WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9

[Allusonz]

Am I mistaken again? I thought you liked Dempsey as a reference. Is that not true? She's certainly one of the family's best allies. Would she have any reason to lie about the times in her book?

Interesting. I have read alot of books and articles. I know that Dempsey believes in their innocence but to state that she is one of the families best allies I would have to have proof of that which I dont have. Do you?

 

[wasnt_me]

No they had ordered pizza and were called in for the interrogation. Many try to state that this was not planned except they had 12 detectives ready for them which as most know rarely are these done overnight as that requires overtime for the detectives involved. Detectives normally work during the day so again something does not add up here. 12 of the 30 ILE that signed her statement at 5:45 were detectives. As well they forgot to videotape or use audio for any of these. These statements were typed in Italian and truly none of knows what happened during this time or even if the times are accurate as it seems ILE cannot produce any type of recording

Transcript, nothing? Just the statement at the end? Where then does this dempsey get 145am? I don't know who demsey is or if she's right. That's why I want to see some kind of official documentation. Might not get any, but still...

 

[otto]

I think the muddied part is "claims were..."



An article or quote from the motivation or some other statement link would be good, so I can look it right now.

It was referenced in earlier threads too.

Try this link (pg 4): http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files/amanda_knox_case_summary.pdf

Are the Friends of Amanda also confused?

 

[wasnt_me]

It was referenced in earlier threads too.

Try this link (pg 4): http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files/amanda_knox_case_summary.pdf

Are the Friends of Amanda also confused?

I did not say anyone was confused in the first place. I said I hadn't studied this indepthly. As for it being referenced in other threads, I'm certain that 99% of what's being posted and referenced for you, for me, and everyone else is probably already posted in these 9 threads regarding Amanda and Meredith.

 

[wasnt_me]

I wish they'd just demantle the knife. I can't remember why they said they won't. But they have 7 testmarks on the knife according to that video that was just posted about the knife. A, b, c, d, E, F, g.

The video zoomed in on A and B, as if those were the ones with AK and MK traces. What are all the other letters on the knife signifying? You can see the picture at 3:11 on the video.

 

[wasnt_me]

It was referenced in earlier threads too.

Try this link (pg 4): http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files/amanda_knox_case_summary.pdf

Are the Friends of Amanda also confused?

I have read this, and actually I think I've read it before. I was looking for something more detailed. However, I'm interested in this statement:

Knox signed two statements on the morning of November 6, one at 1:45 am and a second at
5:45 am. The Italian Supreme Court has ruled the second statement cannot be used as
evidence because at the time she signed it, Knox was a suspect rather than a witness.6

What is the difference between the one signed at 145am and the one signed at 545am?

Please remember I am not contending anything about these statements. I did state that she'd been pressured to make her statements, which is what the defense contends. I do not know for a fact if she was or wasn't because I haven't looked into it in detail.

 

[otto]

I have read this, and actually I think I've read it before. I was looking for something more detailed. However, I'm interested in this statement:

Knox signed two statements on the morning of November 6, one at 1:45 am and a second at
5:45 am. The Italian Supreme Court has ruled the second statement cannot be used as
evidence because at the time she signed it, Knox was a suspect rather than a witness.6

What is the difference between the one signed at 145am and the one signed at 545am?

Please remember I am not contending anything about these statements. I did state that she'd been pressured to make her statements, which is what the defense contends. I do not know for a fact if she was or wasn't because I haven't looked into it in detail.

There's some difference between making statements as a witness (1:45) and as a suspect (5:45). In any case, neither of these statements could be used against her in court ... and neither were. The only statement used against her was the "gift" statement from Nov 7. The point is that Amanda accused Patrick after 2 hours of questioning as a witness, and during one of those hours she was unable to communicate with police. It's funny that anyone would suggest that this was a result of coercion.

 

[wasnt_me]

This might mean nothing, or it might be significant.

I am watching the video put up a few pages ago, and the guy says that RS's DNA is only on the metal hook of the bra clasp.

Okay, it appears in the video that the invesitgators pick it up and touch that very piece of the bra clasp with the gloves that they'd been using to rummage the room to search for the clasp.

Look at 6:22 on in the video and tell me if I'm correct in this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vEFPZgW9HA&feature=player_embedded#at=98

 

[wasnt_me]

There's some difference between making statements as a witness (1:45) and as a suspect (5:45). In any case, neither of these statements could be used against her in court ... and neither were. The only statement used against her was the "gift" statement from Nov 7. The point is that Amanda accused Patrick after 2 hours of questioning as a witness, and during one of those hours she was unable to communicate with police. It's funny that anyone would suggest that this was a result of coercion.

I'm not clear that this is the point, because I don't know the difference between the two statements she had to sign. which one, the one at 145am or the one at 545am implicated PL? When I ask for the difference before, I meant difference in content. If they were the exact same, why would it matter to the court that one was unusable over the witness/suspect technicality? I assume it matters because they had different content.

It's not funny to me, because AK's idea of coercion can only be hers, just as RF's idea of clean can only be hers. Being physically struck, if that indeed happen, is scary. I have no opinion on it yet to say she was or wasn't, and from what evidence is available, I don't think I will have it.

I'm confused. You're talking now about a third statement made on Nov 7th. I thought the premise was that one of these statements, either made at 145am or 545am implicated PL.

What is the Nov 7th "gift" statement?

 

[wasnt_me]

Off topic,

You know, I do want to know why AK didn't flush the toilet when she saw RG's crap in it.

She stated that she saw it while doing her hair, right? Isn't it the automatic instinct to grimace and flush it?

Glad she didn't. Maybe she got mad because I heard rumors that she was accused of leaving her crap in the toilet, so maybe she thought she'd show it to MK and say, "See, I'm not the only one!" and then found the door locked.

TOTALLY guessing....

 

[otto]

I'm not clear that this is the point, because I don't know the difference between the two statements she had to sign. which one, the one at 145am or the one at 545am implicated PL? When I ask for the difference before, I meant difference in content. If they were the exact same, why would it matter to the court that one was unusable over the witness/suspect technicality? I assume it matters because they had different content.

It's not funny to me, because AK's idea of coercion can only be hers, just as RF's idea of clean can only be hers. Being physically struck, if that indeed happen, is scary. I have no opinion on it yet to say she was or wasn't, and from what evidence is available, I don't think I will have it.

I'm confused. You're talking now about a third statement made on Nov 7th. I thought the premise was that one of these statements, either made at 145am or 545am implicated PL.

What is the Nov 7th "gift" statement?

You would have to research Italian law to understand the difference. It's something about having to tell the truth as a witness or a suspect, but I don't have the details. The 1:45 statement was enough to arrest Patrick. Amanda voluntarily wrote a statement accusing Patrick on Nov 7. That statement could be used against her.

 

[otto]

Off topic,

You know, I do want to know why AK didn't flush the toilet when she saw RG's crap in it.

She stated that she saw it while doing her hair, right? Isn't it the automatic instinct to grimace and flush it?

Glad she didn't. Maybe she got mad because I heard rumors that she was accused of leaving her crap in the toilet, so maybe she thought she'd show it to MK and say, "See, I'm not the only one!" and then found the door locked.

TOTALLY guessing....

There were two bathroom in the cottage. Rudy used the bathroom that was shared by Filomina and Laura. Yes, Meredith's friends said that she was not happy with Amanda because she wasn't keeping up her end of the shared cleaning responsibilities.

 

[wasnt_me]

Forgive me, but I really don't know why I'd have to research Italian law to find out what CONTENT was different in Amanda's two statements. Are you saying they were the EXACT same statement, one signed as a witness, one signed as a suspect?

 

[SMK]

Just to recall exactly what Amanda was up against: To me, it would be terrifying to be called a liar, in relation to a murder---to be told I was covering up for someone, (@ the time, they thought Patrick as they had found a hair of an African , and had seen the "see you later" text-they did not yet know about Guede), that I had met my boss ; to be hit on the back of the head (she is not lying about this, and why was the interrogation not videotaped?); to be told I would go away for 30 years; to be told that having a lawyer "will only make it worse for you"----I could go on and on:

The day of the fifth, I wasn't called to the Questore. Raffaele was called, but I decided to go with him, to keep him company, but also because I was scared to be alone.

When I was there, I had just planned to wait, but the police came into their waiting room and wanted to talk to me more about what I knew, people that I knew who had come to my house. I gave them phone numbers and--

After that, they moved me into another room and started asking me the same questions, what I had done that night, asking me-- for times, exact time periods, exactly what I did. And was-- it was difficult for me because it was in the middle of the night that I-- we had been called. I was very tired. And I was also quite stressed out. And I-- so I--


They kept asking me the same questions, time periods-- exactly sequences of actions and I did my best, to give the same information over and over and over again.

At a certain point-- excuse me. At a certain point, the-- they began-- the police began to be more aggressive with me.

They called me a liar and--

They told me that I was-- of all the things that I had kept saying, over and over again, they said that I was lying. They said that--

They threatened that I was going to go in prison for 30 years because I was hiding something. But I-- but I felt-- I felt completely stressed out, blocked, because I wasn't lying. I didn't know what I-- I didn't know what to do.

Then they started pushing on me the idea that I must have seen something, and forgotten about it. They said that I was traumatized.[. . . ]

I didn't understand. I became really confused. I tried to-- re-express, re-explain what I had done-- the fact that I didn't have to go to work. At that point, they-- I gave them my phone so they could see that I didn't have to-- I received-- okay-- okay--

See - because I received an SMS, and for that reason, they kept repeating to me that I was lying about - SMS. I was confused.

So, what ended up happening was the fact that I had been pressured so much, and I was-- I was hit in the back of the head by one of the police officers and--

Who said she was trying to make me-- help me remember the truth.

I was terrified, because I didn't know-- I-- I didn't know what to do anymore.

And so what ended up happening was they said they-- they went-- take me to jail, and I'm - and because of all this SMS, because-- because of all this confusion, they kept saying, "You sent this thing to Patrick. We know that you left the house. We know." I just said his name. It wasn't because I was trying to say anything. I just said it because they were…

After that - at a certain point, I asked if I should have had a lawyer. And they said that it would have been worse for me.

So they asked me to make declarations about what I remembered, but I told that I didn't remember anything like this.

 

[wasnt_me]

There were two bathroom in the cottage. Rudy used the bathroom that was shared by Filomina and Laura. Yes, Meredith's friends said that she was not happy with Amanda because she wasn't keeping up her end of the shared cleaning responsibilities.

Right. I realize his crap was in the other bathroom, not the one with the bare footprint in it, but she went over there to the other one to do her hair, so I have read. I don't know what the difference in the bathrooms were to make her do that, but she did and I read she saw the crap in the toilet when she did that.

 

[otto]

Forgive me, but I really don't know why I'd have to research Italian law to find out what CONTENT was different in Amanda's two statements. Are you saying they were the EXACT same statement, one signed as a witness, one signed as a suspect?

The statements were essentially the same, as far as I know. I think some information about the contents was published ages ago, but since neither statement was used in the trial of Amanda and Raffaele, they don't seem to be all that important. The important statement is the one that Amanda gave when she was by herself ... no coercion. It affirmed her statements against Patrick.

 

[wasnt_me]

While reading Sciencespheres.com I found this quote interesting:

As in many places, the polizia’s forensics people acted as agents of the prosecution, rather than as neutral discoverers of facts. This fundamental conflict of interest was discussed in Chapter Five – Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of Forensic Science. It is a problem in many justice systems, not just in Italy. The conflicts that this advocacy role creates in Italy are more serious, however, because of the presumption of authority that is afforded to the Polizia by the courts.

http://www.sciencespheres.com/


You find the quote under "motivations questions part 3" (or something similiar in title)

I find it interesting because they are suing for slander, right? The police suing the Knox family? I was just thinking how I don't know if that's EVER happened in America. I mean, an individual officer might have cause to sue someone, but the whole department? Let me know if I have it correctly, but if I do, that does really demonstrate the high regard for the officers in Italy.

This statement has nothing to do with guilt or innocence or any wrong-doing off the police. I'm just getting an idea for the atomosphere. whether the implications this author is making are true or not, still the police seem to hold a lot of power in the courts.

 

[wasnt_me]

The statements were essentially the same, as far as I know. I think some information about the contents was published ages ago, but since neither statement was used in the trial of Amanda and Raffaele, they don't seem to be all that important. The important statement is the one that Amanda gave when she was by herself ... no coercion. It affirmed her statements against Patrick.

Thanks. I didn't realize there were 3 statements total. I'll look into this nov 7th one.

 

[otto]

Just to recall exactly what Amanda was up against: To me, it would be terrifying to be called a liar, in relation to a murder---to be told I was covering up for someone, (@ the time, they thought Patrick as they had found a hair of an African American, and had seen the "see you later" text-they did not yet know about Guede), that I had met my boss ; to be hit on the back of the head (she is not lying about this, and why was the interrogation not videotaped?); to be told I would go away for 30 years; to be told that having a lawyer "will only make it worse for you"----I could go on and on:

The day of the fifth, I wasn't called to the Questore. Raffaele was called, but I decided to go with him, to keep him company, but also because I was scared to be alone.

When I was there, I had just planned to wait, but the police came into their waiting room and wanted to talk to me more about what I knew, people that I knew who had come to my house. I gave them phone numbers and--

After that, they moved me into another room and started asking me the same questions, what I had done that night, asking me-- for times, exact time periods, exactly what I did. And was-- it was difficult for me because it was in the middle of the night that I-- we had been called. I was very tired. And I was also quite stressed out. And I-- so I--


They kept asking me the same questions, time periods-- exactly sequences of actions and I did my best, to give the same information over and over and over again.

At a certain point-- excuse me. At a certain point, the-- they began-- the police began to be more aggressive with me.

They called me a liar and--

They told me that I was-- of all the things that I had kept saying, over and over again, they said that I was lying. They said that--

They threatened that I was going to go in prison for 30 years because I was hiding something. But I-- but I felt-- I felt completely stressed out, blocked, because I wasn't lying. I didn't know what I-- I didn't know what to do.

Then they started pushing on me the idea that I must have seen something, and forgotten about it. They said that I was traumatized.[. . . ]

I didn't understand. I became really confused. I tried to-- re-express, re-explain what I had done-- the fact that I didn't have to go to work. At that point, they-- I gave them my phone so they could see that I didn't have to-- I received-- okay-- okay--

See - because I received an SMS, and for that reason, they kept repeating to me that I was lying about - SMS. I was confused.

So, what ended up happening was the fact that I had been pressured so much, and I was-- I was hit in the back of the head by one of the police officers and--

Who said she was trying to make me-- help me remember the truth.

I was terrified, because I didn't know-- I-- I didn't know what to do anymore.

And so what ended up happening was they said they-- they went-- take me to jail, and I'm - and because of all this SMS, because-- because of all this confusion, they kept saying, "You sent this thing to Patrick. We know that you left the house. We know." I just said his name. It wasn't because I was trying to say anything. I just said it because they were…

After that - at a certain point, I asked if I should have had a lawyer. And they said that it would have been worse for me.

So they asked me to make declarations about what I remembered, but I told that I didn't remember anything like this.

So there was an African American in the cottage? That clears Rudy and Patrick.

Witness statements were not video taped. Should they be?

What difference does it make what Amanda said in statements that were excluded from the murder trial? Amanda had one year added to her sentence for falsely accusing Patrick.

 

[otto]

Right. I realize his crap was in the other bathroom, not the one with the bare footprint in it, but she went over there to the other one to do her hair, so I have read. I don't know what the difference in the bathrooms were to make her do that, but she did and I read she saw the crap in the toilet when she did that.

She was using the blow dryer that belonged to Laura or Filomina. That's why she was in their bathroom. I think it's quite reasonable to ask why she didn't flush ... that is probably what most people would do. Perhaps she wanted evidence of Rudy to remain at the cottage.