British student murdered in Perugia, 3 suspects

[Isabella]

Of the evidence you list, only the cleaning supplies strike me as particularly incriminating. We have no evidence that AK went around wielding a knife, but she is said to have suddenly done so on the day before the murder. Possible but very convenient for the prosecution.

Similarly, I find the neighbor's "ear-witness" testimony problematic. CBS explored the building and found it unlikely she could hear what she claimed to hear. I'm not at all convinced anyone but an experience Cherokee scout could distinguish the sound of two from three or more people running. Again, possible but hearing three runaways is very convenient for the prosecution.

On the other hand, the cleaning supplies... In my experience, young women living as AK and the victim did don't do a lot of cleaning. Do you know how AK explained the shopping?

Well..

To be honest..it just seems that either the cops are lieing...various witnesses are lieing...in fact everyone is lieing but Amanda.

 

[Nova]

You can generally tell the difference between one person running and several. And as for recanting i dont know but in the article i read she said she heard several after hearing the scream.

Distinguishing one from two, I understand. Distinguishing a few from many, I understand.

What I was questioning was being able to distinguish two from three or four.

Good point about the scream. Yes, a witness would be more likely to pay attention after that, even go to the window.

(As you know, the report of recanting came from someone else. I haven't heard that.)

 

[LogicalMinds]

The broken window is 15 feet over a steep slope, not a plausible way in. The authorities believe the so-called break-in was staged, suspicious from first glance.

From Cliff Van Zant, noted FBI profiler who seems to think Amanda is guilty...good article from MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22332240//

the "break in" was so totally "staged

 

[Nova]

Amanda Knox changer her story several times. I very much doubt that the police said Hey Amanda did you see Patrick kill Meredith because in all honesty i doubt they believed anything she said.

Then why did they bother questioning her for 53 hours? Oh, I know: they were looking for inconsistencies they could exploit. It worked.

We don't know what the police said to AK, do we?

What CBS reported, IIRC, is that AK sent PL a text message earlier in the day that read, "See you later." That's a common Americanism, BTW, which doesn't necessarily mean the speaker plans to see the listener at any particular time. However, the police interpreted the text to mean AK and PL had plans to join up during the evening of the murder and confronted AK with this "fact." At some point, she then accused PL.

I'm not defending her for doing so, but in coerced statements, it is often the police who propose something and then breakdown the witness until s/he concedes the point.

 

[LogicalMinds]

Regarding Patrick...

Amanda not only accused him , he was arrested and put in jail...

and she did not recant until the dna evidence showing Guede was in
and the prosecutor decided to drop all charges against Patrick and when they
brought him to court to be released (and under Italian law, yes they paid him for his time spent wrongly accused in jail)
then Amanda and her attorneys showed up for her to "recant"

at that point she developed a new story (and not under hours of interrogation, she had been in jail a few months holding on to the lies about Patrick)

a full four weeks after the murder, Patrick was taken to court and released...and Amanda and her attorney came to court with a new story..
she then said that she was sleeping at Rafaels, he left in the middle of the night, must have broken into her apt and raped and killed Meredith, then came back to his apt and put "the knife" into her own hands while she was sleeping..
or so she then "thought"...but "it might be a dream"

and so it went....story after story

 

[LogicalMinds]

Then why did they bother questioning her for 53 hours? Oh, I know: they were looking for inconsistencies they could exploit. It worked.

We don't know what the police said to AK, do we?

What CBS reported, IIRC, is that AK sent PL a text message earlier in the day that read, "See you later." That's a common Americanism, BTW, which doesn't necessarily mean the speaker plans to see the listener at any particular time. However, the police interpreted the text to mean AK and PL had plans to join up during the evening of the murder and confronted AK with this "fact." At some point, she then accused PL.

I'm not defending her for doing so, but in coerced statements, it is often the police who propose something and then breakdown the witness until s/he concedes the point.

She held on to that lie for ?3 weeks, while Patrick was in jail (14 days)

she then went to court when he did and recanted...and came up with a new lie....that Rafalle did it himself and put the knife in her hand while she was sleeping

who next?? Maybe her next story will be that Drew Peterson came to Italy on vacation and dropped by the apartment

 

[Isabella]

The broken window is 15 feet over a steep slope, not a plausible way in. The authorities believe the so-called break-in was staged, suspicious from first glance.

From Cliff Van Zant, noted FBI profiler who seems to think Amanda is guilty...good article from MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22332240//

the "break in" was so totally "staged

OMG poor Meredith

There just are no words

 

[Nova]

And then again Amanda could just be lieing about that like she does everything else.

Weird thing is...a lot of foreigners must get arrested in Italy and yet others dont make the accusations she has against the cops. Just look at the people who took her into court daily..they couldnt be nicer to them and she would laugh at them. She hardly seemed scared of them.

I got 393,000 hits from a google search for "police corruption Italy."

Somebody must have made an accusation.

(ETA I'm not saying Italian police are more or less corrupt than any others; I don't know. But it's absurd to suggest AK is the only person who has ever alleged police misconduct in Italy. Her prosecutor is under indictment, for Pete's sake!)

Whether AK eventually learned to trust and even like her handlers more than a year later tells us nothing about how she felt during the 5 days/53 hours of interrogation.

 

[Isabella]

Then why did they bother questioning her for 53 hours? Oh, I know: they were looking for inconsistencies they could exploit. It worked.

We don't know what the police said to AK, do we?

What CBS reported, IIRC, is that AK sent PL a text message earlier in the day that read, "See you later." That's a common Americanism, BTW, which doesn't necessarily mean the speaker plans to see the listener at any particular time. However, the police interpreted the text to mean AK and PL had plans to join up during the evening of the murder and confronted AK with this "fact." At some point, she then accused PL.

I'm not defending her for doing so, but in coerced statements, it is often the police who propose something and then breakdown the witness until s/he concedes the point.

I think you mean to say Knox and CBS claims that. There is no proof whatsever that the police interpreted anything in that way or confronted her with any "facts".

The CBS programme just seems like a fan club for Knox from what i can see and not necessarily focussing on what the truth might be..

JMO

 

[Isabella]

I got 393,000 hits from a google search for "police corruption Italy."

Somebody must have made an accusation.

(ETA I'm not saying Italian police are more or less corrupt than any others; I don't know. But it's absurd to suggest AK is the only person who has ever alleged police misconduct in Italy. Her prosecutor is under indictment, for Pete's sake!)

Whether AK eventually learned to trust and even like her handlers more than a year later tells us nothing about how she felt during the 5 days/53 hours of interrogation.

I didnt say there was no corruption in Italy. I didnt say that at all. There is plenty in ALL countries including mine and yours.

And again if she didnt keep lieing..didnt blame others..tell police she had seen a man kill Meredith..then she probably wouldnt have been questioned so long.

 

[Nova]

Not me. Ive seen more than enough to convince me.

In my opinion shes totally psychotic. She has to be. No one normal would shower in a room with blood in it. But maybe that was the cops fault too "shrugs"

Some folks just aren't "morning people."

Seriously, I don't know about AK, but I do a lot of things in the morning pretty much out of habit without looking around.

Even later, I'm not all that observant. My husband put up a Christmas tree and lit it yesterday. I didn't notice until he mentioned it.

 

[Nova]

It was cartwheels..as in the gymnastic movement. And no you dont have to be happy to do cartwheels but Merediths friends testified they thought Amandas behaviour was odd because while they was shocked and horrified...Amanda stood there laughing and cuddling and kissing her boyfriend.

I know what a cartwheel is. I'm talking about nuance of language and why some of us find the "overwhelming evidence" against AK less than overwhelming.

I understand that others found AK's post-murder affect inappropriate. But I find affect testimony highly subjective. Such testimony was the main ingredient of witch trials in the 17th century. In your country and in mine.

I watched some of the "shocking video" of AK and RS and found it unremarkable: two sad young people comforting one another. I also taught men and women of AK's age for years and found it quite common for them to laugh at very serious matters. They are more comfortable with irony than honest emotion.

 

[Nova]

Well..

To be honest..it just seems that either the cops are lieing...various witnesses are lieing...in fact everyone is lieing but Amanda.

Perhaps. And sometimes people lie out of misguided but otherwise "good" intentions. But people, including cops, also make mistakes and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I'm sure you remember the prosecutor and cops first announced conclusively that AK and RS acted alone.

In the end, it's odd that there is so much physical evidence against RG and so little against AK and RS, given the extent of the violence.

 

[LinasK]

Some folks just aren't "morning people."

Seriously, I don't know about AK, but I do a lot of things in the morning pretty much out of habit without looking around.

Even later, I'm not all that observant. My husband put up a Christmas tree and lit it yesterday. I didn't notice until he mentioned it.

Nova, I'm a Night Owl too... but this one is ridiculous! :hand:I think I'd know if I just came back to my apartment I'd see the blood in the bathroom before I took a shower, and... this is just one of her many stories that she changed.:back: :snooty:The most ridiculous is that the boyfriend put the bloody knife with Amanda's DNA on it into her hand while she was sleeping, PULEAASSEEE!:doh:

 

[Isabella]

I know what a cartwheel is. I'm talking about nuance of language and why some of us find the "overwhelming evidence" against AK less than overwhelming.

I understand that others found AK's post-murder affect inappropriate. But I find affect testimony highly subjective. Such testimony was the main ingredient of witch trials in the 17th century. In your country and in mine.

I watched some of the "shocking video" of AK and RS and found it unremarkable: two sad young people comforting one another. I also taught men and women of AK's age for years and found it quite common for them to laugh at very serious matters. They are more comfortable with irony than honest emotion.

To be honest..if i was teaching kids who laughed when there room mate has been murdered...i would be very very worried.

 

[Nova]

I think you mean to say Knox and CBS claims that. There is no proof whatsever that the police interpreted anything in that way or confronted her with any "facts".

The CBS programme just seems like a fan club for Knox from what i can see and not necessarily focussing on what the truth might be..

JMO

No proof whatsoever? The police arrested PL, IIRC.

As for no proof AK was confronted with "facts," either you don't know or are ignoring how interrogations are conducted. It isn't just a matter of politely asking, "Did you see anything?" and then letting the suspect talk for 53 hours.

As for the source of the claim, I was merely citing my source. CBS presented that account as more than a mere claim of AK's, since it involved acts of which she could have no knowledge (i.e., how the police arrived at their early conclusions). I don't know where CBS got its info, which is why I asked about the claim.

I've already said I don't consider 48 Hours a completely unbiased account. And I've explained why. Watching that program sent me here for more info.

 

[Isabella]

Perhaps. And sometimes people lie out of misguided but otherwise "good" intentions. But people, including cops, also make mistakes and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I'm sure you remember the prosecutor and cops first announced conclusively that AK and RS acted alone.

In the end, it's odd that there is so much physical evidence against RG and so little against AK and RS, given the extent of the violence.

And..also people who murder people lie!!

And no its not remarkable there isnt much evidence when its known that Amanda bought cleaning fluids that morning. And even if there was a lot..it would be said the cops planted it anyhow...

 

[Nova]

Nova, I'm a Night Owl too... but this one is ridiculous! :hand:I think I'd know if I just came back to my apartment I'd see the blood in the bathroom before I took a shower, and... this is just one of her many stories that she changed.:back: :snooty:The most ridiculous is that the boyfriend put the bloody knife with Amanda's DNA on it into her hand while she was sleeping, PULEAASSEEE!:doh:

That latter claim was idle speculation. Something police interrogations tend to encourage, BTW. But if AK said it might have happened while she was sleeping, she obviously wasn't claiming to know it happened with any certainty. I don't see such speculation under interrogation as evidence of anything except a suspect trying to please her interrogators (something a guilty or innocent person might do).

I agree showering in the bloody bathroom is suspicious. But routines such as showering are just that: routine. They don't always require our full attention. (And some people know instantly if any object in a room is moved. Some of us never notice.)

 

[Isabella]

No proof whatsoever? The police arrested PL, IIRC.

As for no proof AK was confronted with "facts," either you don't know or are ignoring how interrogations are conducted. It isn't just a matter of politely asking, "Did you see anything?" and then letting the suspect talk for 53 hours.

As for the source of the claim, I was merely citing my source. CBS presented that account as more than a mere claim of AK's, since it involved acts of which she could have no knowledge (i.e., how the police arrived at their early conclusions). I don't know where CBS got its info, which is why I asked about the claim.

I've already said I don't consider 48 Hours a completely unbiased account. And I've explained why. Watching that program sent me here for more info.

Of course they arrested Patrick. Amanda said she had seen him murder her room mate. What i said was there was no proof of what you said. You simply have no idea what the Italians thought.

And because she was questioned does not mean the pc said to her..oh Amanda you saw Patrick Lumbaba kill Meredith didnt you? Or Hey Amanda you dreamed you was there and now your dreaming your not. I just think its crazy all the cops are lieing..all the witnesses are lieing..and yet one person isnt.

 

[Isabella]

That latter claim was idle speculation. Something police interrogations tend to encourage, BTW. But if AK said it might have happened while she was sleeping, she obviously wasn't claiming to know it happened with any certainty. I don't see such speculation under interrogation as evidence of anything except a suspect trying to please her interrogators (something a guilty or innocent person might do).

I agree showering in the bloody bathroom is suspicious. But routines such as showering are just that: routine. They don't always require our full attention. (And some people know instantly if any object in a room is moved. Some of us never notice.)

Oh believe me..if i was in the shower i would notice if there was a basin with a load of blood in it. I think most everyone would. I also think most would go looking to see where the blood come from...unless you know where it comes from i guess.