Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #6

[otto]

That Patrick didnt confess does not mean that AK would not. This is really bad logic. Not everyone takes the bait.

And further, if she was going to point the finger, then why not at Rudy? Why did she point to Patrick, the very man they were insinuating from the text message? Why not Rudy?

And if she was protecting Rudy, then why clean up her "evidence" and leave all of his?

It doesnt make sense to incriminate him and protect him at the same time. He was a she barely knew.

And the logical reason is that she did not have ANY memory of what happened because she was not there. She invented the one fed to her.

The bad logic is in believing that a well educated, intelligent woman could be forced to falsely confesses to murder and accuse an innocent man of murder in less than 2 hours. That defies logic.

 

[otto]

YES, IT DOES! Not always, but all too often. Read the info at Malkmus link above on coerced testimony. At least a third of people are highly suggestible and easily convinced of things that are not true. Others simply say whatever they think will get them out of the immediate pressure, without considering the ramifications down the road.



I don't think that's how it's actually put to suspects. More often the suspect is told if s/he cooperates s/he will go free, but if not, s/he will be charged as an accomplice. Yes, suspects are foolish to fall for such a ruse, but we know for a fact that many do.

I simply don't believe that Amanda was coerced, and I'm not particularly interested in cases about false confessions in North America ... different continent, different legal systems, different everything.

 

[sherlockh]

Legally, it is the same thing. But I understand your point.

Unfortunately, a tape of AK approaching the cottage at 9 is contradicted by RS and AK watching a DVD until 9:46, and does nothing to explain the presence of RG. I am reasonably certain that is not AK in that video.

(ETA otto posted a cite from the Motivation Report that has the DVD ending at 9:10 rather than 9:46. Still not early enough to put AK at the cottage "around 9", but closer.)

I don't understand how you can prove that both of them were watching a DVD at that time? There is indeed proof that somebody was at the computer till about 9:30pm but not both of them. Nobody of the roommates were home. The street doesn't go anywhere, and the person is one step in front of the entrance gate. The reason why I am absolutely certain that it is AK on the CCTV (even though it can't be proven) is that she admitted to meeting 'Patrick' at the basketball courts at about 9pm and was headed to the cottage. This is a very close match to the timing of the CCTV. Besides the images fit her coming down the stairs from the basketball court. RS himself made statements that AK left at about 9pm, and RG also indicates that AK was present at that time at the cottage. It just fits. Something happened at 9pm, and that was the trigger for the rest of the evening. RG says there was a fight between MK and AK. I think that is indeed what happened. I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories, but on the other hand I also don't believe a murder just because they were 'bored' or carrying around kitchen knives just for 'fun'. That doesn't make any sense either. There had to be a trigger, and that happened at 9pm. That is just my theory

 

[SleuthyGal]

So where does the RS kitchen knife come into play then? Did AK bring it with her? And why? And if RS wasn't there at that time that AK crossed the path where the CCTV camera picks up the image, then does that mean he wasn't involved in the murder?

It certainly changes the dynamics if one considers this scenario.

 

[sherlockh]

So where does the RS kitchen knife come into play then? Did AK bring it with her? And why? And if RS wasn't there at that time that AK crossed the path where the CCTV camera picks up the image, then does that mean he wasn't involved in the murder?

It certainly changes the dynamics if one considers this scenario.

RS, knife, possibly drugs, 'plan of attack' only come into play after AK returns to his apartment. AK probably just went for a change of clothes (I believe that they were supposed to go on a trip the next day?). RS didn't really have a reason to go with her at first. It is just a 5 minute walk and he was on his computer. AK returns at about 9:30pm. After this time, suddenly no more interaction on the computer and both of them are spotted at the basketball court by a witness. I suspect they sent RG away to do some drug shopping.

I do think AK brought the knife to scare the crap out of her roommate after that fight. I don't know exactly what the plan was and why. I do think they thought it was 'funny'. Like AK said: 'we were drunk and wanted to have some fun'. I don't think it changes the dynamics all that much. And finally, I don't think the murder was intended.

All just my theory.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I do think AK brought the knife to scare the crap out of her roommate after that fight.

Didn't they have any knives at their apt? I still can't wrap my head around taking a 12" knife out of RS's place and walking around with it.

 

[Allusonz]

Uh, hence the "Disclaimer: I am providing this information so the diagnostic criteria for an Antisocial Personality Disorder. I am not diagnosing anyone nor attempting to do so."

I was very clear that I was providing further information that I thought would supplement the information you provided earlier...so if you're indicating that I was labeling someone, you are incorrect...were you labeling when you provided that information earlier? :waitasec:

Actually i was agreeing with you and appreciated the disclaimer

I could though plead i was coerced into typing this due to the 1 bottle of red wine we each consumed while we relaxed in Perugia

 

[trillian]

I do think they thought it was 'funny'. Like AK said: 'we were drunk and wanted to have some fun'.

I have not seen this in recorded verbal statements or in her own writing. Can you back this up? Google brings up your own post and a single one on PMF.

 

[Nova]

I simply don't believe that Amanda was coerced, and I'm not particularly interested in cases about false confessions in North America ... different continent, different legal systems, different everything.

I'm trying to find a way to word this response that conforms to TOS and is also fair to the many kindnesses you have shown me in the past. But you seem to be saying you're just not interested in evidence that contradicts your current view. Is that right? That doesn't seem like you, otto.

(No one has presented any argument, must less evidence, that Italian interrogations are inherently unlike American interrogations. On the contrary, what accounts we do have of the interrogations shows them to be all too similar.)

 

[Nova]

I don't understand how you can prove that both of them were watching a DVD at that time? There is indeed proof that somebody was at the computer till about 9:30pm but not both of them. Nobody of the roommates were home. The street doesn't go anywhere, and the person is one step in front of the entrance gate. The reason why I am absolutely certain that it is AK on the CCTV (even though it can't be proven) is that she admitted to meeting 'Patrick' at the basketball courts at about 9pm and was headed to the cottage. This is a very close match to the timing of the CCTV. Besides the images fit her coming down the stairs from the basketball court. RS himself made statements that AK left at about 9pm, and RG also indicates that AK was present at that time at the cottage. It just fits. Something happened at 9pm, and that was the trigger for the rest of the evening. RG says there was a fight between MK and AK. I think that is indeed what happened. I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories, but on the other hand I also don't believe a murder just because they were 'bored' or carrying around kitchen knives just for 'fun'. That doesn't make any sense either. There had to be a trigger, and that happened at 9pm. That is just my theory

ETA Never mind. You explained further in a later post and I present my understanding of your theory below.

 

[trillian]

I simply don't believe that Amanda was coerced, and I'm not particularly interested in cases about false confessions in North America ... different continent, different legal systems, different everything.

Same tactics, same human brain. What is so different exactly? Do you need a list of false confessions in european countries?

 

[Nova]

RS, knife, possibly drugs, 'plan of attack' only come into play after AK returns to his apartment. AK probably just went for a change of clothes (I believe that they were supposed to go on a trip the next day?). RS didn't really have a reason to go with her at first. It is just a 5 minute walk and he was on his computer. AK returns at about 9:30pm. After this time, suddenly no more interaction on the computer and both of them are spotted at the basketball court by a witness. I suspect they sent RG away to do some drug shopping.

I do think AK brought the knife to scare the crap out of her roommate after that fight. I don't know exactly what the plan was and why. I do think they thought it was 'funny'. Like AK said: 'we were drunk and wanted to have some fun'. I don't think it changes the dynamics all that much. And finally, I don't think the murder was intended.

All just my theory.

I'm still assuming they had knives at the cottage, so I don't know why AK decided to bring another one. (I really don't believe that knife had anything to do with the crime.) But your theory doesn't depend on that detail.

So let me see if I have this straight:

1. AK goes home around 9 to get clothes for the trip. While there she has an argument with MK, who has just arrived.

2. AK goes back to RS' apartment around 9:30. She's still angry and proposes that they "teach MK a lesson".

3. Somewhere in here, AK runs into RG and includes him in the plan? (I'm not being facetious or mocking your theory with the phrase "somewhere in here." I use it literally: I'm not sure when you think that happened, but I acknowledge there was time to run into RG at several points.)

4. AK + RS + RG all return to the cottage to scare MK and that's when things get out of control. (Maybe MK panics and is cut. Once blood has been shed, maybe somebody decides the witness has to be silenced.)

Do I remember correctly there were 44 cuts on MK's body? At some point, I assume the murder become intentional, even if homicide wasn't the intended end when the knives were first brandished.

 

[otto]

You've chosen what you will believe and you are not interested in evidence. (No one has presented any argument, must less evidence, that Italian interrogations are inherently unlike American interrogations. On the contrary, what accounts we do have of the interrogations shows them to be all too similar.)

Fair enough.

I have chosen what to believe?

No, I have used information, reason and logic to come to a conclusion. You make it sound like that was a random choice and not a logical conclusion. I have followed the case for the last few years, and there is absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that Amanda was coerced.

Amanda claimed that police forced her to accuse an innocent man of murder because she was beaten and coerced during 54 hours of brutal treatment by police. This was a complete lie then, and it still is today. She was not beaten, the questioning was 2 hours not 54, and the only remaining point is that she was coerced. She lied and accused an innocent man, and that was wrong ... so rather than take responsibility, she blamed the police. She's a liar.

The laws and judicial system in Italy are completely different to what is practiced in the United States. There are various levels of police in Italy, again ... completely different than in the US. Interpretting the laws of another country through the US legal system doesn't make any sense to me. Amanda was in Italy and broke the law in Italy. She is processed through the Italian legal system, and experiencing the gentle rehabilitation offered by the Italian legal system.

 

[sherlockh]

I have not seen this in recorded verbal statements or in her own writing. Can you back this up? Google brings up your own post and a single one on PMF.

Mmhh, I think I got that from a Daily Mail article. Long time ago. I found it

"Yes we were in the house. That evening we wanted to have a bit of fun. We were drunk. We asked her to join us."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oxy-changed-tune-night-Meredith-murdered.html

 

[Nova]

otto, I regret the curtness of my original response to you, which now appears in quote form in your response. I've reworded my post. If you agree, I'd rather you substitute the new version of the post. (Your choice entirely, of course. I wrote what I wrote, so you are under no obligation to do anything.)

 

[otto]

Same tactics, same human brain. What is so different exactly? Do you need a list of false confessions in european countries?

What I need is some reason to believe that Amanda Knox, not someone else, falsely accused an innocent man, and then falsely accused the police of making her say it by beating and abusing her for 54 hours.

 

[Nova]

I have chosen what to believe?

No, I have used information, reason and logic to come to a conclusion. You make it sound like that was a random choice and not a logical conclusion. I have followed the case for the last few years, and there is absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that Amanda was coerced.

Amanda claimed that police forced her to accuse an innocent man of murder because she was beaten and coerced during 54 hours of brutal treatment by police. This was a complete lie then, and it still is today. She was not beaten, the questioning was 2 hours not 54, and the only remaining point is that she was coerced. She lied and accused an innocent man, and that was wrong ... so rather than take responsibility, she blamed the police. She's a liar.

The laws and judicial system in Italy are completely different to what is practiced in the United States. There are various levels of police in Italy, again ... completely different than in the US. Interpretting the laws of another country through the US legal system doesn't make any sense to me. Amanda was in Italy and broke the law in Italy. She is processed through the Italian legal system, and experiencing the gentle rehabilitation offered by the Italian legal system.

otto, the evidence that police interrogation results in false testimony an alarming amount of the time has been presented in detail. Suddenly, you announce you will consider nothing but evidence from Europe. If I can find studies from France, I'm sure you will insist on data from Italy, and then only from Umbria.

Malkmus has shown in considerable detail how the specifics of AK's statement and RS' statement include only info that fits the police theory at the time (a theory that later proved incorrect). This, plus the lack of new info in those statements, strongly suggests the suspects were responding to police prompts rather than telling the truth or any story of their own creation.

Yet you insist there was no coercion. I do not know the basis for this opinion of yours, since we have no tapes of the actual interrogations.

No one knows better than I how well you have researched this case. But on this particular subject, you seem unwilling to consider any evidence that might cast doubt on how AK came to make the unfortunate statements she made.

 

[Nova]

What I need is some reason to believe that Amanda Knox, not someone else, falsely accused an innocent man, and then falsely accused the police of making her say it by beating and abusing her for 54 hours.

The police told her they KNEW PL had committed the murder and she (AK) had been at the scene, but repressed the memory. They further told her that if she refused to cooperate and testify against PL, she would be prosecuted as an accomplice and go to prison for 30 years.

They repeated these threats and statements for more than 40 hours over several days until late one night, AK foolishly agreed. By the next morning, she was already trying to take the accusation back, but clumsily searching for a way to do so without admitting to perjury. So she wrote silly stuff about her memories seeming "more unreal than real" and the other nonsense we've all come to know so well.

None of this is unusual.

 

[Allusonz]

What I need is some reason to believe that Amanda Knox, not someone else, falsely accused an innocent man, and then falsely accused the police of making her say it by beating and abusing her for 54 hours.

I am having a truly difficult time here understanding where this 54 hours continues to come from.

I have personally never stated that Amanda Knox was interrogated over 54 hours. What I have personally stated and believe is that Amanda Knox was interrogated over 40 hours over a 4 - 5 days

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.

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

 

[Nova]

I am having a truly difficult time here understanding where this 54 hours continues to come from.

I have personally never stated that Amanda Knox was interrogated over 54 hours. What I have personally stated and believe is that Amanda Knox was interrogated over 40 hours over a 4 - 5 days

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.

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 don't know, A. I'm using your "more than 40 hours over 4 to 5 days" figure. That seems plenty to me.

As for the length of interrogation on the night she accused PL, otto counts to the time AK was declared a suspect; you count to the time she signed her statement. I think.