Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#10

[redheadedgal]

Well, I have never checked - I will admit to getting it out of one of the books. I can't see why the author would choose to portray Knox as saying this, or Mignini as stunned, and Knox's attorneys as very reluctant to allow her to speak further - if he had not gotten that information from Mignini himself or Mignini and her attorneys. Journalists hold to standards, fact-checking, etc. Or at least I assume they do. Burleigh seems to have been taken at her word for much. As have others.

which book was this from? and why not say in the first place?

 

[SMK]

which book was this from? and why not say in the first place?

To tell you the truth, I recall the passage vividly, but not the exact book (I have looked at 4 or 5) and this is why I didn't quote it from text. :blushing:

 

[redheadedgal]

i've checked several books on google.books (as you suggested earlier in the thread for ease of locating info) but haven't found that quote...

would be nice to see it in context...

 

[SMK]

i've checked several books on google.books (as you suggested earlier in the thread for ease of locating info) but haven't found that quote...

would be nice to see it in context...

Let me try and find it for you - hang on

 

[SMK]

@ redheadedlegal - found it by putting key phrases in Google Books:

Follain, A Death in Italy pp 213-16
Google books
Read from 213 through 216 to get the full context.

 

[Amber29]

I think it will be very easy for people who are not as immersed in this case as we are, to see the reasons behind her lies/false accusations/misunderstandings, however one wants to phrase it.

Before she was arrested, it is not a big mystery to me why she would stay there and not leave like the others did. She stayed there and made herself accessible, because she knew that as a roomate, she would be "on the radar" of the investigators. Rudy was not "on the radar." Rudy could flee and no one would notice until they connected the dots. Amanda was already on the radar. As a guilty person on the radar, do you stay and offer to "help" the police in any way you can? I believe we have seen many many examples of this in the case of things like husband/wife murder, close relative murder, etc..

It is also no mystery to me why she named Patrick, for reasons I have already stated in posts upthread.

I don't know, it is all very clear to me. Maybe I need different glasses. The cloudy ones.

It's very clear to me as well.

Naming PL let her remain innocent, in fact she was shocked when she was arrested.

If she had named RG, there would be no coming back from that.

 

[Monzoo]

@ redheadedlegal - found it by putting key phrases in Google Books:

Follain, A Death in Italy pp 213-16
Google books
Read from 213 through 216 to get the full context.

I found reading Amanda's account from her book to be helpful.

“Why did you name Patrick?”
“The police insisted I’d met the person I had sent the text message to.”
“No. Why did you name Patrick?”
“The police had been asking me about Patrick.”
“No! Why did you name Patrick?”
“The police insisted it was Patrick.”
He was more and more aggressive about it. “Why Patrick?”
“Because of my message.”
“That doesn’t explain why Patrick.”
“Yes, it does.”
“Why did you say Patrick killed her?”
“Because I was confused. Because I was under pressure.”
“NO!” he insisted. “Why did you say Patrick?”
I was more frustrated than I’d ever been. “Because I thought it could have been him!” I shouted, starting to cry.
I meant that I’d imagined Patrick’s face and so I had really, momentarily, thought it was him.”

Excerpt From: Knox, Amanda. “Waiting to Be Heard.” HarperCollins, 2013-05-01.

 

[SMK]

"It's true you sent messages to each other a few hours before the crime, so it's normal the police would want to know why. . . But why did you make such an accusation?"

"Because I thought it could be true.", Amanda said.

Mignini was so stunned by her reply that all he could do was repeat it. "It could be true?"

[Mignini notes for the record that Amanda has been crying for 10 minutes, and that she says that the story about Patrick "could have been true". Mignini also says it is perfectly normal that the police would question Amanda about Patrick, and does not explain why it led to her falsely accusing him.]

(cont on pp 213-16, Follain, A Death in Italy)

 

[Tugela]

Well, I have never checked - I will admit to getting it out of one of the books. I can't see why the author would choose to portray Knox as saying this, or Mignini as stunned, and Knox's attorneys as very reluctant to allow her to speak further - if he had not gotten that information from Mignini himself or Mignini and her attorneys. Journalists hold to standards, fact-checking, etc. Or at least I assume they do. Burleigh seems to have been taken at her word for much. As have others.

Knox did not have an attorney and recanted the next day, so if you read that in a book it is probably wrong.

 

[Tugela]

It's very clear to me as well.

Naming PL let her remain innocent, in fact she was shocked when she was arrested.

If she had named RG, there would be no coming back from that.

How would naming PL let her remain innocent?

It doesn't change the fact that her account in the statement was not true. Couple that with the fact that the statement elaborated a theory that LE were angling at, and the conclusion is that this was a coerced statement that in all probability was not properly understood by either side.

 

[Tugela]

[Mignini notes for the record that Amanda has been crying for 10 minutes, and that she says that the story about Patrick "could have been true". Mignini also says it is perfectly normal that the police would question Amanda about Patrick, and does not explain why it led to her falsely accusing him.]

(cont on pp 213-16, Follain, A Death in Italy)

Um....because his minions had been pressuring her to say something like that?

Oh, yes, I forgot, they are all honorable men/women who do things by the book. :floorlaugh:

One thing...why would it be "perfectly normal" for LE to be questioning her about PL? After all, according to them (ya right), she was being interviewed as a "witness" (hence no recording or lawyers present), so why would her personal text messages have any relevance?

If Mignini really said that, it is a "gotcha" moment for him and the flaw in his story.

 

[Katody]

Yes, I understand your point. Leaving Rudy's traces = "the burglar." So why didn't she just name this "burglar"?

Naming Rudy would mean she had to put herself at the scene of the crime. Otherwise, how would she know he was the one who did it? Or she could have said something like, "Rudy came over to Raffaele's house in a panic and told us what he had done." But then how would she explain not calling police or why they didn't call for help when they found out what Rudy had done? Also, she would have to answer the obvious of, why did Rudy come to you and Raffaele? There would be many lies she would have to come up with to make that story work. The only way she could have said Rudy did it, is if she was somehow there at the house.

Putting herself at the scene of the crime with Rudy would have been a true confession (guilty perspective), whether wholly or partially.

She did put herself at the scene. :facepalm:

 

[Katody]

Maybe she thought, by the time they catch Rudy, I will be back in the U.S., so they cannot catch me there. Maybe she thought if they ever traced back to Rudy and caught him, it didn't matter because by that time she would be gone and safe at home. Safe in the U.S., how could they make her come back to Italy. At least she will then be across the ocean, and with her family.

Even as I am writing this, it is making more and more sense to me.

That would make more sense if she had flown home on a first plane to Seattle. Just like the other students.

Waiting in Perugia for the cops to find something on her makes zero sense if she's guilty.

 

[Katody]

Well, she was caught in a little pickle there, now wasn't she? Jump on a plane and take off - whoa....that would have sure drawn attention to her and sent little alarm bells ringing for the investigators.

All the other students jumped on planes immediately. There was no gain for a guilty person to hang around the police.

 

[Katody]

I think it will be very easy for people who are not as immersed in this case as we are, to see the reasons behind her lies/false accusations/misunderstandings, however one wants to phrase it.

Before she was arrested, it is not a big mystery to me why she would stay there and not leave like the others did. She stayed there and made herself accessible, because she knew that as a roomate, she would be "on the radar" of the investigators. Rudy was not "on the radar." Rudy could flee and no one would notice until they connected the dots. Amanda was already on the radar. As a guilty person on the radar, do you stay and offer to "help" the police in any way you can? I believe we have seen many many examples of this in the case of things like husband/wife murder, close relative murder, etc..

There's one small problem. She was no relative. And relatives have nowhere to go, they have no choice but to stick around.

For a student abroad it is natural and not suspicious at all to return home after such traumatic event. As other students demonstrated. Also, ss Guede demonstrated, natural thing for a guilty person was to skip town and skip the country.


One thing that seems to be missing from your explanation:
Why would she confess to anything at all? Why not just say Raffaele must be confused or mistaken? Why change the story suddenly? And not just her, why would Raffaele change his story?

Guede sticks to his "date" SOGDI story for years. And he is guilty.

 

[redheadedgal]

@ redheadedlegal - found it by putting key phrases in Google Books:

Follain, A Death in Italy pp 213-16
Google books
Read from 213 through 216 to get the full context.

thanks. follain's was the one i didn't check...

i can see why she'd say what she did... if the police are demanding answers about PL specifically, so then she thinks police think he did it... then "it could be true", right? and she wasn't there to know who it was for sure, so why couldn't it be who police are suggesting, accusing, questioning her about?

 

[redheadedgal]

Knox did not have an attorney and recanted the next day, so if you read that in a book it is probably wrong.

One thing...why would it be "perfectly normal" for LE to be questioning her about PL? After all, according to them (ya right), she was being interviewed as a "witness" (hence no recording or lawyers present), so why would her personal text messages have any relevance?

the book smk refers to is talking about when mignini visited amanda in prison in december 2007... follain does say her attorneys were present. but i can't ascertain whether or not this interview/interrogation was recorded in any way. if it wasn't, how did follain re-construct the conversation?

 

[Katody]

the book smk refers to is talking about when mignini visited amanda in prison in december 2007... follain does say her attorneys were present. but i can't ascertain whether or not this interview/interrogation was recorded in any way. if it wasn't, how did follain re-construct the conversation?

It was the December 17 interrogation. There were lawyers present and it is recorded ( how surprising! ).

 

[SMK]

Knox did not have an attorney and recanted the next day, so if you read that in a book it is probably wrong.

Well, in the pages I cited, her attorneys and Mignini were all present at this particular questioning.

 

[SMK]

thanks. follain's was the one i didn't check...

i can see why she'd say what she did... if the police are demanding answers about PL specifically, so then she thinks police think he did it... then "it could be true", right? and she wasn't there to know who it was for sure, so why couldn't it be who police are suggesting, accusing, questioning her about?

Well, in that case Amanda ought to have said, "Because the police were insisting that I was covering for him. I thought maybe they had evidence on him."