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

[Katody]

Please don't cut my post off.

I asked you why you think RS has felt the need to add some 5 hours or whatever to this police visit. Changing the entire timeline of that evening.

IMO he did it to make it seem alot more reasonable why he changed his story.
I mean there's a huge difference in being questioned for under an hour and being questioned for 5 hours.

There's my answer I don't need to do any explaining of RSs statements when he can't even tell the truth now years later. He feels the need to embellish to make it sound believable.

As far as I know both Raffaele and Amanda were questioned for many hours. 5 or more at least. It's in the testimony and in the minutes of interrogation in case of Raffaele's.

Still, the case for guilt makes no logical sense. Pointing this out causes frantic attempts at changing topic, smoke and mirrors.

 

[Amber29]

What do you mean by this? I don't think their story was contradicted by anything.

What does RS say in his book about his 532 am computer activity and turning his cell phone on at 6am?
What does he say about the 930am talk with his father?

I mean they told the police they slept in that morning until at least 10am.
I believe RS went further and said he continued sleeping even after AK got up and left.

 

[Katody]

Of course false confessions exist but AK did not make a false confession.

Which part of it was not false?

 

[Amber29]

As far as I know both Raffaele and Amanda were questioned for many hours. 5 or more at least. It's in the testimony and in the minutes of interrogation in case of Raffaele's.

Still, the case for guilt makes no logical sense. Pointing this out causes frantic attempts at changing topic, cloud and mirrors.

No RS added the hours onto when they arrived. Period he lied.

I'm not adding smoke and mirrors RS is doing that himself.

 

[Amber29]

Which part of it was not false?

The word confession. AK did not make a false confession, she made a false ACCUSATION. Big difference.

 

[Katody]

What does RS say in his book about his 532 am computer activity and turning his cell phone on at 6am?
What does he say about the 930am talk with his father?

I mean they told the police they slept in that morning until at least 10am.
I believe RS went further and said he continued sleeping even after AK got up and left.

Seriously? You believe he dropped alibi because of this?:facepalm:

Computer activity was not known on the 5th of November.
Receiving an SMS from his father doesn't contradict his alibi. Neither does having a phone call in the morning. :facepalm:

 

[Katody]

The word confession. AK did not make a false confession, she made a false ACCUSATION. Big difference.

:floorlaugh:

Everything in her "voluntary" statement was false. And there is no word "confession" or "I confess" in it, either.

 

[Amber29]

Seriously? You believe he dropped alibi because of this?:facepalm:

Computer activity was not known on the 5th of November.
Receiving an SMS from his father doesn't contradict his alibi. Neither does having a phone call in the morning. :facepalm:

Seriously? Is that what I said? :facepalm:

No this is not why I think he dropped her alibi.
I've answer that :facepalm:

I'm asking a simple question. You said there are no contradictions, I'm asking what RS says to explain these.

This response had nothing to do with why he changes his story.

 

[Amber29]

:floorlaugh:

Everything in her "voluntary" statement was false. And there is no word "confession" or "I confess" in it, either.

You are right there's no word confession, hence lets not refer to it as a false confession any more.
Lets call it what it is a false accusation of an innocent man.

 

[Katody]

Seriously? Is that what I said? :facepalm:

No this is not why I think he dropped her alibi.
I've answer that :facepalm:

I'm asking a simple question. You said there are no contradictions, I'm asking what RS says to explain these.

This response had nothing to do with why he changes his story.

He wasn't even asked about it.

You have no logical explanation for why would he change his story.
The hypothesis of guilt is very shaky. There's no reasoning, no logic, no explanation for anything substantial.

 

[Katody]

You are right there's no word confession, hence lets not refer to it as a false confession any more.
Lets call it what it is a false accusation of an innocent man.

Let's call it a coerced "voluntary statement" without a lawyer, without recording, without impartial interpreter, in a foreign language, in the middle of the night.

 

[Amber29]

<modsnip>
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

In that post the interview is linked and discussed in detail.

 

[Amber29]

He wasn't even asked about it.

You have no logical explanation for why would he change his story.
The hypothesis of guilt is very shaky. There's no reasoning, no logic, no explanation for anything substantial.

So he gives no explanation for these in his book. That was my question. Have you read RSs book?

 

[Katody]

So he gives no explanation for these in his book. That was my question. Have you read RSs book?

:facepalm:


His explanation is perfectly sound, coherent with innocence.

In the guilt scenario you need something else. Why can't anyone come up with anything sensible?

 

[Amber29]

:facepalm:


His explanation is perfectly sound, coherent with innocence.

In the guilt scenario you need something else. Why can't anyone come up with anything sensible?

What is his explanation? That is my question.

Have you read his book?

 

[aa9511]

That I can see. I don't understand what you mean by "outsider".

I'm trying to understand why giving a single statement to the police and leaving the country (like the rest of the girls) would be bad in the guilt scenario. I can't myself see any negatives in it. You haven't pointed any, either.

Basically, what actually happened during those few days before the arrests doesn't support your guilt scenario logically.

You may claim it's possible that all of this happened because they were not acting reasonably at all, but in fact it weakens the guilt scenario even more.

First, it's expected that they would have kept alert and carefully stick to an alibi (like Guede did).

Second, if we acknowledge they instead acted unreasonably, it doesn't support guilt scenario at all. It is much more probable innocent person would act unreasonably, not carefully, having nothing to fear.

bbm

You don't know what I mean by "outsider"? Are we not all outsiders in this case? On the outside, looking in. That is what is usually meant by "outsider."

We can look it at from the outside and say, well, being guilty, or being innocent, she should have done this and done that. But it's hard for us to put ourselves into her prism of how she saw herself, and the prism through which she thought of how others would perceive her actions.

From her guilty view of herself, she would have seen the possible repercussions of her actions differently than how we on the outside view it or even think she should have viewed it. She had a different sensitivity to the fact that she was guilty (guilty perspective). She saw everything through that prism.

I have pointed out, repeatedly, what I think the negative repercussion of her leaving the country at that point were, coming from her point-of-view. It was a combination of two factors: her leaving might make her look suspicious (from her viewpoint of how others would perceive her), and her staying and being available to police would make her look innocent (from her viewpoint). So both of those lead to the goal of making herself seem as innocent as possible, from her point-of-view of how she thought others would view her actions.

This has nothing to do with acting unreasonably. I don't believe I said that, where did you get that word from what I posted?

They were acting reasonably, according to their own guilty perspectives, and their perspective of how others would view her actions.

What the problem was, is that that perspective did not match the way actual innocent people would act.

They were being perfectly reasonable relative to their own perspectives. It was actually their perspectives that were "unreasonable," because they should have viewed themselves as truly innocent and what truly innocent people would do, but of course that is difficult to do when you're actually guilty!!

Do you see how their actions might not come across as those of truly innocent people? Pretending to be innocent....but actually guilty. There is a disparity there, no?

 

[Amber29]

There are mendacious propaganda sites that many here fell for.

I'm only interested in a guilter's explanation of why would he change his story. What's so hard about it?

So is the interview he gave edited by a "propaganda" site?

I've fallen for nothing.

I think there's no reason why RS in under an hour of questioning would change his story except he was lying and he knew he was lying.

He knew he had told a load of rubbish and hasn't thought of the contradictions.

Again it's not anyone's job to explain why RS told multiple stories.

 

[whoanellie]

Do you see how their actions might not come across as those of truly innocent people? Pretending to be innocent....but actually guilty. There is a disparity there, no?

No. Their actions are entirely consistent with innocence. Convoluted attempts to twist their actions into some this is how a guilty person would act from a guilty perspective trying to seem innocent only makes that clearer.

 

[SMK]

Not in the light of his own story that he left Meredith to die just moments before.

But Guede insists he was not the killer, so in that sense he had consciousness of innocence, and was dancing his regrets away.

 

[Tugela]

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?

If that is the case then it exposes Mignini for what he is, because he would have been perfectly well aware of how the original interrogation was conducted and what they were pushing. So, he is surprised????

He can't wriggle off the hook that easily. It proves that the interrogation was improperly conducted and the statement improperly obtained. He knows that. He waves a hand and pretends that it doesn't really matter, but it does. In any American court the proceeds of this interrogation would have been deemed inadmissible as a result, and they should have been inadmissible in an Italian court as well. Not only that, it doesn't even agree with the known facts of the case that were subsequently determined.