Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #6

[Allusonz]

I don't know, A. I'm using your "more than 40 hours over 4 to 5 days" figure. That seems plenty to me.

As for the length of interrogation on the night she accused PL, otto counts to the time AK was declared a suspect; you count to the time she signed her statement. I think.

yes i do count till when she signed as that would officially be the end time of the interrogation and IIRC that it was shortly after 5:45am that she was allowed to leave the room as per the testimony

 

[Allusonz]

Malkmus mentioned the statements and at the end of the last thread and am just trying to get them as I agree with him it is something that maybe we should look a little further into

 

[sherlockh]

Nova, that is pretty much the theory (except #3, see below). I understand you find some parts still hard to believe. So do I

3. AK admits to seeing Patrick (=RG) at the basketball courts at 9pm. She said, 'I saw him at the basketball courts. I saw him at the front door'. This indicates to me that RG followed AK shortly. Otherwise she wouldn't say she saw him at the front door (besides that the person on the CCTV images who I believe is AK is walking by herself). In that same 'confession', AK also says that they all came separately. MK arrives 5 minutes later.

 

[otto]

otto, the evidence that police interrogation results in false testimony an alarming amount of the time has been presented in detail. Suddenly, you announce you will consider nothing but evidence from Europe. If I can find studies from France, I'm sure you will insist on data from Italy, and then only from Umbria.

Malkmus has shown in considerable detail how the specifics of AK's statement and RS' statement include only info that fits the police theory at the time (a theory that later proved incorrect). This, plus the lack of new info in those statements, strongly suggests the suspects were responding to police prompts rather than telling the truth or any story of their own creation.

Yet you insist there was no coercion. I do not know the basis for this opinion of yours, since we have no tapes of the actual interrogations.

No one knows better than I how well you have researched this case. But on this particular subject, you seem unwilling to consider any evidence that might cast doubt on how AK came to make the unfortunate statements she made.

What I am saying is that Amanda only claimed that she was abused and beaten for 54 hours in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for falsely accusing an innocent man of murder. She chose to accuse Patrick, and I believe she did this because she expected that she would be allowed to leave the police station after "helping" police with a lie.

It's obvious that she lied to avoid taking responsibility. It's obvious that she knew no one would believe that she was "forced" to make the false accusation after 2 hours, so she lied and said that it was 54 hours. She embellished, just like she did with her confession, and stated that she was beaten ... another lie.

She makes three claims: she was beaten, she was interrogated for 54 hours, and she was coerced into lying. The third claim fits well with the first two ... however, the first two are lies, so the third no longer fits anywhere.

 

[Nova]

Nova, that is pretty much the theory (except #3, see below). I understand you find some parts still hard to believe. So do I

3. AK admits to seeing Patrick (=RG) at the basketball courts at 9pm. She said, 'I saw him at the basketball courts. I saw him at the front door'. This indicates to me that RG followed AK shortly. Otherwise she wouldn't say she saw him at the front door (besides that the person on the CCTV images who I believe is AK is walking by herself). In that same 'confession', AK also says that they all came separately. MK arrives 5 minutes later.

Got it. You believe her statements re PL were describing events that actually took place with RG. Thanks.

 

[otto]

I am having a truly difficult time here understanding where this 54 hours continues to come from.

I have personally never stated that Amanda Knox was interrogated over 54 hours. What I have personally stated and believe is that Amanda Knox was interrogated over 40 hours over a 4 - 5 days

I am having a very difficult time with my math. I am trying to figure out where my calculations are wrong. I THINK if i take 11:00pm - 5:45am that amounts to 6 hours and 45 minutes.

Thus i believe and it is my opinion that the interrogation was not 2 hours it was 6 HOURS AND 45 MINUTES as her statement was signed at 5:45am

I must state it is my opinion as I was not there in person and there are no audio/visual tapes available for my review

I posted the links a couple of days ago.

"But Knox's lawyers say the Seattle native only confessed to being at home the night of the murder after nearly 54 hours of intense interrogation without a solicitor or interpreter. She later retracted her statement."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/amanda-knoxs-lawyers-confident/story-fn6e1m7z-1225992691127

type "amanda knox" 54 hours into google ... there are loads of hits.

 

[Nova]

What I am saying is that Amanda only claimed that she was abused and beaten for 54 hours in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for falsely accusing an innocent man of murder. She chose to accuse Patrick, and I believe she did this because she expected that she would be allowed to leave the police station after "helping" police with a lie.

It's obvious that she lied to avoid taking responsibility. It's obvious that she knew no one would believe that she was "forced" to make the false accusation after 2 hours, so she lied and said that it was 54 hours. She embellished, just like she did with her confession, and stated that she was beaten ... another lie.

She makes three claims: she was beaten, she was interrogated for 54 hours, and she was coerced into lying. The third claim fits well with the first two ... however, the first two are lies, so the third no longer fits anywhere.

Except the claim of coercion is supported by other evidence and doesn't depend on AK being hit or interrogated for 54 hours.

So how long do you think AK spent talking to the police over the 4 days leading up to her arrest? Obviously, it was more than 2 hours.

(As for the claim of being hit, neither you nor I have any way of knowing whether it was true, was merely AK's perception of the truth (i.e., a tap became a blow in her mind because she was upset), or was an out-and-out lie. So I leave it out of the equation. It isn't essential to prove or disprove coerced testimony.)

 

[Allusonz]

What I am saying is that Amanda only claimed that she was abused and beaten for 54 hours in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for falsely accusing an innocent man of murder. She chose to accuse Patrick, and I believe she did this because she expected that she would be allowed to leave the police station after "helping" police with a lie.

It's obvious that she lied to avoid taking responsibility. It's obvious that she knew no one would believe that she was "forced" to make the false accusation after 2 hours, so she lied and said that it was 54 hours. She embellished, just like she did with her confession, and stated that she was beaten ... another lie.

She makes three claims: she was beaten, she was interrogated for 54 hours, and she was coerced into lying. The third claim fits well with the first two ... however, the first two are lies, so the third no longer fits anywhere.

weird even her own expert stated differently during the trial

Caltagirone brought up the fact that Amanda was interrogated by police for 41 hours over four days, and that that can lead to potential confusion in a high-intensity interrogation,"

Knox initially said she had spent night with Sollecito at his house, but later told police in the course of an overnight interrogation on Nov. 6that she had a confused recollection of being in the house on the night of the murder and hearing Kercher scream. Knox implicated a third person, Patrick Lumumba, a pub-owner she worked for, saying he was in the house too

http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/amanda-knoxs-stories-stress/story?id=8673957

 

[Nova]

I posted the links a couple of days ago.

"But Knox's lawyers say the Seattle native only confessed to being at home the night of the murder after nearly 54 hours of intense interrogation without a solicitor or interpreter. She later retracted her statement."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/amanda-knoxs-lawyers-confident/story-fn6e1m7z-1225992691127

type "amanda knox" 54 hours into google ... there are loads of hits.

I know it is common practice to attribute the remarks of lawyers to their clients, but since AK stands accused of being a chronic liar, perhaps it's important to note that the 54 hours figure comes from her attorneys, not from AK herself.

 

[Salem]

Guys - It appears frustrations and emotions are rising here and it's a bit concerning.

Would everyone please just take a step back and breathe?

Thanks,

Salem

 

[Nova]

weird even her own expert stated differently during the trial

Caltagirone brought up the fact that Amanda was interrogated by police for 41 hours over four days, and that that can lead to potential confusion in a high-intensity interrogation,"


http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/amanda-knoxs-stories-stress/story?id=8673957

10+ hours per day in a language I was still learning? I'd probably confess to anything.

 

[otto]

Except the claim of coercion is supported by other evidence and doesn't depend on AK being hit or interrogated for 54 hours.

So how long do you think AK spent talking to the police over the 4 days leading up to her arrest? Obviously, it was more than 2 hours.

(As for the claim of being hit, neither you nor I have any way of knowing whether it was true, was merely AK's perception of the truth (i.e., a tap became a blow in her mind because she was upset), or was an out-and-out lie. So I leave it out of the equation. It isn't essential to prove or disprove coerced testimony.)

What evidence is there of coercion? ... that police asked her who texted her? That's hardly evidence of coercion.

I don't care how many times over a period of 5 days Filomina, her boyfriend, or any of Meredith's friends were questioned over a 5 day period. It is irrelevant, just like it is irrelevant that Knox got loaded out of her mind five days before her false accusation.

There were plenty of witnesses to the questioning of Knox as a witness ... none of them saw her being beaten. The claims of being beaten were reduced to maybe someone touched her head during the 2, not 54, hours.

 

[Nova]

What evidence is there of coercion? ... that police asked her who texted her? That's hardly evidence of coercion.

I don't care how many times over a period of 5 days Filomina, her boyfriend, or any of Meredith's friends were questioned over a 5 day period. It is irrelevant, just like it is irrelevant that Knox got loaded out of her mind five days before her false accusation.

There were plenty of witnesses to the questioning of Knox as a witness ... none of them saw her being beaten. The claims of being beaten were reduced to maybe someone touched her head during the 2, not 54, hours.

Would you please let go of the claims of having been beaten? Nobody has brought them up except you; AK herself testified at trial that she was struck in the back of the head, which isn't the image usually conjured by the word "beaten" (in American English, we'd be more likely to say "struck"). And even so, AK claimed she felt pressured; she didn't claim she was mortally wounded or physically tortured.

Time of interrogation is NOT irrelevant simply because you say so. Experts (see Malkmus' link above) say exactly the opposite.

But the primary evidence of coercion is the content of the statements themselves: AK tells only those details that conform to the police theory at the time (which was erroneous); she offers no information not already assumed by the police (usually the first sign that a suspect is responding to LE prompts rather than telling the truth). Further evidence is found in the fact that AK begins to retract the statement almost as soon as she has signed it, i.e., as soon as the pressure from her interrogators lets up.

 

[miley]

brought over from the last thread - apologize for the late response

Salem: IIRC hair testing is not typically accepted as "scientific" in American courts (I could be wrong here). How do we know that A & R had their hair tested? Is that in the docs somewhere and I just missed it?

Salem: Okay - I see. The hair testing is just info, but totally unrelated to this case, right? In this case, A & R were never tested for cocaine use?
And yes, I agree, it would have been up to the prosecution to prove any drug use.

flourish:
I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: was she ever given a hair drug test?
How long do benzos (or its metabolites or other evidence of its use) stay in the hair?

flourish: I must have missed something in our previous conversations about the testing. I was under the impression that she was given one urine test several days after the murder and that was that.
When did the blood test(s) occur?

I'm not sure when the tests were given, but it looks like there were several - like Allisonz said, she was given an hiv test in prison

F. Sfarzo and others refer to Amanda & Raffaele being drug tested but testing for drugs through "hair samples" is specifically mentioned by Barbie N. in her book - this is why I googled 'hair' drug testing, the information I posted is from random info./sites and unrelated to the case in that sense.

Otto might have to clarify - the book says something like (referring to either A or R, I'm not sure) hair samples were taken and a very slight trace amount of a narcotic was detected (she immediately reiterates the fact that the amount was so trivial it was unidentifiable) since she mentions this, I'm able to say with almost 100% certainty she would've said if cocaine or another drug had been detected. (I don't know her source and no other journalist or judge, that I've come across, says this)

Also, if you consider judge massei's report, he only refers to their use of cannabis, no other drugs mentioned.

more...
(bolding by me)
(the FBI guy) Steve Moore:

Later, when I tried to prove Amanda’s guilt to my wife Michelle, I searched for proof of the wild sex party, the hard-drug use and the bleach purchase. I found that no such proof existed. The prosecution floated those stories to the press, yet had to know or at least find out at some point that those things had never happened. This is also where my suspicion began.
http://www.westseattleherald.com/20...agent-and-amanda-knox-supporter-steve-?page=8
​

Perugia Shock talking about how the drug test discredits the Italian article that recently claimed Amanda had phone contact (and possible sex) with a cocaine dealer on the days surrouding Meredith's death
Frank Sfarzo:

What importance could this report have? Technically none at all, since Amanda basically tested negative for drugs (only low traces of cannabis), therefore, didn’t need rehab therapy in jail. So useless you’re trying to say that she was a drug addict when it’s already acknowledged she was not.
And then the sex: not a crime. So why was it important for the police (not for a tabloid) to state she had sex with this guy? She presumably had sex, they wrote. Did she have sex with this guy or not? They seem to care a lot about this topic. But they don’t know, they can only presume...
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/01/amanda-knox-was-having-sex-with-guy.html​

Frank mentions blood/urine test here:

Indeed the right drug-test is a neuro-psychological test which basically checks memory and attention and, according to him, reveals if you are under cannabis effect better than blood/urine analysis. http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html
​

 

[flourish]

brought over from the last thread - apologize for the late response





I'm not sure when the tests were given, but it looks like there were several - like Allisonz said, she was given an hiv test in prison

F. Sfarzo and others refer to Amanda & Raffaele being drug tested but testing for drugs through "hair samples" is specifically mentioned by Barbie N. in her book - this is why I googled 'hair' drug testing, the information I posted is from random info./sites and unrelated to the case in that sense.

Otto might have to clarify - the book says something like (referring to either A or R, I'm not sure) hair samples were taken and a very slight trace amount of a narcotic was detected (she immediately reiterates the fact that the amount was so trivial it was unidentifiable) since she mentions this, I'm able to say with almost 100% certainty she would've said if cocaine or another drug had been detected. (I don't know her source and no other journalist or judge, that I've come across, says this)

Also, if you consider judge massei's report, he only refers to their use of cannabis, no other drugs mentioned.

more...
(bolding by me)
(the FBI guy) Steve Moore:

Later, when I tried to prove Amanda’s guilt to my wife Michelle, I searched for proof of the wild sex party, the hard-drug use and the bleach purchase. I found that no such proof existed. The prosecution floated those stories to the press, yet had to know or at least find out at some point that those things had never happened. This is also where my suspicion began.
http://www.westseattleherald.com/20...agent-and-amanda-knox-supporter-steve-?page=8
​

Perugia Shock talking about how the drug test discredits the Italian article that recently claimed Amanda had phone contact (and possible sex) with a cocaine dealer on the days surrouding Meredith's death
Frank Sfarzo:

What importance could this report have? Technically none at all, since Amanda basically tested negative for drugs (only low traces of cannabis), therefore, didn’t need rehab therapy in jail. So useless you’re trying to say that she was a drug addict when it’s already acknowledged she was not.
And then the sex: not a crime. So why was it important for the police (not for a tabloid) to state she had sex with this guy? She presumably had sex, they wrote. Did she have sex with this guy or not? They seem to care a lot about this topic. But they don’t know, they can only presume...
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/01/amanda-knox-was-having-sex-with-guy.html​

Frank mentions blood/urine test here:

Indeed the right drug-test is a neuro-psychological test which basically checks memory and attention and, according to him, reveals if you are under cannabis effect better than blood/urine analysis. http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html
​

Thank you, miley, for the additional information. Forgive me if this has been asked before, but what are the credentials of the guy who runs this "Perugia Shock" blog?

I guess what my question comes down to is this:
Is it possible that AK partook of a drug besides cannibis/hash on the night of the murder which may not have shown up in the drug/urine analysis due to the span of time between the partaking and the tox screen or for any other reason (heavy water intake, crazy concoctions sold at head shops, cranberry juice, Niacin, "detox" teas and concoctions, goldenseal, herbs, whatever)? I'm not asking if it's probable, but possible.

Believe it or not, I'm still a bit :fence: on this one. Now, mind you, I lean heavily to the guilty side, but at this moment in time, with the information I know right this second, I can't say that if I were on a jury I would vote for a conviction. That being said, obviously I'm not as well-read on this case as many of you, and I certainly don't have all the information the jury and judges, who did convict, had to assist them.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to be skeptical of a source entitled anything "Shock." Particularly when paired with "blogspot." No offense to you, miley, it may be a very credible source, but those two attributes are barriers for me, if that makes sense.

 

[Allusonz]

Thank you, miley, for the additional information. Forgive me if this has been asked before, but what are the credentials of the guy who runs this "Perugia Shock" blog?

I guess what my question comes down to is this:
Is it possible that AK partook of a drug besides cannibis/hash on the night of the murder which may not have shown up in the drug/urine analysis due to the span of time between the partaking and the tox screen or for any other reason (heavy water intake, crazy concoctions sold at head shops, cranberry juice, Niacin, "detox" teas and concoctions, goldenseal, herbs, whatever)? I'm not asking if it's probable, but possible.

Believe it or not, I'm still a bit :fence: on this one. Now, mind you, I lean heavily to the guilty side, but at this moment in time, with the information I know right this second, I can't say that if I were on a jury I would vote for a conviction. That being said, obviously I'm not as well-read on this case as many of you, and I certainly don't have all the information the jury and judges, who did convict, had to assist them.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to be skeptical of a source entitled anything "Shock." Particularly when paired with "blogspot." No offense to you, miley, it may be a very credible source, but those two attributes are barriers for me, if that makes sense.

Truly Flourish anything is always possible. We must also be logical about the information and the sources. It would be like asking RS if he could be 100% sure AK did not wake up, leave, and come back. There is no way either you or myself could with 100% certainty state that she did not just like RS could not as he stated he was asleep.

We have all seen the pictures of them around the cottage immediately after. We know they then went to give statements to ILE. I would imagine most were exhausted and hungry. She did go to class on the Monday, but as well we know that she spent 41 hours with ILE in a 4 day time span. Logic tells us that you must eat and sleep during the time she was not with ILE or at school. Thus i will assume over 4 days she spent approximately 10 hours with ILE per day out of 24.

We know she was given the blood/urine tests as confirmed by a number of sources. I did come across where they indeed took hair samples as well, but was looking for more verification before i would post that. I simply do not try to post things to mislead.

She was tested for HIV and told within 2 weeks of being arrested that she tested positive. Most of us know that it takes approximately 2 weeks for these tests to come back As is normal you must then supply the names of anyone you had any type of sexual contact with so they could be tested. It was leaked that she had sex with 7 individuals over a few months when in fact it was her lifetime. This was leaked to the press via her diary. Once they received the list of whom she slept with she was then told she was negative. She sat in prison thinking she had HIV for approximately a month before they told her she was negative.

Is it possible she could of taken some other drug that was not detectable and the answer would have to be yes. Is it probable with what we know about how sensitive the tox screens are and how many types of drugs and the length of time they can detect these drugs for. No.

Could she have tried to "cleanse" drugs out of her system. Yes. Is it probable? No.

We read about atheletes constantly trying to do this exact thing, whether it is the worlds, the Olympics, baseball, football etc.

There simply comes a point in time where we have to say what is truly realistic here. Realistically, it is not probable that she took any other drug than cannabis.

Here was the clincher for me. They detected the cannabis.

If the tests were done and picked up the cannabis, the other drugs should of showed as well.

If she had tried to cleanse the cannabis would not of shown up.

 

[Allusonz]

Guys - It appears frustrations and emotions are rising here and it's a bit concerning.

Would everyone please just take a step back and breathe?

Thanks,

Salem

Thanks for the fresh air :great:

 

[trillian]

Mmhh, I think I got that from a Daily Mail article. Long time ago. I found it

"Yes we were in the house. That evening we wanted to have a bit of fun. We were drunk. We asked her to join us."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oxy-changed-tune-night-Meredith-murdered.html

There is no official source and no byline there. After reading so many lies from the media (especially early in the case) I am reluctant just to believe what a paper says is true.

We know for a fact that the rest of the story in that article is not true, so why would this one line be true?

 

[otto]

I know it is common practice to attribute the remarks of lawyers to their clients, but since AK stands accused of being a chronic liar, perhaps it's important to note that the 54 hours figure comes from her attorneys, not from AK herself.

Wishful thinking.

The lawyer is not the liar, Knox is the liar.

The ever changing lies of Knox:

"C. KNOX: Amanda was actually questioned and interrogated for over 41 hours and it culminated in a 14-hour overnight, very aggressive interrogation. She told us she has never been more scared in her entire life. And at that stage in the game, you`re virtually willing to sign anything in order to get out of that situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That was Amanda Knox`s dad. And after that very long interrogation, Amanda pointed the finger at her boss, bar owner Patrick Lumumba, who turns out had an alibi. That false accusation is why she got 26 years and her boyfriend only got 25.

But her family says after 41 hours of being interrogated in a very brutal fashion, she was scared. And she may have changed her story and admitted to something she didn`t do because she was being browbeaten. "

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/08/ijvm.01.html

 

[otto]

"One resident who demanded anonymity told the Seattle Salmon, “It’s like a police state out here. You have to go to the legal defense fundraisers – like six last year – or else you are ostracized at the Westcrest Off-leash area.”

...

Is it just the fact that she is from West Seattle that creates such a fervor? Dr. Ursula Ordonez at Seattle University’s School of Psychology says yes and no. “Of course, West Seattleites are a shifty bunch. What are they hiding from out there? But, there is a deeper matter. They all know it could just as easily been one of their kids. Seattle is full of over-lenient parents raising dangerously self-entitled millennials. The trouble really starts when we export our handmade train wrecks to undefended countries like Italy,where they know how to parent”

Although none of the adults interviewed for this story could ever imagine a time when they would feel comfortable going public with their doubts, some are talking about forming a support group, anonymously and online."

http://theseattlesalmon.com/local-news/west-seattle-neighbors-secretly-think-amanda-knox-did-it