Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3

[Nova]

I don't think Raffaele's comments about pricking Meredith with a knife were made during interrogation, but instead that he wrote them as part of his jail diary. As time goes on, it's more difficult to find the links, but I did find this:

"Raffaele Sollecito has written a prison diary in which he says the DNA of Meredith Kercher was only on his knife because they had cooked together

In one entry Sollecito referred to the eight-inch black handled knife, which was found in his apartment, with DNA from Meredith on the tip and Knox's near the handle.

He wrote: "The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

However police have spoken to several of Meredith's friends who have all told detectives that Meredith, from Coulsdon, Surrey, had never been to Sollecito's house.

Sollecito also wrote that he may have been framed by Knox."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...knife-because-he-pricked-her-while-cooking.do

Thank you, otto. This is very much the type of evidence that bothers me in this case.

How do MK's friends "KNOW" she "NEVER" was at RS's house? Were they monitoring her with an ankle bracelet? Or is it simply that MK never mentioned being there to these friends?

Whether he responded in interrogation or in writing later, the basic principle remains the same: a suspect is presented with supposedly "irrefutable" fact and feels compelled to invent an explanation. Guilty people do this, but sometimes so do innocent people under pressure, in the mistaken belief they are helping themselves.

 

[Nova]

Like Raffaele's voluntary written statement claiming that Meredith's blood was on the knife because of a dinner that never happened, Amanda voluntarily wrote a statement confirming that she knew Patrick was involved in Meredith's murder. These statements were made without any interrogation or coercion ... they were plain and simple lies that the two told when the evidence was pointing to them.

It would be a lovely and simple world if true culprits told lies and everyone else told the truth (as in mystery stories), but that isn't the world we live in and human beings are more complex than characters in stories.

As for coercion, it's true that most false testimony is given in the heat of aggressive interrogation, but the pressure of being a murder suspect doesn't evaporate immediately just because one leaves the interrogation room.

I am NOT saying I believe AK is innocent of involvement. I'm just saying that inconsistent and even false statements aren't the best proof of guilt.

 

[Nova]

Let's just make sure everybody reading this knows that the police telling him that is of your own imagination that you've freely admitted you don't know if they did or not. (Sometimes things here can get taken as fact when they aren't.)

That being said, so what? If that's how it went down then he made one mistake that a mountain of exculpatory evidence should overcome.

I believe it was more likely that they didn't press him as hard since he's the son of a very wealthy Italian.

Fair enough. Yes, absolutely, I was constructing an imaginary conversation to illustrate a point and tried to indicate as much. But as I said in my post to otto above, it doesn't necessarily matter whether the "irrefutable fact" is presented in interrogation, in the press or in the courtroom. A suspect may well become creative in response; it doesn't necessarily prove guilt.

We all like to think we would stick to objective truth under such pressure, but we don't really know.

As for how RS was treated, maybe he was treated less aggressively because of his class; but then again, maybe he was more sensitive to pressure. Who knows?

 

[otto]

IIRC, Lumumba was completely cleared. AK had made that whole thing up which is another problematic thing for them.

He was in jail for about 2 weeks. Amanda told her mother that she lied to police when she said that Patrick was a murderer. That conversation was caught on hidden surveillance. Edda did not tell anyone this crucial information, and police could not act on it until it was reported, or Amanda's statement was proven false. During Amanda's trial, Edda testified. During cross examination, she was asked why she did not tell anyone that Patrick was innocent. She said that she only spoke English, so she was unable to tell anyone. Basically, she claimed that it was her belief that no one in Italy would be able to understand her English if she reported that Amanda had lied - so she kept it secret.

Patrick was cleared because independent witnesses came forth and corroborated that Patrick was at his bar, or at home through the time that Meredith was murdered. As a result of Amanda's lies, he lost his business - which was his livelihood.

 

[otto]

Thank you, otto. This is very much the type of evidence that bothers me in this case.

How do MK's friends "KNOW" she "NEVER" was at RS's house? Were they monitoring her with an ankle bracelet? Or is it simply that MK never mentioned being there to these friends?

Whether he responded in interrogation or in writing later, the basic principle remains the same: a suspect is presented with supposedly "irrefutable" fact and feels compelled to invent an explanation. Guilty people do this, but sometimes so do innocent people under pressure, in the mistaken belief they are helping themselves.

Amanda and Meredith went to a concert in a church one afternoon. When they were there, Amanda first met and hooked up with Raffaele. Meredith left the concert before it was over and after Amanda and Raffaele connected.

Meredith was not particularly close to Amanda. In fact, on Halloween evening Amanda texted Meredith several times because she wanted to go to the parties that Meredith and friends were attending. Meredith avoided Amanda and did not invite her to join them. Amanda claims they were close, but independent reports suggest that Meredith distanced herself from Amanda shortly after meeting her. Meredith was very uncomfortable with Amanda's lifestyle and mentioned this to her friends. In particular, Meredith was upset about Amanda bringing different men to the cottage.

Amanda and Raffaele knew each other for no more than 10 days before the murder, but they became fast friends from the day they met - with Amanda pretty much moving in with him the day they met.

Raffaele and Meredith were not friends, and there was no day that Meredith could be placed at Raffaele's apartment. There was absolutely no reason for Meredith to go to his apartment, and she did not hang out with Amanda and Raffaele. The evidence may not sit well, but it is a fact that she was never at Raffaele's apartment. Meredith had a social life that did not include Amanda or Raffaele.

Raffaele had no reason to sit down, quietly in his cell, and write a big story about Meredith having dinner at his house during which he was playfully poking at her with a knife, and when he accidentally cut her. An innocent person simply states that the evidence is false. Patrick Lumumba was facing eye witness testimony accusing him of rape and murder, in jail for 2 weeks, and not once did he invent false stories, falsely accuse someone, or confess to murder. He is innocent, and he did not waiver from the truth regardless of questioning.

 

[otto]

It would be a lovely and simple world if true culprits told lies and everyone else told the truth (as in mystery stories), but that isn't the world we live in and human beings are more complex than characters in stories.

As for coercion, it's true that most false testimony is given in the heat of aggressive interrogation, but the pressure of being a murder suspect doesn't evaporate immediately just because one leaves the interrogation room.

I am NOT saying I believe AK is innocent of involvement. I'm just saying that inconsistent and even false statements aren't the best proof of guilt.

The report I linked certainly clarifies the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, and I can assure you that it does not rely heavily on the lies Amanda told. It does, however, take into consideration the fact that Amanda and Raffaele are liars in several situations. The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is largely circumstantial, and corroborated by several instances (more than the knife and bra clasp) of DNA evidence, footprint analysis, inconsistent statements, computer use that contradicts statements, absence of alibi and many other factors.

 

[Nova]

Nova, if you're interested in doing some serious (and sometimes very technical) reading about the case, there are two links on this page:

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/08/10/news/amanda-knox-motivation-document-first-english-tra

This link: http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

is a review of the court's finding during trial, and does touch on motive.

The translation was joint international effort by professional translators. Every stage of the translation was meticulously reviewed several times before publication. The translation was prepared so that English speaking people could understand the case. (no one was paid for the work)

Thank you so much, otto. I can't recommend these translations too highly!

I admit I was finally forced to skim a bit after reading 150 pages, but reading just a few pages should put to rest any notion that this was some sort of "kangaroo court."

I particularly appreciated the explanation of the charge of "slander" against Knox. That the Italian concept is closer to our "obstruction of justice" (my analogy, not the doc's) makes so much more sense to me.

That being said, one may still disagree with the judge's conclusions. (For example, personally, I'm none too impressed with the testimony that places Amanda in the shop on 11/2. I don't agree we know for a fact that MK would not have opened the door to Rudy, not if, for example, she had seen him with the boys downstairs. Kids do odd and sometimes foolish things.)

But what is most troubling is that after 300 pages of precision, the court gives as its reason for AK' and RS' involvement "choice of extreme evil." Now I realize there may be a translation problem there; perhaps that is an idiom which seems less vague in Italian. And of course under Italian law (as under American law) there is no requirement to prove motive.

Still, this case seems to come down to AK must have been involved because she's the only one who benefitted from the staged burglary. And yet it makes no sense--not even in the court's explanation--that AK or RS would have abetted RG in the rape or murder.

 

[Nova]

He was in jail for about 2 weeks. Amanda told her mother that she lied to police when she said that Patrick was a murderer. That conversation was caught on hidden surveillance. Edda did not tell anyone this crucial information, and police could not act on it until it was reported, or Amanda's statement was proven false. During Amanda's trial, Edda testified. During cross examination, she was asked why she did not tell anyone that Patrick was innocent. She said that she only spoke English, so she was unable to tell anyone. Basically, she claimed that it was her belief that no one in Italy would be able to understand her English if she reported that Amanda had lied - so she kept it secret.

Patrick was cleared because independent witnesses came forth and corroborated that Patrick was at his bar, or at home through the time that Meredith was murdered. As a result of Amanda's lies, he lost his business - which was his livelihood.

As far as I can tell, NOBODY believes Patrick had anything to do with the rape or murder. And, yes, AK's behavior and that of her mother were reprehensible.

 

[Nova]

Still, I have no problem with him 'THINKING', Gee, maybe she was there and I forgot.
But, when he claims to have PRICKED her while cooking with them... then he is lying to explain evidence (whether true or not).
Doubt, or questioning one's self is quite different than making up a story to fit the evidence. :snooty:

It seems the same to me.

But we have hundreds if not thousands of examples of false statements by suspects later exonerated. We know that people say desperate things under the pressure of a police investigation.

(And in fact, though perhaps not in this case, the police invite such fictions by telling suspects, "Well, we can clear this up if you can just explain this one thing to me...." I've seen that myself in taped interrogations shown on TV any number of times.)

 

[Nova]

Amanda and Meredith went to a concert in a church one afternoon. When they were there, Amanda first met and hooked up with Raffaele. Meredith left the concert before it was over and after Amanda and Raffaele connected.

Meredith was not particularly close to Amanda. In fact, on Halloween evening Amanda texted Meredith several times because she wanted to go to the parties that Meredith and friends were attending. Meredith avoided Amanda and did not invite her to join them. Amanda claims they were close, but independent reports suggest that Meredith distanced herself from Amanda shortly after meeting her. Meredith was very uncomfortable with Amanda's lifestyle and mentioned this to her friends. In particular, Meredith was upset about Amanda bringing different men to the cottage.

Oddly, that's not the impression I got from the document you sent me to read today. The first sentence, yes: they were not bosom buddies. But the court report quotes MK's friends as merely saying she complained about AK's not keeping the bathroom clean. They were basically roommates, not close friends; inflating that to a motive for murder is a stretch.

Amanda and Raffaele knew each other for no more than 10 days before the murder, but they became fast friends from the day they met - with Amanda pretty much moving in with him the day they met.

So MK would have had no problem with that, we'll agree.

Raffaele and Meredith were not friends, and there was no day that Meredith could be placed at Raffaele's apartment. There was absolutely no reason for Meredith to go to his apartment, and she did not hang out with Amanda and Raffaele. The evidence may not sit well, but it is a fact that she was never at Raffaele's apartment. Meredith had a social life that did not include Amanda or Raffaele.

I don't know what the standard of proof is under Italian law. But while I agree it isn't likely that MK had dinner at RS' house, it isn't impossible. It also isn't likely that AK or RS took one of his kitchen knives to AK's apartment (where there were plenty of knives, one assumes) just so that RG could use it as a murder weapon.

So either way, unlikely.

Raffaele had no reason to sit down, quietly in his cell, and write a big story about Meredith having dinner at his house during which he was playfully poking at her with a knife, and when he accidentally cut her. An innocent person simply states that the evidence is false. Patrick Lumumba was facing eye witness testimony accusing him of rape and murder, in jail for 2 weeks, and not once did he invent false stories, falsely accuse someone, or confess to murder. He is innocent, and he did not waiver from the truth regardless of questioning.

BBM: that simply isn't true, otto. Innocent suspects also invent fictions sometimes; they do so when they fear the truth will not be believed or, sometimes, when they don't know the truth, but feel they have to fill in the blanks.

By all accounts, Mr. Lumumba has behaved admirably in all of this.

 

[otto]

Thank you so much, otto. I can't recommend these translations too highly!

I admit I was finally forced to skim a bit after reading 150 pages, but reading just a few pages should put to rest any notion that this was some sort of "kangaroo court."

I particularly appreciated the explanation of the charge of "slander" against Knox. That the Italian concept is closer to our "obstruction of justice" (my analogy, not the doc's) makes so much more sense to me.

That being said, one may still disagree with the judge's conclusions. (For example, personally, I'm none too impressed with the testimony that places Amanda in the shop on 11/2. I don't agree we know for a fact that MK would not have opened the door to Rudy, not if, for example, she had seen him with the boys downstairs. Kids do odd and sometimes foolish things.)

But what is most troubling is that after 300 pages of precision, the court gives as its reason for AK' and RS' involvement "choice of extreme evil." Now I realize there may be a translation problem there; perhaps that is an idiom which seems less vague in Italian. And of course under Italian law (as under American law) there is no requirement to prove motive.

Still, this case seems to come down to AK must have been involved because she's the only one who benefitted from the staged burglary. And yet it makes no sense--not even in the court's explanation--that AK or RS would have abetted RG in the rape or murder.

Murder is something that rarely makes sense to people that are normal. From the sounds of it, and by Amanda's admission, they were drugged up the night of the murder. Amanda claims it was pot, and that her memory was erased as a result of smoking pot. I think many would disagree that pot erases memory, but still Amanda claims that she has no memory because of drug abuse that night.

When people are drugged up (and it should be noted that Raffaele did have prior contact with police because of using hard drugs) they are not acting normal. Amanda and Raffaele both demonstrated a prior tendency toward violence - Amanda through her writing, and Raffaele by dressing up and a history of interest in beastiality. Drugs and acts of violence (evil acts) often go hand in hand. Perfectly normal people can become completely irrational and dangerous under the influence of drugs.

Testimony about Amanda (blue eyed girl) being in the shop is questionable, but the receipts were found in Raffaele's apartment. The receipts were for cleaning products.

There are some parts of the trial, evidence and final report that I don't agree with, but in general, from looking at the big picture that has unfolded in the last 3 years, I have a hard time believing that the conviction of Amanda and Raffaele is all a big mistake that happened because the Italians are out to get Amanda.

Amanda should have listened to her aunt and hightailed it out of Italy right away.

When I heard that Amanda arrived at her cottage the morning after the murder, saw the front door open, and then had a shower in a bathroom where there was blood on the bath matt ... I really had to roll my eyes. Is that what she would have done in Seattle? If she arrived home to find the front door wide open, no one home, and blood on the bath matt, would she had a shower and then go to her boyfriends house, have brunch, and then mention something about the situation? That's a pretty crazy thing to do, but it doesn't mean she's a murderer. It's just not normal.

Did Meredith open the door for Rudy? She left her dinner party early because she was tired and had to prepare for an exam. Maybe she opened the door for Rudy. Let's suppose she did. Let's suppose that Rudy entered the cottage and attacked Meredith, used the toilet and forgot to flush, took Amanda's lamp out of her room and put it in Meredith's room, left bloody footprints that don't match his foot on the bathmatt, locked Meredith's bedroom door, ransacked Filomina's room but did not steal the laptop, then he broke the window, and then he left out the front door. That does not make much sense.

 

[otto]

Oddly, that's not the impression I got from the document you sent me to read today. The first sentence, yes: they were not bosom buddies. But the court report quotes MK's friends as merely saying she complained about AK's not keeping the bathroom clean. They were basically roommates, not close friends; inflating that to a motive for murder is a stretch.



So MK would have had no problem with that, we'll agree.



I don't know what the standard of proof is under Italian law. But while I agree it isn't likely that MK had dinner at RS' house, it isn't impossible. It also isn't likely that AK or RS took one of his kitchen knives to AK's apartment (where there were plenty of knives, one assumes) just so that RG could use it as a murder weapon.

So either way, unlikely.



BBM: that simply isn't true, otto. Innocent suspects also invent fictions sometimes; they do so when they fear the truth will not be believed or, sometimes, when they don't know the truth, but feel they have to fill in the blanks.

By all accounts, Mr. Lumumba has behaved admirably in all of this.

Amanda's family has inflated Amanda's relationship with Meredith to being close friends, and that was definitely not the case. There were two other roommates, and they were indeed roommates and little more.

Raffaele habitually carried knives, and in fact had a knife on him when his status was changed from witness to suspect. He had a knife collection and was known to always carry one or more. To think that they carried an 8 inch knife (that's tip of the blade to tip of the handle) with them that night seems strange, but who knows what they were thinking. Maybe Amanda thought that because Raffaele carried a knife it would be fun for her to carry one too - hard to say. I don't think anyone believes that they set out to murder someone, but instead that things got very out of hand that evening and Meredith ended up dead.

I have no doubt that Patrick Lumumba, from the Ivory Coast, was terrified during his ordeal. Still, nothing that happened during his arrest and incarceration caused him to say anything other than the truth. What could have happened to Amanda during those first couple of hours of questioning that was so frightening that she accused an innocent man of rape and murder?

She was ignoring Meredith's memorial service, eating pizza, flipping cartwheels, doing the splits and flirting with police officers shortly before her questioning. She claims she wanted to help police. When did the switch flip in her head from helping police to lying to police? In any case, her statements during the questioning were excluded from the proceedings. What was not excluded was her voluntary statement the following day where she re-stated that Patrick was a rapist and murderer. She had every opportunity in that voluntary statement to clarify that she was confused and told huge lies, but she did not do that ... instead, she confirmed the huge lies. What was she afraid of when she did that?

 

[Allusonz]

Where's the proof that Raf changed his story, BESIDES what Mignini says, BESIDES what you have heard. Where are the transcripts and recordings and such? Where is it?


In my opinion, yes, AND in the opinion of MANY others.

Amanda and Raf aren't considered convicted murderers, yet. At least, not until the appeals are over. Just FYI. And yes, I think it is just fine for a woman to claim she was hit by the police when she has been hit by the police. Are you suggesting that a woman that has been hit by the police shouldn't say anything in order to protect LE's worldwide reputation? I certainly hope not.

What is ridiculous is Mignini suing ANYONE for statements they made during testimony in a court of law. And even more ridiculous is people that would defend this kind of abuse of power (Mignini's favorite pastime) or people that fail to even comprehend that this is, in fact, what is happening.

Amanda Knox is innocent and being held hostage in an Italian prison.

Raffaele Sollecito is innocent and being held hostage in an Italian prison.

Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini are NOT innocent. Rudy is where he should be, for now. Mignini is not where he should be.

No amount of mudslinging will ever change these facts as I, and numerous others, see them. Amanda and Raf are as innocent as two people can be.

Mignini hasn't literally killed anyone, that we know of, true. But figuratively speaking he has murdered the young lives of two innocent people. That is where my dislike for him comes from. He is notorious for trying to steal lives with his overactive imagination, smoke and mirrors. Seriously, I think Mignini has gone bat$#!t crazy and he's not ever comin' back!

I agree, Mignini IS weird.

I could not of stated this any better, they are innocent

 

[otto]

Here is Amanda's voluntary written statement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

 

[Allusonz]

I'm sorry if I came across as intolerant of those with views that I do not agree with. I realize that the prevailing opinion of those who are inclined to believe in the "strong possibility" of Amanda's (and Raffaele's) innocence it that Giuliano Mignini is inherently corrupt and dishonest and any evidence present or interpretation of that evidence by anyone working under him, is not to be trusted. I can't respond to this because I can't vouch for Mignini's character. If some evidence comes to light that he has made it a practice of falsifying evidence or otherwise getting his "team" to use fraud to obtain convictions, I would certainly look at this in a different light. As it stands, there is just no reason for me to question the validity of that evidence.

As I have stated, what I am really interested in is the question of what really happened that night. I am operating on the assumption that the Perugian authorities are basically honest and all the evidence is presented in good faith.

I haven't seen anywhere where anyone has taken the position that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and Rudy was either a lone wolf or had "unknown" accomplices and backed their position up by evidence. Instead, they seem to attack the evidence or interpretation of that evidence as essentially unreliable due to the unreliability of the prosecution team.

I believe Giulano Mignini was convicted for "abuse of office" related to a separate murder investigation from 1968 - 1985

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6999196.ece

 

[otto]

Here's a diagram of Amanda's activities the morning that she returned to the cottage from Raffaele's apartment. She arrived to find the front door wide open. She went to her bedroom, where her bedside lamp is missing. It is on the floor in Meredith's bedroom, but plugged into the wall in the outlet just outside of Meredith's locked bedroom; beside the bathroom where Amanda showers. The bathmatt in the bathroom has a bloody footprint, but Amanda uses the bathmatt to scooch over to her bedroom after her shower. After showering, she goes to the other bathroom (bathroom 2) to dry her hair. While there, she sees the unflushed toilet, and does nothing about it. She then went to her bedroom, dressed, and left. She went to Raffaele's apartment and ate something with him. She then mentioned something about the situation at the cottage. Raffaele told her to call Meredith. Amanda called Meredith, but does not let the phone ring long enough for someone to answer. Amanda called Filomina too. Filomina was immediately alarmed to hear about things at the cottage and headed to the cottage right away, but Amanda did not call her back as requested. There is quite a bit of information in the report about Amanda's irregular or unusual phone contact with Filomina that day. Raffaele said that Filomina's bedroom door was open, but there some uncertainty about that. He said that he saw the broken window in the bedroom when he arrived at the cottage. If Filomina's bedroom door was open, there is no way that Amanda could not have seen the broken window and ransacked room. If it was closed, we still have to accept that Amanda was not concerned with the open front door, the blood on the bathmatt, her bedroom lamp, the toilet in bathroom 2, or anything else about the cottage that morning.

If you're more of a 3D person ...

 

[Nova]

Here is Amanda's voluntary written statement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

Either the worst lie ever by a guilty suspect or a classic example of coerced, false testimony under pressure. (The pressure of being a suspect, not necessarily because someone was looming over her at that moment.)

"I don't even remember being there, but you insist you have proof I was. In addition, I hear my boyfriend is telling you that my memory of being with him all night is false. So everyone around me is telling me my memory is wrong, so maybe the truth is really something else. "

otto says pot doesn't cause blackouts and he may be right. But not being as upstanding a citizen as otto, I can say from personal experience that pot plus alcohol can produce fleeting impressions such as Knox describes here.

That doesn't mean she is innocent. But IMHO using this statement as proof of guilt (which the trial judge says he did not) is to ignore the context in which it was created.

For what it's worth, Knox very clearly backs away from the Lumumba accusation several times in this writing before eventually reiterating it. Knox shouldn't have mentioned him in the first place, but if Italian LE kept him in jail for two weeks on the basis of statements like these, then Italian LE very much shares the blame for Lumumba's mistreatment.

 

[Nova]

Amanda's family has inflated Amanda's relationship with Meredith to being close friends, and that was definitely not the case. There were two other roommates, and they were indeed roommates and little more.

I don't know what all the Knox family has said, but your assessment of the relationship seems right to me and is consistent with the testimony of MK's friends.

Raffaele habitually carried knives, and in fact had a knife on him when his status was changed from witness to suspect. He had a knife collection and was known to always carry one or more. To think that they carried an 8 inch knife (that's tip of the blade to tip of the handle) with them that night seems strange, but who knows what they were thinking. Maybe Amanda thought that because Raffaele carried a knife it would be fun for her to carry one too - hard to say. I don't think anyone believes that they set out to murder someone, but instead that things got very out of hand that evening and Meredith ended up dead.

I have no doubt that Patrick Lumumba, from the Ivory Coast, was terrified during his ordeal. Still, nothing that happened during his arrest and incarceration caused him to say anything other than the truth. What could have happened to Amanda during those first couple of hours of questioning that was so frightening that she accused an innocent man of rape and murder?

Lumumba also knew he had an airtight alibi and didn't live in the room next to the dead girl. Knox, on the other hand, had no alibi other than a very new boyfriend who may have been asleep at the time of the murder, and who, so she heard, was throwing her under the bus in his testimony to LE.

You keep invoking Lumumba as he if were proof of how all innocent persons behave. The fact is he is not. Do I really need to drag out all the research on false confessions and coerced testimony, etc.? It's been repeatedly shown here in various WS threads that innocent persons are quite capable of saying stupid and untrue things under the pressure of official suspicion.

We all agree Lumumba is terrific and was badly treated. Why are we still discussing him?

She was ignoring Meredith's memorial service, eating pizza, flipping cartwheels, doing the splits and flirting with police officers shortly before her questioning.

My mother ignored my brother's memorial service, even though he lived with her all 33 years of his life. Think she murdered him?

The other behaviors may indicate immaturity; they may just indicate that as the only other roommate in town at the time of the murder, people were already beginning to look at her with suspicion and read things into everything she did.

She claims she wanted to help police. When did the switch flip in her head from helping police to lying to police?

Perhaps when they started telling her that what she was saying couldn't possibly be true. That's usually when it happens.

In any case, her statements during the questioning were excluded from the proceedings.

Fair enough. That is indeed what the report states.

What was not excluded was her voluntary statement the following day where she re-stated that Patrick was a rapist and murderer. She had every opportunity in that voluntary statement to clarify that she was confused and told huge lies, but she did not do that ... instead, she confirmed the huge lies. What was she afraid of when she did that?

Is this statement the one you cited above? The one where she talks about her questioning the previous day? Because she does not state that Lumumba is a rapist and murderer; she says she has vague impressions of seeing him at the house, impressions she isn't at all sure are real. And she does say she is confused--she says it over and over again. In fact, that's about all she says.

Could she have done a better job of exonerating Lumumba in that statement? Yes. But what I read is a girl trying to cast suspicion away from herself, but also remaining vague enough to keep Lumumba out of any real trouble. Doesn't make Knox an angel, but as I said above, Italian LE should be ashamed of themselves for arresting anyone on the basis of that statement.

 

[Nova]

Still, with reference to otto's post #592, re carrying knives: was RS known to go around carrying 8" kitchen knives?

'Cause that strikes me as really awkward and most likely to inflict injury on the one carrying the knife.

I realize the prosecution doesn't have to prove motive and doesn't have to explain every single artifact and oddity of a case, nor is it usually possible to do so.

But supporters of these verdicts should admit, I think, that there's a lot about this case that simply either makes no sense or requires tremendous leaps of faith.

The court report has AK and RS wandering off to her bedroom to have sex, leaving their friend RG with an frosty and annoyed MK, only to be interrupted by MK's screams when RG rapes her. AK and RS jump up and rush into MK's room where the attack is taking place, then "choose to commit extreme evil", according to the court summary. Fortunately, RS--or maybe AK--is wandering around with one of RS' kitchen knives, so the young lovers can join in the mayhem. Huh?

I'm beginning to think Steely Dan has the best idea: that AK and RS weren't necessarily involved in the rape or killing, but somehow thought they would be held responsible (maybe because they were high and paranoid?) and effected the cover-up. But if that's so, why hasn't one or both said so by now? (The answer may lie in Italian law, which I don't pretend to fully understand. There is a discussion in the trial report of how Italian law defines "continued association" (or similar words) in a crime, whereby one becomes responsible for the actions of another.)

It was wondered above why the Knox family cares about the reevaluation of evidence that seems to only help RS. Maybe it's because without the knife, the only evidence of AK's participation in the rape and murder is the inferred conclusion that she was in on the cover-up and must have done something she had to hide. Without the knife, what is there to tie either RS or AK to anything criminal before the cover-up?

And what is up with RG and toilets? As the court report notes, this wasn't the first time he neglected to flush!

 

[Nova]

Here's a diagram of Amanda's activities the morning that she returned to the cottage from Raffaele's apartment. She arrived to find the front door wide open. She went to her bedroom, where her bedside lamp is missing. It is on the floor in Meredith's bedroom, but plugged into the wall in the outlet just outside of Meredith's locked bedroom; beside the bathroom where Amanda showers. The bathmatt in the bathroom has a bloody footprint, but Amanda uses the bathmatt to scooch over to her bedroom after her shower. After showering, she goes to the other bathroom (bathroom 2) to dry her hair. While there, she sees the unflushed toilet, and does nothing about it. She then went to her bedroom, dressed, and left. She went to Raffaele's apartment and ate something with him. She then mentioned something about the situation at the cottage. Raffaele told her to call Meredith. Amanda called Meredith, but does not let the phone ring long enough for someone to answer. Amanda called Filomina too. Filomina was immediately alarmed to hear about things at the cottage and headed to the cottage right away, but Amanda did not call her back as requested. There is quite a bit of information in the report about Amanda's irregular or unusual phone contact with Filomina that day. Raffaele said that Filomina's bedroom door was open, but there some uncertainty about that. He said that he saw the broken window in the bedroom when he arrived at the cottage. If Filomina's bedroom door was open, there is no way that Amanda could not have seen the broken window and ransacked room. If it was closed, we still have to accept that Amanda was not concerned with the open front door, the blood on the bathmatt, her bedroom lamp, the toilet in bathroom 2, or anything else about the cottage that morning.

If you're more of a 3D person ...

Thank you so much for these and other links, otto. You are a prince!

As for Amanda, guilty or innocent, the fact that she discovers RG's "deposit" and doesn't instinctively flush it says a lot about her sense of cleanliness (even if we didn't have hearsay testimony that MK was irked by AK's sloppiness).

Apparently, AK was pretty oblivious. This makes it easier to believe she wandered through a crime scene, even several times, without taking much note or doing anything about artifacts such as drops of blood.