Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[Malkmus]

I would be reluctant also if you see how the witnesses are attacked in this case. It is true that he did tell his co-worker, Chiriboga right away that he saw Amanda that morning. The appeal court (CAA) does not mention the testimony of the co-worker and gives no explanations for leaving it out. It is part of the SC appeal.

Funny they don't actually quote her then. It would go against the police's testimony that he didn't mention her coming in after the murder, and also said he saw her and Raf before they had even met. He also says he wasn't shown photos of them and Chiriboga contradicts him on this, as does the police's testimony. Here are actual quotes.

The above example is merely the contradictory result of a partial reading of the testimony of the witness. Specifically, at the hearing of 21.03.2009 (transcript, p.83), Sollecito's defence asked: "The specific question is this. Did Inspector Volturno come with photographs of Amanda and Raffaele?" Quintavalle responded "With photographs, no, I don't think so". Inspector Volturno questioned about the same set of circumstances, however, declared "A few days later we tracked down the Conad-Margherita shop situated at the beginning of Corso-Garibaldi, where the owner recognized the photographs we showed him, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a regular customer of the store, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his company" (transcript of the hearing on 13.03.2009, pp.177 and 178). Yet, on being asked "Did Inspector Volturno ask you if you knew Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox?" Quintavalle replied, "About Amanda they didn't ask me, that is, they did not ask me if Amanda came to the shop" (transcript of the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.83). This fact was contradicted by the declarations from his assistant, Ana Marina Chiriboga, who, when asked by Knox's defence, "When the police came and spoke with Marco Quintavalle, they didn't speak with you the first time. What did Marco Quintavelle say about this interview? Of what did they speak?", replied, "Nothing, he told us that they asked him if he knew Amanda and Raffaele. Since we had already seen a bit on TV, so we commented" (transcript from the hearing on 26.06.2009, p.54). And again, to the question of the defence, "So they had arrived. What did he say?", "That he knew them", Chiriboga replied precisely, "Yes, ah, they wanted to know if he knew them? Him, yes, he said he knew them, but I said I didn't, also my colleague said that..." (transcript hearing 26.06.2009, p.55), and to the further question, "Quintavalle replied that he knew Amanda and Raffaele, yes?" the witness replied "Yes" (transcript of the hearing 26.06.2009, p.56). Therefore, we do not see how it is possible for the motivations to affirm that Quintavalle did not report to have seen Amanda Knox the morning of 2 November only because he was not asked" (pp 75 and 76 of the motivations).

 

[wasnt_me]

Likewise you don't need a lot of blood for a positive TMB test, something in the range of a few blood cells. The photos clearly show that the Luminol is acting up to all sorts of things at the crime scene and highlights the importance of needing a confirmatory test to determine what it is. I think the photos and your lack of an explanation speak for themselves.

Hey, Malk. Can't believe this is still in debate (the whole case), but I posted a LONG time ago that the luminol will do what it did on the pictures in evidence because it has been applied incorrectly. Just do research on what happens when a tech misapplies it. The techs at this scene put way too much luminol on the floor, and the splashes clearly indicate that they were sloppy, and there is NO excuse in the world for the luminol to light up the ruler and the tech's booty--except that they botched the test.

We have seen plenty of pictures of videos of how those techs handled that crime scene and not very much of what they collected would be usable to me. But we've been over this, I thought.

 

[wasnt_me]

The contamination: Rudy's evidence was very strong and some of it may have been contaminated - there were hundreds of samples taken - but there was no need to contest it because his presence there that night is undisputed, even by him. The evidence against AK and RS was not strong and there were many DNA samples not contested by the defense as being contaminated. The LCN DNA samples found on the knife and bra clasp were contested and each had their own problems outside of just being an extremely low amount susceptible to misinterpretation. You might ask yourself why the prosecution withheld the raw data from the defense which would show how they arrived at their conclusions. The police should have full disclosure if truly seeking the truth.

On this, we gotta disagree a bit. For me, I'm willing to say that some of RG's evidence is contaminated and that might make the case against him weaker. But the truth of the matter is, the police messed that investigation up so thoroughly that yeah, RG might have had a legit appeal case.

I know that RG placed himself there, but at one point, AK placed herself there. So because of false confessions, I can't take RG's word for anything.

 

[wasnt_me]

You just said: "It was most likely Amanda's own blood that she had on her foot". So which is it?

Murder of Meredith Kercher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Filomena recalling they didn't use bleach is very different from any of the girls spraying a cleaning product that contained some bleach in it to clean the bathtub. Neither judges requested a list of cleaning products used so we don't know which products may or may not have had bleach. If someone asks me if I use bleach at my home I would say "no", never thinking to mention there might be some in my bathroom cleaning sprays. And the bleach question was posed in relation to the notion that Amanda and Raf cleaned the blood up with bleach bottles and had nothing to do with the luminol prints.

Right. I don't clean with bleach, but I do use soft scrub, which has bleach in it. That's the only cleaner I know for sure has it in there. For others, I'd have to go read the labels, and I think the roommates are just as likely as me to have to check every single label before saying with certainty that nothing contained bleach.

This whole argument is not needed because there was no clean up evident in the hallway. Luminol picks up foot prints not visible to the naked eye. Visible to the naked eye WITHOUT luminol were bloody shoe prints of rudy's going right out the front door. So where's everyone else's prints? How to RS and AK manage to leave nothing--but barefoot prints with NO blood on them. Not even faint blood like on Rudy's shoes.

RG's shoe prints are all over MK bedroom. Not RS and not AK. How is this so? How can AK and RS participate in a murder without stepping in any blood, but RG stepped totally in it?

Seems to me that the "fishy" evidence that people "think" convict AK and RS is not nearly as prevalent as the "fishy" evidence that does NOT exist but should exist if these two committed the crime. JMO.

I'd also like to add that I don't trust any of the DNA evidence in the case. Maybe I'd be more likely to trust the really strong DNA readings. But after what happened with that knife and bra clasp, I can't really trust them talking about DNA in foot prints around the house. Sorry.

 

[wasnt_me]

BBM.

I don't know if that's true in Italian courts, (although I have far too much respect for the Italian criminal justice system to believe it), but it is certainly not true of any court in my country, and any other respectable criminal justice system I know of.

You simply cannot present luminol as evidence of blood, unless you have corroborative evidence, either from confirmative scientific tests or other strong circumstantial evidence that stands alone. Only with that corroboration can a luminol reaction be placed into the context of all the other evidence presented by the case for the prosecution.

I feel this way. You can present whatever you want. Whether the judge will allow it, or the opposing team will call you on it and demand the backup tests, well, that's another story. But you are right. It is only half the story and any competent lawyer and court will not allow half the story to be admitted as evidence.

I imagine the moment the opposing counselor told the jury that it was only half the story and did not have the second part, the jury wouldn't be considering it. Either that, or like in my country, the opposing counsel will have its own conclusive tests done, and they'd submit it into evidence. So I really don't think half the story's gonna get told--as it did NOT get told in AK's trial. The whole story eventually came out.

 

[Malkmus]

On this, we gotta disagree a bit. For me, I'm willing to say that some of RG's evidence is contaminated and that might make the case against him weaker. But the truth of the matter is, the police messed that investigation up so thoroughly that yeah, RG might have had a legit appeal case.

I know that RG placed himself there, but at one point, AK placed herself there. So because of false confessions, I can't take RG's word for anything.

We're only slightly in disagreement here. I said some of Rudy's DNA evidence could also have been contaminated, but the bottom line is that Rudy was caught because his fingerprints made in Meredith's blood were found at the scene of the crime and he has never to this day denied being there that night. It would be futile to argue contamination of the DNA evidence after that point. If AK or RS's fingerprints were found in blood this would be a very different story.

And nice to see you again in here, WM!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Hey, Malk. Can't believe this is still in debate (the whole case), but I posted a LONG time ago that the luminol will do what it did on the pictures in evidence because it has been applied incorrectly. Just do research on what happens when a tech misapplies it. The techs at this scene put way too much luminol on the floor, and the splashes clearly indicate that they were sloppy, and there is NO excuse in the world for the luminol to light up the ruler and the tech's booty--except that they botched the test.

We have seen plenty of pictures of videos of how those techs handled that crime scene and not very much of what they collected would be usable to me. But we've been over this, I thought.

BBM:

JMO, but unfortunately, this "whole case" will always be in debate, particularly here in the US, because of the very underhanded tactics of a well-paid PR Team hired by the Knox-Mellas clan, as well as the tactics and LIES of AK, RS, and their families ... which behavior of the families was absolutely atrocious !

IF you are "innocent" there is absolutely NO need to hire a PR Firm to "lobby" the media to "get them on your side" -- and -- do what the media does best : and that is SPIN !

And "SPIN" IMO, includes making the so-called "facts" of your "story" FIT what you WANT it to fit ... and it also includes leaving out IMPORTANT FACTS that are irrefutable ... And the American Press has clearly done this in this case ... the important FACTS that the US media FAILED to report on are NUMEROUS !

Sadly, the "paid for" coverage of this case here in the US "paints" AK and RS as the "victims" ... BUT

There is only ONE VICTIM here ... and that is Meredith Kercher ...

:rose: May she Rest in Peace :rose:

lease: I have confidence that the Italian Supreme Court will DITCH the non-sense contained in Hellman !

And Justice will prevail for Meredith ...

:moo::moo::moo:

 

[Malkmus]

BBM:

JMO, but unfortunately, this "whole case" will always be in debate, particularly here in the US, because of the very underhanded tactics of a well-paid PR Team hired by the Knox-Mellas clan, as well as the tactics and LIES of AK, RS, and their families ... which behavior of the families was absolutely atrocious !

Considering that everyone on here who debates from the perspective of the pair being innocent has continuously argued their points from the known facts, I'm curious how you've come to the conclusion that the debate continues only because of how the American media has apparently spun the case. Is there someone on here who's been posting myths? Please point them out as I love fact-checking!

As far as the lies from the family, are they like the lies of Casey Anthony's where the mom was caught lying about typing chloroform some eighty plus times? Let's get to the bottom of these lies!

IF you are "innocent" there is absolutely NO need to hire a PR Firm to "lobby" the media to "get them on your side" -- and -- do what the media does best : and that is SPIN !

"Spin" as in saying Amanda was caught on CCTV going to the cottage that night when it could be anyone? Or like Amanda showering in a blood soaked bathroom using a picture of pink dye presented as blood? Or spin like posting a picture of Amanda posing in front of a gun at a museum to paint her like a maniac? Maybe it's spin like the article printed saying the police found receipts for bleach bought the morning after the murder? Or maybe the article saying Amanda's prints were found on Meredith's face? Or maybe Patrick saying he fired her, which he later denied saying? Or maybe when the press printed that the washing machine was found still running and warm when really what Filomena said was that the clothes in the machine were damp from Meredith running it the night before? Maybe you're talking about the article printed saying Amanda had sex with a stranger on a train, an exaggeration of her Myspace entry where she detailed "meeting" a man on a train? Or could be you're referring to the article saying she'd slept with seven guys in Italy when really she'd made a list of all her partners ever after being given a false positive on an AIDS test? Or perhaps the mistranslated diary entries that twisted Amanda's words to make her say that she knew Raffaele killed Meredith, posted by members here in the past and very begrudgingly accepted to be false?

I could go on and on... It doesn't take much more than this to understand why her family would need to combat the spin of the press. I would hope my family would do the same.

And "SPIN" IMO, includes making the so-called "facts" of your "story" FIT what you WANT it to fit ... and it also includes leaving out IMPORTANT FACTS that are irrefutable ... And the American Press has clearly done this in this case ... the important FACTS that the US media FAILED to report on are NUMEROUS !

This reads like someone who is unaware that that an Italian court also found them innocent. I'd like to know some of these "important facts that are irrefutable" that must prove how the pair are in fact guilty.

Sadly, the "paid for" coverage of this case here in the US "paints" AK and RS as the "victims" ... BUT

There is only ONE VICTIM here ... and that is Meredith Kercher ...

:rose: May she Rest in Peace :rose:

lease: I have confidence that the Italian Supreme Court will DITCH the non-sense contained in Hellman !

And Justice will prevail for Meredith ...

:moo::moo::moo:

A lot more than the American press has painted them as victims, including the Italian court that set them free.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Considering that everyone on here who debates from the perspective of the pair being innocent has continuously argued their points from the known facts, I'm curious how you've come to the conclusion that the debate continues only because of how the American media has apparently spun the case. Is there someone on here who's been posting myths? Please point them out as I love fact-checking!

As far as the lies from the family, are they like the lies of Casey Anthony's where the mom was caught lying about typing chloroform some eighty plus times? Let's get to the bottom of these lies!



"Spin" as in saying Amanda was caught on CCTV going to the cottage that night when it could be anyone? Or like Amanda showering in a blood soaked bathroom using a picture of pink dye presented as blood? Or spin like posting a picture of Amanda posing in front of a gun at a museum to paint her like a maniac? Maybe it's spin like the article printed saying the police found receipts for bleach bought the morning after the murder? Or maybe the article saying Amanda's prints were found on Meredith's face? Or maybe Patrick saying he fired her, which he later denied saying? Or maybe when the press printed that the washing machine was found still running and warm when really what Filomena said was that the clothes in the machine were damp from Meredith running it the night before? Maybe you're talking about the article printed saying Amanda had sex with a stranger on a train, an exaggeration of her Myspace entry where she detailed "meeting" a man on a train? Or could be you're referring to the article saying she'd slept with seven guys in Italy when really she'd made a list of all her partners ever after being given a false positive on an AIDS test? Or perhaps the mistranslated diary entries that twisted Amanda's words to make her say that she knew Raffaele killed Meredith, posted by members here in the past and very begrudgingly accepted to be false?

I could go on and on... It doesn't take much more than this to understand why her family would need to combat the spin of the press. I would hope my family would do the same.



This reads like someone who is unaware that that an Italian court also found them innocent. I'd like to know some of these "important facts that are irrefutable" that must prove how the pair are in fact guilty.



A lot more than the American press has painted them as victims, including the Italian court that set them free.

:seeya: Respectfully, it would be a waste of time to repeatedly argue any points on this case because IMO most have already formed an opinion as to "Guilty" or "Innocent" regarding AK and RS ...

There is absolutely nothing that would make me change My Opinion ...

I believe AK and RS are GUILTY based on :

1. The TOTALITY of the EVIDENCE which clearly points to them being at the cottage when Meredith was murdered ... along with BOTH AK and RS turning OFF their cell phones the night Meredith was murdered ... the STAGED "break-in" of Filomina's room ... it goes on and on and on and on ...

2. The number of changes in their "stories" / "alibis" ... and remember, to this day, Rafaelle's "story" continues to refute Amanda's "story" that she was with him all evening -- he still "claims" that he was "home alone" ... telling, IMO ...

3. And the most important FACT IMO, was Amanda accusing an innocent African man, Patrick Lumumba of the murder when she KNEW good and well that Lumumba was at his club working !

JMO ... but there is no point in responding to this as I already know what the supporters and FOAK's will say ...

:waitasec: It's like a broken record ...

lease: The only hope is the Italian Supreme Court ... which I truly believe they will do the right thing for Meredith !

:moo::moo::moo:

 

[Malkmus]

(snip)Rafaelle's "story" continues to refute Amanda's "story" that she was with him all evening -- he still "claims" that he was "home alone" ... telling, IMO ...(snip)

It's one thing to hold the opinion that they are guilty for whatever reason, and you're certainly entitled to that. It's a whole other thing to post completely wrong information as one of the main reasons you believe so.

From Raf's diary entry November 7, 2007:

(I have serious doubts regarding the fact that she had gone out). I am straining myself to remember other details but they are all
confused. Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.

From Raf's diary entry November 18, 2007:

Thinking and reconstructing, I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening. I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home.

From Raf's book referring to the pre-trial hearings:

I found some satisfaction in that, but also frustration, because I had at last worked out why Amanda did not leave—could not have left—my house on the night of the murder. She didn’t have her own key, so if she’d gone out alone, she would have had to ring the doorbell and ask me to buzz her back in.

So since you've quoted that he "still claims" he was "home alone" could you please cite the source and quote you got that from? I don't think you would make this up.

 

[Malkmus]

(snip)
3. And the most important FACT IMO, was Amanda accusing an innocent African man, Patrick Lumumba of the murder when she KNEW good and well that Lumumba was at his club working ! (snip)

Here is the beginning of Amanda's statement she signed implicating herself and Patrick in the murder. Does this sound like something an American teenager wrote, or something the police concocted and had her sign?

In order to complete what has been retailed before by means of precedent declarations made at this Office, I wish to clarify that I know and see other people who have also come to my house sometimes and who have also met Meredith and of whom I will provide the relevant mobile numbers -
One of these people is Patrik, a colored citizen who is about 1,70-1,75 cm tall, with braids, owner of the pub “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi and I know that he lives in the area near the roundabout of Porta Pesa. Tel. 393387195723, pub where I work twice a week on Mondays and on Thursdays, from 22.00 until about 2.00.

 

[Malkmus]

There is absolutely nothing that would make me change My Opinion ...
(snip)

While I have understood this to be the case for sometime now, it's seeing you admit it that I find a bit disconcerting. It reminds me a bit of the claim that the co-administrator of PMF made in which he stated that even if Amanda is innocent she got what she deserved.

Are you familiar with Lindy Chamberlain, spent four years in jail for allegedly murdering her daughter and considered to be a killer long after her acquittal? "The Dingo ate my baby"? Very similar circumstances to this case (including completely false positives for blood found in her car). I'll leave you with this quote from someone who used to think she was guilty:

From THE DANGERS OF GROUP-THINK, AND WHY WE MUST NEVER FORGET AZARIA CHAMBERLAIN:

As it transpires, legal appeal proceeding revealed details concerning the motivations of certain police officers investigating Azaria’s disappearance. It’s since been confirmed that evidence was suppressed, tampered with and misinterpreted, all to suit the attitudes and agenda of certain persons involved in the case. Also, it has since been shown that at least initially, public impressions about the Chamberlains were general formed on observations of how some fairly ordinary people behaved in some fairly extraordinary circumstances.

Lindy was judged because she didn’t act like a woman who lost her baby. In the public opinion, she acted like a woman who tore one to pieces. What made us think this? She just didn’t behave motherly enough. And just how is a mother supposed to act like under those circumstances? Cry. You’re supposed to cry. And make us believe it. And rail. And scream. And act all bereft, like. Lindy was supposed to break down and hang off Michael in front of the cameras like a hysterical mess. But while she very may have very well been an hysterical mess in private, she chose not to behave that way in front of us. And we hated her for it.

http://burnsidewriters.com/2012/06/...-why-we-must-never-forget-azaria-chamberlain/

 

[Chris_Halkides]

2. The number of changes in their "stories" / "alibis" ... and remember, to this day, Rafaelle's "story" continues to refute Amanda's "story" that she was with him all evening -- he still "claims" that he was "home alone" ... telling, IMO ...

You obviously have not read "Honor Bound." Pages 17-22 detail their night together. Elsewhere, he goes on to point out that she could not have left that night because she did not have a key, and he would have had to let her back in. Maybe you should rethink some of your other points now.
EDT
I see that Malkmus beat me to it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

IF you are "innocent" there is absolutely NO need to hire a PR Firm to "lobby" the media to "get them on your side" -- and -- do what the media does best : and that is SPIN !

Your assertion is contradicted by the Lindy Chamberlain case and the Duke lacrosse case. Some of the players did have PR help, BTW, and Lindy certainly could have used it. An innocent defendant who believes that the truth will set him free is so naive that he almost deserves to be falsely imprisoned. Moreover, a PR firm can't change the facts of a case, nor can it force the press to say what it wants. Finally, much of the press (Newsweek, for example) was solidly against Knox and Sollecito. So what putative lobbying this PR firm actually did does not look very successful.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Repeating the same old arguments over and over is boring so lets see what would have happened if this murder had occurred in the US. This is a very similar case with exactly the same arguments. It shows that it is not at all normal that DNA skin cells are found on a flat surface.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19284873

From your link, "Among the items she tested were three of Veil's credit cards, Walker said. She said the cards were "swabbed" for potential DNA, but that usable, live skin cells are more commonly found on rougher objects." All else held equal, rougher objects tend to pick up more DNA than smoother ones. However, the way that the forensic technician presented the argument is not quite right. DNA from touching an object may or may not come from skin cells, but sweat is a likely contributor also. Suzanna Ryan wrote, "Later research by Quinones and Daniel (2011) verified that the presence of sweat helps to contribute to the DNA profile obtained from touch DNA samples. These researchers showed that cell free nucleic acids, or CNAs, (basically free-floating DNA fragments not encapsulated in the cell nucleus) contribute greatly to the total amount of DNA present in a sample with CNAs being detected in the sweat of 80% of healthy individuals tested."

I also found it interesting that the blood work in the Mercury News case seems to be entirely presumptive tests. Without confirmatory tests, it is not terribly convincing (I have no opinion on the case as a whole). MOO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

- Again TMB negative does not mean it is not blood. The forensic expert not disclosing the information on purpose is a myth. She explained this during the appeal trials. The very few alternatives for the luminol reactions are simply alleged as previously discussed and make no sense whatsoever.

What was her explanation? If no confirmatory tests were run, then the presence of blood was not proven. The prosecution tried to shift the burden of proof on this issue.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The 'funny' thing is that contrary to the claims of the supporters saying that everything they did was completely normal, Raffaele now admits in his book their behavior was bizarre and he blames Amanda for it.

Amanda Knox boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito admits their behaviour was bizarre

Except that the word "bizarre" is nowhere to be found in his book, only in stupid articles like this one.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

As to Amanda being "sleep deprived", that is what Amanda "claims" ... just like she "claims" she was "hit on the head" by the LE, yet NO claim has ever been filed by against the Italian LE for this "alleged abuse" ...

No matter how sleep deprived I am, I would NEVER EVER "confess" to something I did not do ... NEVER ...

There is Laura's testimony and the testimony of Amanda's teacher for us to use. Moreover, the interrogation started around 11 PM, which should raise questions in and of itself. The actual statements Amanda made can hardly be called confessions (she did not say that she murdered Meredith). Moreover, they honestly don't make any sense to me. That, too, should raise questions.

 

[otto]

There is Laura's testimony and the testimony of Amanda's teacher for us to use. Moreover, the interrogation started around 11 PM, which should raise questions in and of itself. The actual statements Amanda made can hardly be called confessions (she did not say that she murdered Meredith). Moreover, they honestly don't make any sense to me. That, too, should raise questions.

What's wrong with police beginning their questioning of a witness at 11 PM if that witness voluntarily presents herself to police at that time of night? Statements given to police where Knox implicates herself should be taken seriously ... shouldn't they? Is it common in the US for confessions to be overlooked if they were given after 10 PM, or some other random time?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What's wrong with police beginning their questioning of a witness at 11 PM if that witness voluntarily presents herself to police at that time of night? Statements given to police where Knox implicates herself should be taken seriously ... shouldn't they? Is it common in the US for confessions to be overlooked if they were given after 10 PM, or some other random time?

Your point about overlooking confessions is unrelated to what I implied. Most of us get tired in the wee hours of the night and are less able to think coherently.

Dr. Giobbi testified that he was mathematically sure he said to bring them both in. In addition, Raffaele's book notes that a policeperson put the name of a lawyer into his hand before the 5th. And (as Malkmus unearthed a long time ago IIRC) there was a report in an Italian media outlet on the 5th that started out "Ominous Words" and went on to say that it was not unlikely that a witness would become a suspect in the next few hours. So we can dispense with the canard that there was much of anything voluntary about the planned his-and-hers interrogation as far as I am concerned.

Amanda's so-called confession reminds me of Frank Esposito's confession. After the police browbeat/cajoled him to say that he started a fire accidentally, they charged him with arson. In other words, the police came up with a charge that did not actually resemble the false confession all that closely. Nothing in Amanda's statements said anything about a cleanup or staging; she said that she didn't remember whether Raffaele was present; there is nothing to indicate how or when she returned to Raffaele's, etc. Her statements were gibberish, and an intellectually honest cop should have been able to recognize it as such. Instead, the cops rushed out and busted Lumumba before even asking him some entirely reasonable questions ("Where were you on the night of..."). That, too, should tell us something, and not about Amanda or Raffaele.