From what I know they tried to have Amanda give a urine sample sometime after being arrested but she was unable to go because she had just gone after the end of her 5:45AM statement. IIRC cocaine could be undetected after three days via urine testing. However, I think there are many more reasons to trust that she hadn't done cocaine. I also think the burden to prove that she was on cocaine that night would have been on the prosecution and they never proved or tried to prove that she was.
Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
- Status
From what I know they tried to have Amanda give a urine sample sometime after being arrested but she was unable to go because she had just gone after the end of her 5:45AM statement. IIRC cocaine could be undetected after three days via urine testing. However, I think there are many more reasons to trust that she hadn't done cocaine. I also think the burden to prove that she was on cocaine that night would have been on the prosecution and they never proved or tried to prove that she was.
Okay - I see. The hair testing is just info, but totally unrelated to this case, right? In this case, A & R were never tested for cocaine use?
And yes, I agree, it would have been up to the prosecution to prove any drug use.
Thanks,
Salem
And yes, I agree, it would have been up to the prosecution to prove any drug use.
Thanks,
Salem
I don't know that Otto was genuinely describing her as sensible...I thought he was being facetious, but only Otto can actually answer that
If he was being facetious then it negates the point he was making...
My point re: assumption vs. opinion was to remind everyone to consider whether their post is likely to come across as rude or combative, etc.
NOT THAT I'M SAYING ANYONE'S POSTS WERE RUDE OR COMBATIVE. I just noticed that particular sentence and used it as an opportunity to reflect "out loud" upon semantics and the nature of non face-to-face discussion, etc.eace:
Agreed. I was only furthering your point by saying that we can't state someone's opinion or assumption based on opinion is wrong unless we provide a reason why. As it stands I think Otto made a blanket statement about "sensible women" without any evidence, and Nova objected to it also without evidence. However, since I think Otto's claim was rather baseless, I can't really blame Nova for calling him out. I think the ball is in Otto's court to explain his reasoning. Or perhaps there are some "sensible women" in this thread who'd like to state with certainty that they never would succumb to police pressure within that amount of time. All in all, I think this falls into the "easier said than done" category. I'm sure we'd all like to think we'd stand up well to police pressure, but history states otherwise.
At this point whether they were hair tested or urine tested is inconclusive. We can assume they were drug tested based on officer Ficarra's testimony that she tried to give Amanda a urine test, but we don't know whether they were additionally hair tested or what process Raffaele went through. I think it's safe to say they were drug tested in some capacity, but not specifically how.
flourish
Now With 30% More Emo
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 6,392
- Reaction score
- 6,803
Which is why I'm curious to hear your opinion on the matter.
BTW, when I say things like "I'm sure we'd all like to think we'd stand up well to police pressure, but history states otherwise", I'm just giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and not actually claiming to know exactly what each and every one of you is thinking. To be clear.
flourish
Now With 30% More Emo
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 6,392
- Reaction score
- 6,803
Thanks for the follow-up disclaimer.
Ever the :detective:, you
Some of my opinions and thoughts are based on personal experiences that I'm not comfortable sharing here *shrug* Perhaps more later, but for now,
fftobed: Good discussion, folks
(imo)Thanks for the follow-up disclaimer.
Ever the :detective:, you
Some of my opinions and thoughts are based on personal experiences that I'm not comfortable sharing here *shrug* Perhaps more later, but for now,
Good discussion, folks
I can totally respect that
Allusonz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,679
- Reaction score
- 17
Amanda was tested for drugs with low traces of cannabis, therefore, didn’t need rehab therapy in jail
as per perugiashock
We must all remember that initially the prosecution's motive was a drug fueled orgy thus to not test for drugs i believe would of been ludicrous.
As well she was told that she had HIV in order for her to divulge whom she had sexual contact with, when in fact she did not have HIV and was in fact tested 2 times for this.
What is being alluded to now is that she was on cocaine, but as per my previous post, many are under the misconception that it is only detectable for a few days when in fact that is not the case whatsoever
The next time anyone goes for surgery it would be wise to enquire if going under an anesthetic what they are using as that will show up in a drug test depending on what is used......i would be sad to see someone losing their job because it showed up in mandatory drug test
We must all remember what group of drugs cocaine falls under....
Hope this helps as cocaine is not what they usually test for as that is not what metabolises in your system
There is a bit of misinformation out there and that is cocaine is out of your system in 2-3 days. Well while that might be true LABS DON'T TEST FOR THE DRUG ITSELF. Yes, that is true, they look for the metabolite. A metabolite is something that the body produces when it ingests something, in the case of cocaine it is "benzoylecgonine" that will stay around long after the drug is gone, up to 30 days for a frequent user. THE DRUG ITSELF can stay in your bloodstream up to 72 hours. It can stay in your urine for about 2 or up to 7 days after single use. Habitual or chronic use can be detected in urine for up to 12 weeks depending on quantity, duration, and frequency of use.
Cocain can stay in your hair up to about 90 days. But there are also information that cocaine can stay in your hair for about 25 years after you only take it once
as per perugiashock
We must all remember that initially the prosecution's motive was a drug fueled orgy thus to not test for drugs i believe would of been ludicrous.
As well she was told that she had HIV in order for her to divulge whom she had sexual contact with, when in fact she did not have HIV and was in fact tested 2 times for this.
What is being alluded to now is that she was on cocaine, but as per my previous post, many are under the misconception that it is only detectable for a few days when in fact that is not the case whatsoever
The next time anyone goes for surgery it would be wise to enquire if going under an anesthetic what they are using as that will show up in a drug test depending on what is used......i would be sad to see someone losing their job because it showed up in mandatory drug test
We must all remember what group of drugs cocaine falls under....
Hope this helps as cocaine is not what they usually test for as that is not what metabolises in your system
There is a bit of misinformation out there and that is cocaine is out of your system in 2-3 days. Well while that might be true LABS DON'T TEST FOR THE DRUG ITSELF. Yes, that is true, they look for the metabolite. A metabolite is something that the body produces when it ingests something, in the case of cocaine it is "benzoylecgonine" that will stay around long after the drug is gone, up to 30 days for a frequent user. THE DRUG ITSELF can stay in your bloodstream up to 72 hours. It can stay in your urine for about 2 or up to 7 days after single use. Habitual or chronic use can be detected in urine for up to 12 weeks depending on quantity, duration, and frequency of use.
Cocain can stay in your hair up to about 90 days. But there are also information that cocaine can stay in your hair for about 25 years after you only take it once
But, they didn't test the hair IIRC. Wasn't it just blood/urine? :waitasec:
Oops. Sorry, needed to read further on the thread.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 42,900
- Reaction score
- 126,802
I'm guessing that the below post has caused some confusion.
Let me explain. Amanda has been presented by the family as a sensible, intelligent, well-educated young woman who was successful in her studies, and who was well prepared for studies abroad. This Amanda could never hurt even a spider. That is not the Amanda that we met through her writings and in the courtroom. The Amanda we have come to know throughout the trial is not a sensible woman, but rather someone that appears to be selfish, self-absorbed, enthralled with the attention from men, disrespectful of others, dishonest, self-serving, self-indulgent and interested in some very dark aspects of human nature.
Amanda has, in the past, stated that she was coerced, yelled at by several people (10-20) and beaten over a period of about 54 hours, at which point she broke down and falsely accused an innocent man. Everyone was shocked to hear this, so some people examined the claim of 54 hours. It turned out that the truth was more like 2 hours. Although she had been questioned at various times after the murder, similar to many other witnesses, she was at no time interrogated continuously for 54 hours - which is what Amanda wanted people to believe.
"But Knox's lawyers say the Seattle native only confessed to being at home the night of the murder after nearly 54 hours of intense interrogation without a solicitor or interpreter. She later retracted her statement."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/amanda-knoxs-lawyers-confident/story-fn6e1m7z-1225992691127
"Amanda Knox, the woman accused of murdering British exchange student Meredith Kercher, told an Italian court she was hit by police and forced to make false statements during a late night interrogation."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/12/amanda-knox-meredith-kercher-murder-trial
So, the 54 hours was not true. She, like other suspects, was brought in for questioning over a period of 5 days. On Nov 5, at about 11:30 pm, she was at the police station because Raffaele was there. Police decided to question her because she was there. Two hours later, she confessed.
Was she beaten? That is also questionable. Several police officers were present, and none are aware of Amanda being beaten. This point has resulted in further charges against Amanda for making false statements against police. It has also resulted in charges against Amanda's parents for repeating this allegations.
Back to my comment regarding Amanda being a sensible woman ... in my comment, I state "Amanda was supposed to be a sensible woman". That is, according the the way that the family and her lawyers want to present Amanda, she is supposed to be a sensible woman. Is she a sensible woman? Does a sensible woman claim that she was forced to confess after nearly 54 hours of intense interrogation when that didn't actually happen? Shouldn't she realize that the truth wil come out? Now we know that 3 hours before her confession she was happily flipping cartwheels at the police station, not suffering indescribable coercion at the hands of brutal police.
Bottom line: I don't believe that Amanda was coerced, I don't believe that she falls into the category of people that are broken down after 54 hours of intense interrogation, and I don't believe that she was beaten and forced to confess. As far as being sensible, the family says one thing, the facts speak for themselves. She is convicted of murder ... there's nothing sensible about that.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 42,900
- Reaction score
- 126,802
Malkmus, I would respectfully request that you keep my comments in context and, that when quoting me, you include my entire comment; not just a portion of it. Selectively quoting my comments seems to result in confusion (for everyone) as to the original intent of my remark. Clearly, in context, my statement was that Amanda was supposed to be sensible. Based on that, I stated that a sensible young woman would not respond as Amanda did during questioning. I stand by this statement ... that I do not believe that sensible adults falsely accuse innocent people of murder (even if they were stoned five days earlier), and confess to involvement in murder, after 2 hours of questioning as a witness. Even children that are accused of murder withstand many more hours of questioning before they break down and repeat what the interrogator wants the suspect to say.
Amanda was convicted of the murder, so there could be any number of reasons, unrelated to her 2 hours of questioning, for her to falsely accuse an innocent man. One that comes to mind is that she assumed that by accusing someone else of the murder, she would be free to leave. Isn't that what happens on CSI, the show that Amanda said she likes to watch? It is also important to note that investigators did not introduce Patrick's name to the discussion ... Amanda introduced him ... so she was not merely repeating what she was told to say, but creating her own scenario about the night of the murder. For example, no one told her to say that Patrick frightened her, that he murdered Meredith, or that Meredith screamed or was sexually assaulted ... or any of the allegations that Amanda made. Amanda's story was created and embellished without any assistance from police. She placed herself in the kitchen with her hands over her ears to block the sound of the screams.
I should qualify that ... we don't know exactly what happened during the 2 hours that Amanda was questioned as a witness, but I highly doubt investigators told Amanda to say that she was standing in the kitchen with her hands covering her ears while Patrick, whom she was afraid of, was in the bedroom assaulting and murdering Meredith. If anything, I suspect the police would have told her to say that she was in the bedroom during the attack.
Amanda was convicted of the murder, so there could be any number of reasons, unrelated to her 2 hours of questioning, for her to falsely accuse an innocent man. One that comes to mind is that she assumed that by accusing someone else of the murder, she would be free to leave. Isn't that what happens on CSI, the show that Amanda said she likes to watch? It is also important to note that investigators did not introduce Patrick's name to the discussion ... Amanda introduced him ... so she was not merely repeating what she was told to say, but creating her own scenario about the night of the murder. For example, no one told her to say that Patrick frightened her, that he murdered Meredith, or that Meredith screamed or was sexually assaulted ... or any of the allegations that Amanda made. Amanda's story was created and embellished without any assistance from police. She placed herself in the kitchen with her hands over her ears to block the sound of the screams.
I should qualify that ... we don't know exactly what happened during the 2 hours that Amanda was questioned as a witness, but I highly doubt investigators told Amanda to say that she was standing in the kitchen with her hands covering her ears while Patrick, whom she was afraid of, was in the bedroom assaulting and murdering Meredith. If anything, I suspect the police would have told her to say that she was in the bedroom during the attack.
Otto, my original response to you did include your entire post. Here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125994&page=26
So, I think the accusation is unwarranted. After that Nova also commented making the same assumption about your post as I did, to which you responded but didn't clarify your post as you have waited until now to do. Frankly, it feels like your shifting the goalposts, or you would have made this clarification yesterday when responding to me and Nova. You also admitted your statement was the source of confusion and the only time I didn't quote your entire sentence was when asking for clarification on it. This is very similar to our conversation yesterday where you said one thing regarding Rudy writing in blood on the wall and then turned around and said something completely different.
Basically, what this comes down to is that you made this statement:
"most sensible women don't fall apart with 2 hours of questioning as a witness"
Whether you think Amanda is sensible or not isn't as relevant as determining if there is any truth to the above statement you made.
I think the interrogation is a conversation we should definitely get into. There are two important aspects to it. One, it's true that we don't know exactly what happened in there because there is no recording. But, 2, we do know a lot about the circumstances surrounding it that we can paint a pretty good picture of what happened in there based on her written statements, what the police said before an after it, and what Amanda said in her testimony. I will get to this as soon as I can in subsequent posts. But I'll start off by saying that I strongly disagree with your notion that Amanda thought to name Patrick and set out to accuse him based on no prompting from the police.
What I would like to hear is your version, or anyone here for that matter who believes she is guilty, of what happened in that interrogation in steps based on what we know about it. I will do the same when I have the time.... I'd love to elaborate on it right this second, but since I'm at work it can be difficult to respond in a timely manner.
otto;6095478 Amanda has said:
Re the "54 hours of interrogation". I think there's a difference between someone claiming she was interrogated for 54 hours straight (an unbelievable number to begin with... wouldn't someone have to sleep in between there, including the officers themselves?) and claiming that she was interrogated for 54 hours over the course of 5 days. I don't know who is at fault here. There is no quote from the lawyers, so we don't know how they phrased it, and I don't think it's fair to state that Amanda herself ever claimed 54 hours straight of interrogation. I would chalk this one up to bad reporting, not necessarily anything Amanda or her lawyers said. And I don't know that every new outlet reported it in such an ambiguous manner. I'll have to check. I will say that if we're to believe Amanda set out to accuse someone else from the beginning that it is interesting that it took so many interrogations to get to that point.
Allusonz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,679
- Reaction score
- 17
I THINK the following aptly describes in as few of words as possible MY VIEW of Amanda Knox
IMMATURE
adjective
1.not mature or ripe; not completely grown or developed
2.not finished or perfected; incomplete
3.lacking the emotional maturity, sense of responsibility, etc. characteristic of an adult
IN MY OPINION, I do see this on a daily basis. I see it in both college students and ADULTS
IN MY OPINION this does not make them a MURDERER
IN MY OPINION I do find that most younger individuals do indeed MATURE with time and experience and become extremely productive members of a community
I think it depends on the SOURCE the number of hours she was interrogated. SOME individuals I THINK believe certain media to not be TABLOIDS. I often do not concur with this but alas this is simply my OPINION
I have personally never stated that Amanda Knox was interrogated over 54 hours. What I have personally stated and BELIEVE TO BE THE TRUTH is that Amanda Knox was interrogated over 40 hours over a 4 - 5 DAY TIME SPAN which is more than MOST OF US WORK IN A WEEK
I am having a very difficult time with my math. I am trying to figure out where my calculations are wrong. I THINK if i take 11:00pm - 5:45am that amounts to 6 hours and 45 minutes. I have even given this extremely difficult exercise to college students of mine with the explicit instructions of trying to VERIFY or find out where my miscalculation was. Now many have the most sophistacted calculators available. I have even had them do the math the old fashioned way (by long hand to show their method of arriving at their calculations) but surprisingly out of all the brightest students i picked NONE of them were able to find an error in my calculations.
Thus i believe and it is MY OPINION that the interrogation was NOT 2 hours it was 6 HOURS AND 45 MINUTES as her STATEMENT was signed at 5:45am
I must state it is MY OPINION as I was not there in person and there are no AUDIO/VISUAL tapes available for MY REVIEW
IT IS MY BELIEF that unless the prosecution provides copies of the interrogation, which by ITALIAN LAW THEY MUST DO, that NO ONE can state with any certainty whether this did or did not happen
Since most of this appears to me and it is MY BELIEF that some of this is repeated i will again state my opinion on this.
I think it depends on the SOURCE the number of hours she was interrogated. SOME individuals I THINK believe certain media to not be TABLOIDS. I often do not concur with this by alas this is simply my OPINION
I have personally never stated that Amanda Knox was interrogated over 54 hours. What I have personally stated and BELIEVE TO BE THE TRUTH is that Amanda Knox was interrogated over 40 hours over a 4 - 5 DAY TIME SPAN which is more than MOST OF US WORK IN A WEEK
I am having a very difficult time with my math. I am trying to figure out where my calculations are wrong. I THINK if i take 11:00pm - 5:45am that amounts to 6 hours and 45 minutes. I have even given this extremely difficult exercise to college students of mine with the explicit instructions of trying to VERIFY or find out where my miscalculation was. Now many have the most sophistacted calculators available. I have even had them do the math the old fashioned way (by long hand to show their method of arriving at their calculations) but surprisingly out of all the brightest students i picked NONE of them were able to find an error in my calculations.
Thus i believe and it is MY OPINION that the interrogation was NOT 2 hours it was 6 HOURS AND 45 MINUTES as her STATEMENT was signed at 5:45am
I must state it is MY OPINION as I was not there in person and there are no AUDIO/VISUAL tapes available for MY REVIEW
I will also address the added comments as it is my opinion.
I THINK that the supposed "cartwheel" came about after a comment from an ILE officer and it is MY BELIEF that she actually did some STRETCHES etc., which are often common in such things as YOGA. I will also note her age here as I do not THINK I could PERSONNALLY do this anymore although I KNOW i could do this at HER AGE.
I THINK an issue came up with respect to a translation issue during which Mignini’s investigators fixated on a text-message exchange from the night in question in which Lumumba told Knox he wouldn’t need her to come in. Knox replied "See you later! Good night.”
I THINK that the interrogation was done in ITALIAN of which she was not overly CONVERSANT
MY OPINION is The interrogators told Amanda to imagine she was at the cottage. She was told to imagine that Patrick committed the crime
I KNOW THAT IT IS A FACT that the Italian Supreme Court RULED that her STATEMENT was INADMISSABLE as she did not have LEGAL REPRESENTATION
I KNOW that detectives are able to do a number of things during an interrogation which include but are not limited to:
Interrogators are known to use several techniques to manipulate innocent suspects into self-incrimination. Over long periods of time, interrogators play mind games to confuse the suspect. One technique is to ask the suspect to imagine hypothetical scenarios. The interrogators feed the information that they want the suspect to imagine. Over long a long drawn out interrogation, the suspect gets confused and starts trying to comply with the request being made to imagine the scenarios
I also KNOW and I THINK to be rather on the low side that individuals do confess to crimes they did not commit
While it can be hard to understand why someone would falsely confess to a crime, psychological research has provided some answers – and DNA exonerations have proven that the problem is more widespread than many people think. In approximately 25% of the wrongful convictions overturned with DNA evidence, defendants made false confessions, admissions or statements to law enforcement officials.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/False-Confessions.php?phpMyAdmin=52c4ab7ea46t7da4197
I KNOW FOR a fact that the STATEMENT was typed in ITALIAN, without LEGAL REPRESENTATION, and signed by her
Chief Superintendent Giacinto Profazio
Asked about Knox's behaviour when she emerged from her own,interrogation in the early hours of the following morning, he replied: "She cried."
I often WONDER what did indeed happen during those hours of interrogation for Giacinto Profazio to testify that she was crying upon exiting the room.
Bottom Line: I DO BELIEVE that Amanda Knox's confession was COERCED after 6 hours and 45 minutes of interrogation by 12 detectives overnight, without food, drink, and sleep. I think that she had not matured enough to handle this situation and I am certain that with more LIFE EXPERIENCE and in hindsight she would of done things much differently as she is NOW more MATURE.
IT IS MY BELIEF that i have not covered everything I have wanted
I will Respectfully request Otto that my comments are kept in context and in full in the future, and that when it comes to me that you include my entire comment, not just a portion of it as selecting portions of my comments results in misrepresentation of the context of the comment and does indeed create confusion.
IT IS MY BELIEF that I have fully included every quote, but if i did happen to miss something I do sincerely apologize as it is never my intent to misrepresent what you have stated nor do i believe it to be the intent of anyone here to do that. If I did misquote or misrepresent anything within this please do not hesitate to contact me and I will personally contact a moderator and make sure that misrepresentation is corrected.
As well, I do apologize to the others for the length of this post. I personally try to keep them much shorter to save space and time, thus I hope you will bear with me.
But we weren't talking about whether RS or RG should go to prison for drug usage or dealing (in which case Italian law would be the only applicable), we were talking about using v. dealing as it relates to character. I mentioned American law's treatment of one versus the other because it reflects common beliefs on the relative severity of each.
AND IN FACT, Italian law makes the same distinction, treating trafficking as a much more severe offense than usage:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4415#policy
They are relevant to your rather transparent rhetorical stress on the word "woman" whenever you refer to AK. My point is that per the laws of her own land, she wasn't yet old enough to enjoy full adult rights. I.e., she was still basically a "girl".
This matters, of course, because the younger the subject of interrogation, the more likely the resulting testimony will be coerced.
I don't know that it matters. I used the word "assumptions" because I was talking about beliefs on matters with which the poster has claimed no personal experience and done no formal research, on which the poster provided no citation.
So "assumption" seemed accurate. It wasn't a criticism.
She can appeal ALL she wants but her actions do not jive with someone who just lost a friend to a brutal murder.
Her actions before/after trial= GUILTY
If I was her, I would be crying my eyes out, she hardly cried at all (IF any)
She already confessed to being there.
The first thing she should have done was run out of the cottage, call the police on her cell phone or at least run to a neighbor's house and bang on the door.
She Didn't, once she saw the blood, she decided to take a shower. (like the blood was nothing).
I think there is something seriously wrong with Amanda Marie Knox.
of course her family and friends paint her as this :innocent: angel who can do no wrong. :sick:
Her actions before/after trial= GUILTY
If I was her, I would be crying my eyes out, she hardly cried at all (IF any)
She already confessed to being there.
The first thing she should have done was run out of the cottage, call the police on her cell phone or at least run to a neighbor's house and bang on the door.
She Didn't, once she saw the blood, she decided to take a shower. (like the blood was nothing).
I think there is something seriously wrong with Amanda Marie Knox.
of course her family and friends paint her as this :innocent: angel who can do no wrong. :sick:
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 125
- Guests online
- 1,712
- Total visitors
- 1,837