Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[otto]

Nothing you quoted shows that either Amanda and Raffaele were drug addicts (instead of casual users) or had a cocaine problem. Additionally, I think putting "Drug Addiction; known habit" in the header of your source is very misleading as it's never mentioned in the report. To some less informed it makes it seem as if there is a chapter in the report entitled "Drug Addiction; known habit".

There's only so much time I can spend searching for links, some of which now result in "this page no longer exists". This isn't surprising, as we are discussing a case from four years ago.

I presented links and facts documenting Knox's drug use in Perugia. Other links on the internet provide Curt's response to learning about his daughter's drug use. Raffaele was arrested in 2003 for possession of drugs, and again in 2007 we hear that he is still using hashish. Should we believe that he used drugs once in 2003 and again once in 2007, or is it more likely that he used drugs from 2003 - 2007? I'm inclined to believe the latter. Maybe 4 years of using hashish is "casual", and maybe it's regular use; typical of drug addiction.

Raffaele, in my opinion, has a documented four year history of illegal drug use. Amanda has a documented use of drugs in Perugia. We don't know what she was doing in Seattle, but given her interest in drugs while living in Perugia, it's not too difficult to believe that she had prior drug use ... and sought out a boyfriend, roommates and friends that were also interested in drugs.

Amanda vows to never use drugs again ... why is that? Does a casual user that has never run into trouble due to drugs vow, while sitting in jail, to never use drugs again?

"She has a copy of the Gospel of St Mark by her bed and has told the priest that she bitterly regrets her “wild” lifestyle and will change her ways. She had vowed never to use drugs again, Father Scarabattoli said."
Nov 15, 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2876378.ece

 

[miley]

(snip)

The cocaine information is not in the report, but it has been discussed since the murder, and I don't have a handy link. It's not important, but it is my suspicion that cocaine could have been used on the night of the murder.

The fact that the guys downstairs were growing pot kind of suggests they were users.

Laura and Filomina were not students, and they didn't hang out with the students, so I don't think we can throw them in with the rest of the students that lived in the cottage.

According to their drug test analysis, Amanda and Raphaele were both clear of cocaine - it's not in the report because it's not relevant..

Filomenia and Laura both liked smoking pot - Laura slept with the washing machine repairman out of desperation (source: Angel Face pg.13)

 

[otto]

According to their drug test analysis, Amanda and Raphaele were both clear of cocaine - it's not in the report because it's not relevant..

Filomenia and Laura both liked smoking pot - Laura slept with the washing machine repairman out of desperation (source: Angel Face pg.13)

The world according to Barbie Nadeau. That is indeed what she says, and then the rest of the book is mostly about her experience hanging out with the other reporters. I wonder who her source is for that information.

 

[miley]

If I had to choose between spending an hour with one of: the B&E guy that might sell drugs, the knife carrying drug addict that likes beastiality, or the lying prankster opportunist writer that likes rape and watching people die slowly ... I'm probably going to choose the drug dealer.

suit yourself - just remember, Rudy said he couldn't get pen and paper and instead dipped his finger in meredith's blood to write her dying last words on the wall so he wouldn't forget.

 

[otto]

suit yourself - just remember, Rudy said he couldn't get pen and paper and instead dipped his finger in meredith's blood to write her dying last words on the wall so he wouldn't forget.

What was written on the wall?

 

[flourish]

According to their drug test analysis, Amanda and Raphaele were both clear of cocaine - it's not in the report because it's not relevant..

Filomenia and Laura both liked smoking pot - Laura slept with the washing machine repairman out of desperation (source: Angel Face pg.13)

Are you saying Laura was desperate for sex so she slept with the washing machine guy? Or are you saying she was desperate for pot so she slept with the washing machine guy? Either way, how exactly does that relate to AK and RS's guilt or lack of guilt of murder?

I haven't read that book...does the author provide sources?

 

[Malkmus]

There's only so much time I can spend searching for links, some of which now result in "this page no longer exists". This isn't surprising, as we are discussing a case from four years ago.

I presented links and facts documenting Knox's drug use in Perugia. Other links on the internet provide Curt's response to learning about his daughter's drug use. Raffaele was arrested in 2003 for possession of drugs, and again in 2007 we hear that he is still using hashish. Should we believe that he used drugs once in 2003 and again once in 2007, or is it more likely that he used drugs from 2003 - 2007? I'm inclined to believe the latter. Maybe 4 years of using hashish is "casual", and maybe it's regular use; typical of drug addiction.

Raffaele, in my opinion, has a documented four year history of illegal drug use. Amanda has a documented use of drugs in Perugia. We don't know what she was doing in Seattle, but given her interest in drugs while living in Perugia, it's not too difficult to believe that she had prior drug use ... and sought out a boyfriend, roommates and friends that were also interested in drugs.

Amanda vows to never use drugs again ... why is that? Does a casual user that has never run into trouble due to drugs vow, while sitting in jail, to never use drugs again?

"She has a copy of the Gospel of St Mark by her bed and has told the priest that she bitterly regrets her “wild” lifestyle and will change her ways. She had vowed never to use drugs again, Father Scarabattoli said."
Nov 15, 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2876378.ece

Yes, people can smoke pot for years and not be labeled addicts. I think most are aware of the couple's drug use and digging for links that show they did such things isn't going to make your case any stronger unless you present evidence that one or the other needed counseling for their drug problem or that they lost a job/were suspended from school for such problems, etc.. There may be other ways to prove they were addicts but I don't know what you could possibly dig up that hasn't been read by anyone already or why such evidence wouldn't have been used by Massei in his motivations report. I have friends and co-workers who smoke marijuana regularly and I myself have tried cocaine. I think any of those people would be deeply offended if I were to refer to them as an addict.

 

[Malkmus]

What was written on the wall?

Nothing. It was a lie. Who knows why he would even lie about such a disturbing thing when it was easily proven wrong.

 

[Malkmus]

Amanda vows to never use drugs again ... why is that? Does a casual user that has never run into trouble due to drugs vow, while sitting in jail, to never use drugs again?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2876378.ece

Because if she hadn't smoked pot that night her memory of what happened probably wouldn't have been so malleable at the hands of ILE. In other words, she could have confidently told them no, there was no way she had met up with Patrick that night. Remember, it was ILE's misunderstanding of the text that led them down that path, not Amanda's.

 

[Allusonz]

That isn't what she meant, Allusonz. I made the same mistake.

dgfred thought malkmus should qualify his post; he thought he had with the words "I think..."

thank you my mistake indeed and i do apologize dgfred!!!

 

[Allusonz]

Remember, it was ILE's misunderstanding of the text that led them down that path, not Amanda's.

Respectfully snipped BBM

That i believe to be a very important distinction. Prior to the clarification as you posted with respect to the translation i was perplexed as to why they were so insistent on this path, now it makes alot more sense

 

[otto]

Because if she hadn't smoked pot that night her memory of what happened probably wouldn't have been so malleable at the hands of ILE. In other words, she could have confidently told them no, there was no way she had met up with Patrick that night. Remember, it was ILE's misunderstanding of the text that led them down that path, not Amanda's.

Amanda and Raffaele were admittedly stoned on the night of Nov 1, when Meredith was murdered. On Nov 6, after 2 hours of questioning, Amanda's status was changed from witness to suspect, meaning that in those two hours she falsely accused Patrick, and placed herself at the scene of the murder. Is it really possible that 5 days after smoking hashish, Amanda's memory of the night was still so muddy or unclear that she still couldn't make sense of the night of Nov 1, or that she was still so affected by the drugs that she was completely malleable?

 

[otto]

Nothing. It was a lie. Who knows why he would even lie about such a disturbing thing when it was easily proven wrong.

When did Rudy say this?

 

[dgfred]

I've used both marijuana and cocaine. I understand that a cocaine-fueled orgy is far more likely to end in violence than a marijuana-fueled orgy.

But I don't seen where either had been proven in this case.

Amanda and Raffaele were admittedly stoned on the night of Nov 1, when Meredith was murdered. On Nov 6, after 2 hours of questioning, Amanda's status was changed from witness to suspect, meaning that in those two hours she falsely accused Patrick, and placed herself at the scene of the murder. Is it really possible that 5 days after smoking hashish, Amanda's memory of the night was still so muddy or unclear that she still couldn't make sense of the night of Nov 1, or that she was still so affected by the drugs that she was completely malleable?

Plus:
Didn't the two claim to have smoked the day of the 'pizza party' before coming into the station?

If someone smokes every day... is that considered an addict :waitasec: ?

A previous 'problem' with drugs has been noted for RS.

As far as 'testing' for cocaine... wasn't it at least 3+ days after the murder that the test were done? Maybe it was out of their systems.

Having 'contact' by phone with a cocaine dealer is enlightening to me..not to mention in the time period surrounding a murder being quite suspicious too IMO.

Couldn't interaction between AK/RS--RG--drug dealer(s) be a reason for them getting together that night? RS had an open night, AK now had an open night after Patrick's txt, RG was free after about 8:30... a coincidence???

Being 'malleable' :innocent: ... because of only pot smoking is a joke IMO.

 

[Malkmus]

When did Rudy say this?

Here's one of the reports:

Guede in a statement said that as the attacker fled he had shouted out:''Black man found, black man guilty.'' His lawyers said that Guede had tried to stem the flow of blood and that Meredith as she laying dying had whispered the words ''Af..Af'' which they said indicated Raffaele as the killer.

Guede also claimed to have written this in blood on the wall of Meredith's bedroom but no trace of it was found by police.

http://www.zimbio.com/Meredith+Kercher/articles/18/GUILTY+Drifter+Rudy+Guede+sentenced+30+years

 

[Malkmus]

Amanda and Raffaele were admittedly stoned on the night of Nov 1, when Meredith was murdered. On Nov 6, after 2 hours of questioning, Amanda's status was changed from witness to suspect, meaning that in those two hours she falsely accused Patrick, and placed herself at the scene of the murder. Is it really possible that 5 days after smoking hashish, Amanda's memory of the night was still so muddy or unclear that she still couldn't make sense of the night of Nov 1, or that she was still so affected by the drugs that she was completely malleable?

No, I don't think she was still under the influence of drugs during her November 5th interrogation. What I find plausible is that she didn't remember that night well enough to stand up to ILE when they insisted they knew for a fact that she had gone to the cottage that night. If you have 10 police officers yelling at you that you're lying when you say you were at your boyfriend's home all night, that they know that for a fact you were there and have hard evidence placing you there, I think a naive person who's memory of that night is already fuzzy could go along with that. Especially if after you keep insisting, they tell you that not only are you wrong, but that you'll go to jail for 30 years if you keep sticking to your story. From what I can tell also, the police insisted she go along with their version under the false pretense that they were protecting her and she was doing the right thing by going along with their version. This helped them get their man, and getting AK and RS to break their alibi also secured their theory of an orgy gone wrong. Unfortunately it was all wrong.

 

[Nova]

.....

 

[Malkmus]

Great article if no one's read this:

this sort of flaw can be a prime indicator of a false confession, evidence that the police, not the suspect, provided the story line.

http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/Loftus_Elizabeth.shtml

 

[Nova]

Great article if no one's read this:



http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/Loftus_Elizabeth.shtml

Neither the concepts nor the cases were new to me, Malkmus, but I've never seen so much of this info in one place before. Thanks.

I hope you won't mind: I started a thread with the same link in the West Memphis Three forum, where it is perhaps even more relevant. (I gave you credit for finding it, of course.)

 

[Malkmus]

Neither the concepts nor the cases were new to me, Malkmus, but I've never seen so much of this info in one place before. Thanks.

I hope you won't mind: I started a thread with the same link in the West Memphis Three forum, where it is perhaps even more relevant. (I gave you credit for finding it, of course.)

By all means