bathmat, on which there was blood, because I’d left the towels in the bedroom. I saw the blood on the bathmat and I dragged it into the bedroom to get the towels, then, I took it back to the bathroom and put my earrings in.. I saw the blood on the bathmat and in the washbasin but I didn’t think something terrible had happened.’ …

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39

With this story, she might have felt committed because she'd already seen the consquences of changing the story later.

I sincerely do not understand the importance or implications of her making this story up, but it is too fantasical for me to buy. I need to know what kind of evidence they presented her in the interrogation to figure out why she told this story. But no, I don't think it incinuates guilt, because had it been RS's footprint on it, or even hers, I'd have to believe they would have trashed it. The key to this might be in knowing what she told FR.

I guess everything DOES center around FR, because if before she returned to number 7, she'd told FR about blood on the bathmat, then we'd know she didn't make the story up just because she and RS had somehow overlooked this bathmat but had no chance to hide it before surprised by the postal police. I can only assume whether or nto FR asked for details other than blood in some spots.

Still, if she's making it up out of guilt, and she knows it's RS's footprint on there, seems she would have somehow concocted a story of how he'd gotten his print on it, rathr than telling this bathmat boogie story.

 

[Allusonz]

That's bull. Nothing is presented (from you or anyone else) as FACT regarding a 'plea-deal'... as there is no such thing. Settled.

Point of fact. When the inmates testified one had to keep his identity concealed cough due to a deal. Sorry do not believe anyone can state that deals are not made in Italy after that episode and it was covered world wide

 

[Allusonz]

yeah, that bathmat story...maybe that's why the MOT report just summarized it as she used the bathmat to get to her room. I readil assumed she used it to shield herself from the open door, but this other story....I can't think of anything but a cover, just like the knife story of RS's.

I don't know what made her tell this story because she gave it December 17th, before the luminol testing. if you look at the statement she gave on Dec 17th, she does phrase it more as if she used it in the manner I set forth, but then in court, her testimony becomes the bathmat boogie.

The

With this story, she might have felt committed because she'd already seen the consquences of changing the story later.

I sincerely do not understand the importance or implications of her making this story up, but it is too fantasical for me to buy. I need to know what kind of evidence they presented her in the interrogation to figure out why she told this story. But no, I don't think it incinuates guilt, because had it been RS's footprint on it, or even hers, I'd have to believe they would have trashed it. The key to this might be in knowing what she told FR.

I guess everything DOES center around FR, because if before she returned to number 7, she'd told FR about blood on the bathmat, then we'd know she didn't make the story up just because she and RS had somehow overlooked this bathmat but had no chance to hide it before surprised by the postal police. I can only assume whether or nto FR asked for details other than blood in some spots.

Still, if she's making it up out of guilt, and she knows it's RS's footprint on there, seems she would have somehow concocted a story of how he'd gotten his print on it, rathr than telling this bathmat boogie story.

Well dang!! What am I going to call my bathmat boogie now? I concede I do this with a towel to clean up the excess water on the floor but I have done this very thing since young

I need a new song!!! (preferably with boogie in it):innocent:

 

[Allusonz]

Yes, like someone else was saying, you keep hearing a conflicting version of something you really weren't paying that much attention to in the first place, and you start to question whether or not your own memory is right. Which was probably the case with RS. He had to start looking at the possibility that AK left when he was asleep or when he was in the bathroom or something like that.

As I said before, I've had these conversations with people plenty of times, where they swear something happened differently than I remember, and i keep telling the what really happened, but they are equally as confident with their version. Then after a while, I ( or they start) questioning what exactly I or they remembered. The mind is so weird like that. You think you're crazy sometimes when it happens and the other person is just completely adamant.

So very true. I call it my normal state of confusion and then rest my case. I can though see why each of them would question or try to find explanations thinking they had been told facts when in fact most were lies

 

[Allusonz]

I agree.

And this is OT, but may I express my sympathy to anyone anywhere who has to wear a bra? I've never tried one on, but those things look damn uncomfortable. Hot, too.

Dang Nova I would not wish that on my worse enemy :giggle: but you could "try it" teasing of course

 

[Allusonz]

I really think PS never found the dna on the bra clasp to start with, but if they have to prove contamination in court, I'm just reviewing where it could ahve come from. I think she had no clue what she was doing with mixed DNA samples, and she didn't ever even find RS's dna on the clasp. but if somehow I'm wrong and she did find it, I'm guessing contimination had to be it.

but as far as nothing else being contiminated, we don't know if anything else was. we just don't. I'd call to retest everything, seriously. But On December 18th, they also collected the purse, the bloody jacket, I believe the pillow was still in there, they got the mop, obviously. And I don't know what else, but then they did the luminol testing that night, as well. So all that dang on evidence sat up in there 47 days.

Oh, and other things were contiminated. the towels were so degraded, they couldn't even be tested. I wish the towels could have been tested.

Nova brought up a point of asking were other "purse type things" found in the room. I dn't know the answer to that, but I'm thinking an empty purse on a bed during a "robbery" would mean everything in the purse was taken. If they took the pictures exactly as the bed was, then my question is why aren't the contents of her purse all over the bed or the floor? It was a good sized bag, so she had to have crap in it. if a robber is in a hurry, he dumps the whole purse on the bed and takes what he wants, leaving chapstick, lipstick, lotion, gum, receipts, hygeine products, and whatever else can be in a purse on the bed. OR he dumps it all in his bag to sort out later. I find it odd that he'd dump out the purse and stack the stuff neatly somewhere in the house. Like I said, viewing the pictures, there does not appear to be purse like stuff around the bed. I'll look again though tomorrow to be sure.

I can be wrong, nova, and everyone else, so that's why I need your comments on my little theories.

We are talking what 47 days later? With her clothes tossed in a heap? Her stuff thrown into the garbage? How many forensic/ILE in the cottage? How many people in there from the 2 known break ins? I am amazed we have not seen a full blown profile from contamination

 

[Allusonz]

*So they told her she would get 30 years if she DIDN'T admit Patrick murdered Meredith... but it really was 30 years if she DID accuse Patrick of the murder AND ADMITTED SHE WAS THERE! Admitting you were at a murder scene and let the murderer in the cottage... is NOT a way out of being charged. :innocent:

RG got his sentence due to taking the FAST TRACK trial instead of a full trial.
Spinning it into a so-called 'plea bargain' is not representing the facts.

I believe that it was actually more unreal to her than real. I am not quoting her exactly but from memory but sorry not buying she admitted being there when she does not even know if they were real, dreams, or things she was imagining

 

[Allusonz]

I found this in a FORUM, but it seems like it would be legitimate. If I remember correctly, this might have been in the initial period where they were deciding whether or not to go to trial? I think her story was different at trial?

GB: Do you remember how you slid with the bathmat? When you took it from the
bathroom to your room, did you have both bare feet on it or just one foot.

AK: Sometimes I...heh heh...by mistake, I put my foot on the floor like this,
but I tried -- I slid along trying to kind of make little jumps with the
bathmat, but I didn't quite succeed.

GB: But it can be said that you were pressing on the bathmat with your foot?

AK: Yes.

This is the story I find bizarre. You have four options with bizarre stories:

1) The story is true, because truth is sometimes stranger than fiction (i.e. they both had legitimate reasons to turn their cell phones off).

2) The story is false, but they think it is true. Their memory is imperfect and they are engaging in the dangerous territory of telling a story they aren't 100% positive of (i.e. what you see when someone talks about driving to work "I'm sure I went the exact speed limit, well, maybe 5 mph over, well maybe I sped... well, actually I'm on auto-pilot the whole time I don't know what happened).

3) The story is false, they know it is false. They are innocent and frightened of going to jail.

4) The story is false, they know it is false. They are guilty and telling a story to fit the evidence so they won't go to jail.

That's pretty much the options. There are several versions of 2: the mild form that most people do (I saw my friend yesterday, oh wait, the day before.) And the severe form (I saw my friend yesterday and she invited me to coffee and she punched me in the face. Oh wait, none of that happened.) I call this "the sensationalist." Then there is "the fear-induced" which is the examples we have seen with false confessions (i.e. the guy who said he murdered his son, and believed it, when he had in fact done no such thing).

The bathmat story is a fantastic story. I tend to believe it is false, but I also believed the sink was a false story, and after review it appears to be true.

So I wonder which option is the true one for the bathmat story? 1, 2, 3 or 4. I guess we'd need to know when she told the story, if she changed it, and what the story was in response to. If she told the story of hopping on one foot prior to the luminol results being known, then it is likely a true story. Otherwise... ?

Sorry I am chuckling. As stated previously I have done this since I was young. Maybe I thought I was superman or simply that my mother was a neat freak perfectionist and you did not dare leave a drop of water on the floor after a shower or bath. Thus it became a game for me. You don't slide well though rofl

If and i say if she has ever done this she probably expanded on it I would think

 

[Allusonz]

Remember way back many posts ago we talked about AK using the bathmat as a towel because there was no towel to use, and how we thought that was gross...

Truly OS it would not matter if she had used it as a towel or not. This way she used a bloody bathmat the other way she would of been vilified for running naked in her own home.

This was a no win situation

 

[Allusonz]

Agreed. This is such a complicated case that it's impossible not to make unwanted allowances whether for the defence or for the prosecution. I tend to err on the side of empathy as I find that often it can become obvious when this empathy is misplaced, but only if you allow yourself to suppose something in the first place. Saying no to everything tends to get you no insight.

True. As much as we think everything down to the last item should make sense I have rarely if ever seen an instance once a trial is over that has accounted for everything that was questioned. Some things simply have nothing to do with the actual event while others do

 

[Allusonz]

Even when you tell the absolute truth in a police interview, and have done nothing wrong that you are aware of, you can still find yourself in hot water if you are not speaking through an attorney.

Below is a seminar given by a law professor in part one, and a LEO with decades of experience in getting incriminating statements out of suspects in part two. Both convey the same general message: shut up, get a lawyer or take a real risk of winding up in jail, even if you believe yourself to be totally without fault.

‪Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1‬‏ - YouTube

‪Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2‬‏ - YouTube

Sorry if this seems a bit off topic, but I felt that it fit the thread because of certain people's insistence that innocent people don't get in trouble when they talk to the police. Mind you, this seminar does not deal with the more questionable approaches to interrogation (which tend to be the ones that mysteriously aren't recorded, hmmm...), but that works well because they demonstrate how bad it can get just from totally normal, legitimate questioning.

And to make this more of a response to the quoted post, I think that this type of presentation would be great in a required high school civics class.



ETA: I should note that if you believe yourself to be innocent of wrongdoing, you are doing LE a favor by speaking through a lawyer as well as yourself - the reason being that investigating mistaken or innocent but seemingly suspicious statements can use up a lot of a LEO's valuable time and resources.

I watched these videos some time ago I believe it was around the time of the Ryan Ferguson trial. First must state I did not think a lawyer could make so much sense that fast in that short period of time. Yet they still had people fall into the trap.

It was very interesting from a LE's perspective at how something that seems so innocent to you takes on a totally different perspective for them. You are right this is a very valuable tool.

OT I wonder why the LE decided to go into law?

 

[Allusonz]

Yes, of course. and that's in the Mot Report (as believable as it can be.) So I still don't understand where this sliding on the bathmat statement comes from. I never read if before and it makes no sense that she did both things. So which is it? Used it as a towel or slid around on it when she had more important things to do? Why would she be compelled to tell this story? Because they told her that her foot prints were on it?

I need a cite on this story. I'd asked for it time and time again, but no one gives it to me.

It was from one of the earlier hearings IIRC

 

[Allusonz]

New blog of Franks up

"Going Simple

They didn’t follow scientific principles that, I admit, are a bit complicated when they are taken from quantum physics or analytic philosophy. But there is a very basic scientific principle (if we want to call so an obvious assertion): every scientific test has a rate of possible error.
Saying it more simply: every test can be wrong. Even if I spell it out in my own (analytical) way: only logic validates a scientific test.
Do you think Mignini & co. were able to respect at least this very basic principle?

Before answering let’s look again at why we didn’t need a scientific dissertation on the DNA tests to prove them wrong, but they have always been invalid, by means of logical standards."

http://perugiashock.com/

 

[Allusonz]

I disagree and have cited several sources (to your none) explaining why. If you're truly worried about facts being misrepresented then it seems like you'd at least try to settle this debate. Currently you've added nothing.


I've never presented this as fact, if you think it's spinning, then take it up with Barbie Nadeau

I believe miley all your research was proven right in Court when the one testified so as not to reveal his identity. There are deals made in ILE. If not there would of been no reason to protect his identity

 

[miley]

Since we have corroboration of police brutality from Mr. Lumumba, why is anyone doubting Amanda's account of a simple slap to the back of the head in her interrogation?

just to make clear, in my other post, I was making the connection with
both (A & P) having similar stories regarding what LE said would happen if they did/didn't confess (30 years/half of 30 etc.) and as far as I know, something LE has never denied

they do deny hitting amanda. I'm not sure about Patrick..

His lawsuit against Amanda may have had something to do with it .. since both trials ran in unison, the same jury sitting for both, I'm not sure how it would have looked if he had corroborated anything she said .. later he sued LE (and won both)

also, if you recall, after the dailymail article was published, he denied the report. He said so in an interview with Frank, maybe elsewhere, I can't remember. .. it does have some erroneous info. but currently, I'm in the position of it being more horse's mouth. It's been over 3.5 years and the article is still cited - apparently, no worries over liability. As far as I know, no slander suit has emerged so maybe they are all treading lightly .. if so, in my opinion, speaks for itself.

I think there's corroboration with the confessions.. in Franks interview with Patrick - remember the whole thing about the pings and how LE accused PL of being near the cottage and switching cell phones - ultimately, he confessed to switching phones (but actually, he hadn't!)

Let me see it I can find that interview

 

[Nova]

yeah, that bathmat story...maybe that's why the MOT report just summarized it as she used the bathmat to get to her room. I readil assumed she used it to shield herself from the open door, but this other story....I can't think of anything but a cover, just like the knife story of RS's.

I don't know what made her tell this story because she gave it December 17th, before the luminol testing. if you look at the statement she gave on Dec 17th, she does phrase it more as if she used it in the manner I set forth, but then in court, her testimony becomes the bathmat boogie.

The

With this story, she might have felt committed because she'd already seen the consquences of changing the story later.

I sincerely do not understand the importance or implications of her making this story up, but it is too fantasical for me to buy. I need to know what kind of evidence they presented her in the interrogation to figure out why she told this story. But no, I don't think it incinuates guilt, because had it been RS's footprint on it, or even hers, I'd have to believe they would have trashed it. The key to this might be in knowing what she told FR.

I guess everything DOES center around FR, because if before she returned to number 7, she'd told FR about blood on the bathmat, then we'd know she didn't make the story up just because she and RS had somehow overlooked this bathmat but had no chance to hide it before surprised by the postal police. I can only assume whether or nto FR asked for details other than blood in some spots.

Still, if she's making it up out of guilt, and she knows it's RS's footprint on there, seems she would have somehow concocted a story of how he'd gotten his print on it, rathr than telling this bathmat boogie story.

Frankly, I think if AK had any reason to believe RS was involved in the murder, she would have said so by now. It isn't that hard for a female to lay the blame for a sex crime on the men involved. Why would AK continue to cover for them?

 

[miley]

Hey Allusonz! I've been missing your late night insight.

 

[Nova]

Dang Nova I would not wish that on my worse enemy :giggle: but you could "try it" teasing of course

Oh, no you don't! I know a "slippery slope" when I see one.

If I try on a bra, then you'll want me to try on panty hose and before I know it you'll have me "tucking"! (I don't even want to know how that is accomplished.)

I can't even figure out how women button their blouses, what with the buttons being on the wrong side and all. I'm not going near the rest of the gear!

 

[Nova]

Sorry I am chuckling. As stated previously I have done this since I was young. Maybe I thought I was superman or simply that my mother was a neat freak perfectionist and you did not dare leave a drop of water on the floor after a shower or bath. Thus it became a game for me. You don't slide well though rofl

If and i say if she has ever done this she probably expanded on it I would think

Ceramic tile is the norm here in the desert and it is slippery when wet. I do the "bathmat boogie" nearly every day from the shower to the sink in order to shave.