What 2 page letter are you referring to where she's still accusing Patrick? The way I see it, it's a very plausible that she was coerced into implicating PL. While PL is said to be very popular/famous throughout Perugia, it doesn't mean LE loves him. They may have wanted him implicated and thus suggested it. I'm only saying it's POSSIBLE.
As far as the emails home, I saw nothing implicating her in the one I read. As far as the mixed DNA....they were roommates, it happens.
No, I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm trying to get to the real facts and real evidence. I don't feel I've seen enough evidence to prove Amanda's or Raf's guilt. And that's MHO.
Or am I supposed to take the word of the people in these links that A&R are guilty? No thanks.
4 Page report with courtroom testimony of "witnesses"....
Homeless Man Puts Knox Near Crime Scene
I wonder if any of these "witnesses" are Guede associates that might have a vested interest in A&R being convicted. I wonder if their DNA, fingerprints, footprints and such have been taken....Again, possible.
3 Page report with courtroom testimony of "witness"....
Shopkeeper Says He Saw Knox After Murder
Took this guy a year to come forward with his "witness" testimony, and only after the urging of his JOURNALIST friend. Weird.
Last edited by Tizzle; 12-10-2009 at 01:36 AM.
Please continue here.
Carried over from previous thread:
@ Tizzle- It is not that I want to know why you don't agree with MY position... I want to know why you argue against it, but do not have any evidence of innocence.
"I just do" is not really a fair answer and does make it look as you are playing devil's advocate.
*The two page letter verified what she had said before about Patrick but it claimed she wasn't sure whether it was a dream or what.
*If you can not find any discrepancies in her email then I suggest you look for omitions... which there are quite a few. Note when she writes that they called the police.
*Media links do not help if the evidence was not used in court. The shop keeper wasn't used because he had no proof for example.
Last edited by dgfred; 12-09-2009 at 01:55 PM.
The Seeker / Sports Freak /
Yes, the jury was there for the entire trial and rendered a verdict. That is something to consider for anyone who thinks AK's "innocence" is so obvious.You make a mistake - you own up to it and accept the consequences - come what may - apparently the jury (when they weren't too busy sleeping, as "Friends of Amanda" have suggested) was privy to more than what we as bystanders were/are and they felt there was something to warrant a guilty verdict - which I do too...and not just simply guilt by association - which DOES happen in American courts, btw....
At the same time, however, we should remember that in nearly every case of wrongful conviction (and there are hundreds of such cases in the U.S. alone that have been definitely proven using DNA, etc.), there was a jury who convicted the defendant. Trial by jury may be the best system (I think so), but juries aren't infallible.
The homeless man verified that he was there that night by supporting testimony about a disabled vehicle and telling his friends (THAT NIGHT) about his 'seeing' the three lunatics with knives. So you can believe him or not... but there is plenty of other evidence such as the blood spots with AKs DNA and MKs blood mixed together.
The Seeker / Sports Freak /
As I said, fred, I've posted many links backing my position. All you need to do is go back and look. The "evidence of innocence" is in the lack of actual evidence, IMO.
It really doesn't matter what we think...this happened in Italy..and they found her guilty
I don't have a drop of Italian blood in me but I find it highly offensive to blame Italy or act as if their court system is flawed just because she is American
they found her guilty...they have appeals...and that's it
as for Germany...they would have sent her back to Italy...the EU of today means that all the countries in Europe pretty much are on the "same page" in regards to crime
the only place they have a problem with is sending people back the US in capital cases...cause none of their countries has the death penalty
anytime someone manages to kill someone in the US and get back to Europe (Mexico/South America...really most anywhere) or go to Europe, our prosecutors have to "take the death penalty off the table" and sign agreements that our courts will impose a maximum of life in prison
That has happened various times...our states do sign off on that...and honor it..otherwise we would never be able to extradite people from Europe
Frankly IF the state dept wastes one penny of my tax dollars on this case I will be furiious..this is NOT a political case, Amanda was not a political prisoner or a diplomat
maybe some Americans are so stupid that we need a big warning on our passports "you are now leaving United States of America and subject to the laws of other countries"
'Lack of evidence' is not equal to 'blind to the evidence'.
How about the bathroom bloody footprint that is obviously not RG's?
How about the mixed DNA/blood of AK/MK?
How about the continued lies told by BOTH AK and RS?
How about the obvious clean-up attempt?
Why would RG stage the break-in?
How about RS stating that he 'pricked' MK's hand while previously cooking a meal with her? That outright lie should at least make you question both in their innocence.
A list like that would support your position better than "I just do" and claiming there is a lack of evidence.
The Seeker / Sports Freak /
Dan, I don't believe the process of coerced testimony is that simple. In most cases, it's more like a negotiation than simple capitulation, with the suspect trying to find the least self-incriminating story that will satisfy the interrogator. And the interrogator trying to get the most incriminating story that can be fit to the known evidence (that evidence being subject to change even during the interrogation).Originally Posted by Steely Dan
And let's remember that in most cases, the interrogator isn't knowingly trying to get an innocent person to falsely confess. So his goal isn't to get the suspect to simply parrot a previously conceived tale, but to tell an original story that fits the evidence and solves the case.
In interrogations of wrongfully suspected subjects, both parties are chasing something that doesn't exist: the "magic words" that will end the interrogation without an arrest or a true confession from an innocent party.
It's a messy business and it shouldn't surprise us that the result is a mishmash of ambiguities, falsehoods, half-truths and outright speculation.
Carried over from thread #1
Meanwhile here's a picture of the knife in a cardboard box. http://www.cnn.nl/2009/CRIME/11/04/i...nce/index.html Notice the knife is tightly wrapped in plastic and has a tag with a number that cannot be opened without breaking it. If the defense's claim is that it could have easily been contaminated is mularkey. JMO
As for "evidence of innocence," apart from an air-tight alibi, what is that anyway? I know it isn't required in U.S. courts of law. Rather, the accepted procedure is to evaluate and challenge the supposed evidence of guilt.
I don't blame anyone for being troubled by the suspects' lying, but as many have pointed out here, there are various reasons why people lie. One of those reasons is attempting to conceal guilt, certainly, but it isn't the only one.
My stance on AK and RS is "innocent until proven guilty" and by proven I mean, "proven to me in order for my opinion to change to guilty." Multiple mixed-DNA blood spots is something that would convince me of involvement by AK. However, I have to find info that informs me about the DNA testing on these items, if such a thing exists and is findable.
Ditto *if* that knife was found "hidden in the back of the closet." If that is something assumed by one of the media (Wendy Murphy, et. al.) and it's wrong, then how can I believe any of the media reports? One detail wrong can mean the difference between thinking a suspect is guilty and thinking they are not guilty.
And it's not that I need to prove that AK is INNOCENT...it's that for me to say definitively 'guilty' then I have to see the evidence that nails that coffin shut. She might be guilty in actuality but there has to be the evidence to convince me. Yes I know the Italian jury is convinced. I'm talking about me in my late-to-the-game armchair jurist role., for which I'm being paid the staggering sum of... ZERO! ;-)
False confessions typically happen when the police are dealing with a dim bulb. Amanda is not a dim bulb.
Amanda's roommate is brutally murdered in the house where Amanda lives. Amanda doesn't seem to know where she was that night. This is not the definition of a false confession.
How can the police force you not to remember?
If you weren't there you don't know. I wasn't there. I certainly don't know. None of us were there to listen and hear it for ourselves. This is why I choose to focus MORE of my attention on things like the physical evidence. I have no basis to argue subjective behavioral evidence since I was not a witness to those things.
Since the interrogation was not used in the trial, maybe we could discuss the actual evidence presented in court.
But then again, everyone knows about it, or as much as the press put out, including the jury. How to unring a bell?
Amanda has made conflicting statements, and we have been discussing possible reasons for the conflicts. You are calling that "doesn't seem to know," not she. And, yes, conflicting statements are often the primary indication of a false confession.Amanda's roommate is brutally murdered in the house where Amanda lives. Amanda doesn't seem to know where she was that night. This is not the definition of a false confession.
AK doesn't claim this--at least not now--as far as I know. If you know otherwise, I will be grateful to see your source.How can the police force you not to remember?
Supporting or challenging the evidence is fine, but not just denying it exist or claiming each piece is not valid. No evidence OPPOSING the guilty looking evidence makes that person guilty in many cases don't ya think?
What would be 'reasons' for lying in a murder investigation that has targeted you? Repeatidly doing so makes the person seem guilty does it not? That, with other circumstancial evidence of guilt will pile up quickly towards that end.
AK must truely be one of the unluckiest people in the world. Almost every piece of evidence and statements show guilt, but not a single piece remotely shows innocence. One simple statement or proof of doing something else at the time of the murder would save her... but it is not to be. Such evidence or proof does not seem to exist. Not only for her, but for RS too.
I believe the Italian jury found the right suspects, they could just not say with certainty which one did the actual killing of MK. That is why they were found guilty of the crimes, but did not get the life sentences the prosecution was asking for... not because there was any doubt.
The Seeker / Sports Freak /
There is plenty in the 2 pg letter, the emails, the evidence and her statements (lies)... so much so that the interrogation material is not even needed imo.
The Seeker / Sports Freak /
Guys, your beating your head against a wall here.
I would say the thread has been infiltrated by the "FOA" gang.
There is no reasoning with them.