Amanda Knox retrial begins

CMOTDibbler

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Yet she did know innocent barman Diya Patrick Lumumba as a the possible culprit .

That's an interesting point.

She did know Patrick Lumumba, she also knew he was working in his bar that night because he phoned her to say he didn't need her. So she knew he would have an alibi. And yet she gave his name to the police as a possible suspect. Why would she do that knowing what she knew? Perhaps because they wanted a name and wouldn't stop until they got one. And that one wouldn't hold up.

But it's interesting how the police acted. They arested him and held him in jail for some days before his alibi forced his release. They didn't question him first and establish his alibi, they treated him as guilty immediately.

There are echoes of the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven in all of this.

brickmauser

Means Of Escape wrote: »

He was in possession of the knife that murdered Kercher for a start

We have been over this.
The knife did not match Kercher's wounds.
The knife had NO blood on it.
The knife did NOT have Kercher's DNA on it.
It had Knox's DNA on it because she used it for cooking.
It could not have been the murder weapon.

brickmauser

lillycakes2 wrote: »

I cant make up my mind whether i think she did it or not !!!

Why don't you read about the case and examine the evidence and then use logic and common sense.

Means Of Escape

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That's an interesting point.

She did know Patrick Lumumba, she also knew he was working in his bar that night because he phoned her to say he didn't need her. So she knew he would have an alibi. And yet she gave his name to the police as a possible suspect. Why would she do that knowing what she knew? Perhaps because they wanted a name and wouldn't stop until they got one. And that one wouldn't hold up.

But it's interesting how the police acted. They arested him and held him in jail for some days before his alibi forced his release. They didn't question him first and establish his alibi, they treated him as guilty immediately.

There are echoes of the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven in all of this.

Guildford four?!?
They didn't try to finger anyone for the bombing
Knox deflected her guilt by blaming a barman
Anyone who thinks these two have nothing to hide are living in lala land .

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That's an interesting point.

She did know Patrick Lumumba, she also knew he was working in his bar that night because he phoned her to say he didn't need her. So she knew he would have an alibi. And yet she gave his name to the police as a possible suspect. Why would she do that knowing what she knew? Perhaps because they wanted a name and wouldn't stop until they got one. And that one wouldn't hold up.

But it's interesting how the police acted. They arested him and held him in jail for some days before his alibi forced his release. They didn't question him first and establish his alibi, they treated him as guilty immediately.

There are echoes of the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven in all of this.

Patrick had text her to say he was closing the bar because there was no one around, makes him a good suspect as he was evidently not where he would have been expected to be that night. The only person who knew where he was had left the country and was not personally known to him.

CMOTDibbler

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Guildford four?!?
They didn't try to finger anyone for the bombing
Knox deflected her guilt by blaming a barman
Anyone who thinks these two have nothing to hide are living in lala land .

The Guildford four were bombarded with demands to name names of other 'conspirators'. Annie Maguire was named by Gerry Conlon along with other friends, relatives and acquaintances.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Patrick had text her to say he was closing the bar because there was no one around, makes him a good suspect as he was evidently not where he would have been expected to be that night. The only person who knew where he was had left the country and was not personally known to him.

What was his alibi then?

I have seen no reports anywhere that says anything other than he had texted her to say he didn't need her that night as the bar wasn't busy. No mention of him closing early (the text was sent at 8:30pm) which for a bar owner would be madness anyway.

All references to his alibi state that he was in the bar all night.

seamus

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Yet she did know innocent barman Diya Patrick Lumumba as a the possible culprit .

Being interrogated without a solicitor, without access to food or water and being beaten, will tend to make people say anything at all.
Police wanted some patsies, the prospect of being able to take a local black businessman down a peg or two was too tantalising so they prompted her to name him as a suspect.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

What was his alibi then?

I have seen no reports anywhere that says anything other than he had texted her to say he didn't need her that night as the bar wasn't busy. No mention of him closing early (the text was sent at 8:30pm) which for a bar owner would be madness anyway.

All references to his alibi state that he was in the bar all night.

Yes, he was in the bar, what I mean is that this is from Amanda's point of view at the time she was interviewed. The police read his texts so they must have backed up what Amanda said in her admission that night, that Patrick said he was closing the bar. As it turned out he didn't and had only one customer that we know about, the Swiss guy who saw Patrick on the TV and realised he was in the bar. Before that point the police had no way of verifying if Patrick was there or not, his texts contradicting his claim.

CMOTDibbler

seamus wrote: »

Being interrogated without a solicitor, without access to food or water and being beaten, will tend to make people say anything at all.
Police wanted some patsies, the prospect of being able to take a local black businessman down a peg or two was too tantalising so they prompted her to name him as a suspect.

There are a lot of strange aspects to how the courts operated in this. Her 'confession' was ruled inadmissable as evidence at her trial because she was interrogated without her lawyer being present.

Yet the Court of Cassation referred to that 'confession' as evidence that she was present in the house at the time of the murder.

Cianmcliam

seamus wrote: »

Being interrogated without a solicitor, without access to food or water and being beaten, will tend to make people say anything at all.
Police wanted some patsies, the prospect of being able to take a local black businessman down a peg or two was too tantalising so they prompted her to name him as a suspect.

She was only there a few hours and was being questioned as a witness. She was never beaten, she claims someone slapped her on the back of the head.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There are a lot of strange aspects to how the courts operated in this. Her 'confession' was ruled inadmissable as evidence at her trial because she was interrogated without her lawyer being present.

Yet the Court of Cassation referred to that 'confession' as evidence that she was present in the house at the time of the murder.

This is because by that time she had been convicted of the malicious slander of Patrick and accusing an innocent person of the crime. In the first court case this had not yet been proven and she was not convicted of it. So Cassation were able to fit this now established and proven fact into their deliberations.

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

Being interrogated without a solicitor, without access to food or water and being beaten, will tend to make people say anything at all.
Police wanted some patsies, the prospect of being able to take a local black businessman down a peg or two was too tantalising so they prompted her to name him as a suspect.

She was only there a few hours and was being questioned as a witness. She was never beaten, she claims someone slapped her on the back of the head.

This is just an outright statement of ignorance.
Amanda Knox was interrogated for 8 hours the night of the confession. Without food or water. In a police station. In a foreign country. In a foreign language. By a dozen different officers. Without being allowed a lawyer.
Furthermore she also endured 43 hours of sitting at a table being badgered by questions from detectives in five days. 8 hours a day for an entire work week. In a foreign country. In a foreign language. Mostly at night.
If this happened to you, you would have confessed to being the gunman on the grassy knoll.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Yes, he was in the bar, what I mean is that this is from Amanda's point of view at the time she was interviewed. The police read his texts so they must have backed up what Amanda said in her admission that night, that Patrick said he was closing the bar. As it turned out he didn't and had only one customer that we know about, the Swiss guy who saw Patrick on the TV and realised he was in the bar. Before that point the police had no way of verifying if Patrick was there or not, his texts contradicting his claim.

All references to that text suggest that it merely told her that she wasn't needed because the bar wasn't busy. I've seen nothing that says that he told her he was closing early. A text saying the bar wasn't busy, doesn't rule out the possibility of it closing early either.

But it didn't. It stayed open and rather than actually trying to investigate that fact (there are literally dozens of ways that it could be established), they arrested Lumumba and held him in custody for two weeks until the customer came forward.

If that doesn't tell you something about the police's incompetence in this case, nothing will.

seamus

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yet the Court of Cassation referred to that 'confession' as evidence that she was present in the house at the time of the murder.

Actually the court of cassation referred to the fact that original trial considered her confession as evidence that she had been in the house.
It pointed out that the fact she had lied about Patrick Lumumba was at odds with the original trial's decision to consider Knox's confession as a "proven fact". The Lumumba trial verdict is considered final - i.e. an absolute, unchangeable fact. Knox's statement was false. That is a fact as far as the Italian justice system is concerned.

So given the fact that Knox lied about Lumumba, this means that the original trial's decision to accept her confession as a proven fact is retrospectively flawed and the confession itself is unreliable.

That's what the court of cassation's judgement says.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

This is because by that time she had been convicted of the malicious slander of Patrick and accusing an innocent person of the crime. In the first court case this had not yet been proven and she was not convicted of it. So Cassation were able to fit this now established and proven fact into their deliberations.

That's a hell of a leap of logic.

She was convicted of the slander of an innocent man by means of a statement that was obtained without the presence of a lawyer and deemed inadmissable in court, but that proven lie is now deemed to be the truth by another court?

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

All references to that text suggest that it merely told her that she wasn't needed because the bar wasn't busy. I've seen nothing that says that he told her he was closing early. A text saying the bar wasn't busy, doesn't rule out the possibility of it closing early either.

But it didn't. It stayed open and rather than actually trying to investigate that fact (there are literally dozens of ways that it could be established), they arrested Lumumba and held him in custody for two weeks until the customer came forward.

If that doesn't tell you something about the police's incompetence in this case, nothing will.

This is her own statement made at 1.45am on the night she was being questioned:
"I work at the establishment twice a week on Mondays and Thursdays, from about 10:00 pm to 2:00 am. Last Thursday 1 November, a day on which I would normally work, I was at the home of my boyfriend Raffaele. At about 8.30 pm, I received a text message from Patrick, who told me that the bar would be closed that night because there were no people, and so I would not have to go to work. I replied to the message saying I would see him soon, and then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work. "

The police had her text messages, it was they who brought up the fact that she had received texts from Patrick saying 'see you later' which they translated literally to mean they had plans to meet.

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

All references to that text suggest that it merely told her that she wasn't needed because the bar wasn't busy. I've seen nothing that says that he told her he was closing early. A text saying the bar wasn't busy, doesn't rule out the possibility of it closing early either.

But it didn't. It stayed open and rather than actually trying to investigate that fact (there are literally dozens of ways that it could be established), they arrested Lumumba and held him in custody for two weeks until the customer came forward.

If that doesn't tell you something about the police's incompetence in this case, nothing will.

This is her own statement made at 1.45am on the night she was being questioned:
"I work at the establishment twice a week on Mondays and Thursdays, from about 10:00 pm to 2:00 am. Last Thursday 1 November, a day on which I would normally work, I was at the home of my boyfriend Raffaele. At about 8.30 pm, I received a text message from Patrick, who told me that the bar would be closed that night because there were no people, and so I would not have to go to work. I replied to the message saying I would see him soon, and then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work. "

The police had her text messages, it was they who brought up the fact that she had received texts from Patrick saying 'see you later' which they translated literally to mean they had plans to meet.

Yet mere hours after that 1:45am statement and the 5:45am statement (which contradicted the first), there was a further statement (which again contradicted the first two) saying, quote "After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work."
So are they all the truth or do you just pick and choose the confused statements she was making that back up your theories? Or better yet, I think you pick and choose bits from them all that don't contradict each other and ignore the rest.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

This is her own statement made at 1.45am on the night she was being questioned:
"I work at the establishment twice a week on Mondays and Thursdays, from about 10:00 pm to 2:00 am. Last Thursday 1 November, a day on which I would normally work, I was at the home of my boyfriend Raffaele. At about 8.30 pm, I received a text message from Patrick, who told me that the bar would be closed that night because there were no people, and so I would not have to go to work. I replied to the message saying I would see him soon, and then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work. "

The police had her text messages, it was they who brought up the fact that she had received texts from Patrick saying 'see you later' which they translated literally to mean they had plans to meet.

The text was clearly a lead that the police pounced on. Regardless of the content, it was used as a means to pressure her on Lumumba and the interrogation was clearly slanted towards a collusion between the two based on the text and her reply.

It was just as clearly a false lead. The police could have relatively easily discounted it with even the most basic investigative methods, but chose not to until forced by the voluntary appearance of a witness.

They were incompetent. You have to admit that.

Cianmcliam

They are not contradictory statements though, they are all compatible.

ohnonotgmail

irishash wrote: »

Yet mere hours after that 1:45am statement and the 5:45am statement (which contradicted the first), there was a further statement (which again contradicted the first two) saying, quote "After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work."
So are they all the truth or do you just pick and choose the confused statements she was making that back up your theories? Or better yet, I think you pick and choose bits from them all that don't contradict each other and ignore the rest.

the fact that she was signing statements at 1.45am and 5.45am without the presence of a lawyer should tell you enough about the conduct of the italian police.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

They are not contradictory statements though, they are all compatible.

Well if you have some insight that has escaped me, please elaborate.

Edit: Just to add that you seem to have completely ignored the obvious police incompetence. They remind me of the old West Midlands police who were known colloquially as "We frame it"

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

They are not contradictory statements though, they are all compatible.

How the **** are they all compatible!! The last statement outright changes key points (like the bar closing line) and she admits she is deeply confused and does not know if she is dreaming or awake.

Cianmcliam

irishash wrote: »

How the **** are they all compatible!! The last statement outright changes key points (like the bar closing line) and she admits she is deeply confused and does not know if she is dreaming or awake.

I think you are confusing 'identical' with 'compatible'.

For example if I said 'I was going to meet Brian at 10pm but he rang to say he couldn't meet me, he had to go to a relatives house'
Then later said 'I was going to meet Brian at 10pm but he rang to say he couldn't meet me, so I went to the cinema'.

The two statements are not identical but are logically compatible and non-contradictory.

retro:electro

seamus wrote: »

Being interrogated without a solicitor, without access to food or water and being beaten, will tend to make people say anything at all.
Police wanted some patsies, the prospect of being able to take a local black businessman down a peg or two was too tantalising so they prompted her to name him as a suspect.

She let him sit in jail for two weeks and never counteracted her statement. She had a lawyer at this point, she also had food and water. She seemed pretty happy to let a completely innocent man go to jail.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I think you are confusing 'identical' with 'compatible'.

For example if I said 'I was going to meet Brian at 10pm but he rang to say he couldn't meet me, he had to go to a relatives house'
Then later said 'I was going to meet Brian at 10pm but he rang to say he couldn't meet me, so I went to the cinema'.

The two statements are not identical but are logically compatible and non-contradictory.

The two versions of the text may be compatible with each other, but one of them is not compatible with the police's actions in arresting Lumumba.

CMOTDibbler

anna080 wrote: »

She let him sit in jail for two weeks and never counteracted her statement. She had a lawyer at this point, she also had food and water. She seemed pretty happy to let a completely innocent man go to jail.

Whether she retracted her implication of Lumumba or not would appear not to make a blind bit of difference to the police.

They arrested him without even attempting to see if he had an alibi. Here are a couple of pretty simple investigative procedures they could have used.

1. Check his cash register for the timestamps on sales receipts.
2. Interview people living around the bar to see if it was open or not.
3. Check CCTV pictures from around the locality of the bar to see if he's on the street earlier than usual or at the time he says he closed.

retro:electro

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Whether she retracted her implication of Lumumba or not would appear not to make a blind bit of difference to the police.

They arrested him without even attempting to see if he had an alibi. Here are a couple of pretty simple investigative procedures they could have used.

1. Check his cash register for the timestamps on sales receipts.
2. Interview people living around the bar to see if it was open or not.
3. Check CCTV pictures from around the locality of the bar to see if he's on the street earlier than usual or at the time he says he closed.

And they arrested him why? Because she told them he did it.

ohnonotgmail

anna080 wrote: »

And they arrested him why? Because she told them he did it.

the police prompted her to name him so eventually she did. It doesnt explain why the police continued to hold him.

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

How the **** are they all compatible!! The last statement outright changes key points (like the bar closing line) and she admits she is deeply confused and does not know if she is dreaming or awake.

I think you are confusing 'identical' with 'compatible'.

For example if I said 'I was going to meet Brian at 10pm but he rang to say he couldn't meet me, he had to go to a relatives house'
Then later said 'I was going to meet Brian at 10pm but he rang to say he couldn't meet me, so I went to the cinema'.

The two statements are not identical but are logically compatible and non-contradictory.

The only thing I am in danger of confusing is you with a rational human being.

Yes the two statements you have presented are compatible. But again, you are using something to back up your statements that is completely unrelated to the point.

One statement said the text stated the bar was closing. The second statement said that there was no one at the bar. That is contradictory as they present two different outcomes - in one the bar is closed, in the other the bar is empty. In both your examples, you were going to meet Brian but it didn't happen - Same outcome therefore compatible.

Cianmcliam

Lol, you crack me up

retro:electro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the police prompted her to name him so eventually she did. It doesnt explain why the police continued to hold him.

Yes yes the police this the police that. Lets totally skim over the part where this woman was perfectly happy to let an innocent man go to jail for the most henuious of crimes. What does that tell you about the character of someone? Assuming she is innocent, her time she spent in jail was wel justified in my opinion. She has probably ruined forever the reputation and business livelihood of a man who did nothing only offer her a few hours work. To commit yourself such a life altering statement even weeks after you made it is not at all normal behaviour.

Means Of Escape

Sand wrote: »

The entire case against Knox is conjecture, with entire invented sordid stories about sex games gone wrong strung together with bias, the self serving testimony of unreliable junkies and wilful ignorance. I think the case is a huge indictment of the Perugia police force, and the Italian justice system - they eventually reached the correct conclusion based on the lack of any evidence or motive, but Knox lost 8 years of her life to a hopelessly incompetent and vindictive prosecution.

Even now you have conspiracy theorists sifting through the case wilfully misreading the evidence, desperately trying to link Knox as an accessory to Guede's murder of Kercher despite absolutely no evidence that Knox even knew who Guede was.

Both admitted that they knew Guede casually

Means Of Escape

seamus wrote: »

Being interrogated without a solicitor, without access to food or water and being beaten, will tend to make people say anything at all.
Police wanted some patsies, the prospect of being able to take a local black businessman down a peg or two was too tantalising so they prompted her to name him as a suspect.

Watching too many US crime series

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Lol, you crack me up

Just to back up a little, I notice you have not addressed the fact that you lied in your statement about the interrogation hours - you said it was just a few hours and somebody slapped her on the back of the head.

CMOTDibbler

anna080 wrote: »

And they arrested him why? Because she told them he did it.

In a statement that was obtained under duress without the presence of a lawyer and deemed inadmissable in court because of that.

Something that is not unusual in those circumstances and in fact (as I posted earlier) was also done by Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four.

It's also the case that the police homed in on Lumumba as a suspect due to the texts on her phone. They brought him into the interrogation. Are they not also responsible?

It's not pretty, but it's certainly not unusual.

But if we're trawling the sea for whataboutery, what about the fact that she spent four years in jail? Lumumba's two weeks pale into insignificance in comparison and I'm still waiting to hear anyone protesting on his behalf, acknowledge the incompetence of the police in arresting him in the first place.

An implicating statement from one suspect should not be the end point in investigating the implicated suspect.

retro:electro

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

In a statement that was obtained under duress without the presence of a lawyer and deemed inadmissable in court because of that .

And one she committed to for two weeks until he provided an ailibi. She also had a lawyer at this stage.

irishash

anna080 wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the police prompted her to name him so eventually she did. It doesnt explain why the police continued to hold him.

Yes yes the police this the police that. Lets totally skim over the part where this woman was perfectly happy to let an innocent man go to jail for the most henuious of crimes. What does that tell you about the character of someone? Assuming she is innocent, her time she spent in jail was wel justified in my opinion. She has probably ruined forever the reputation and business livelihood of a man who did nothing only offer her a few hours work. To commit yourself such a life altering statement even weeks after you made it is not at all normal behaviour.

She retracted the statement and confession - what more did you want her to do? You do know she was also locked up at the same time.

And you realise that Guede, who actually committed this brutal rape and murder, is out of jail already. But yet you complain that Knox did not do enough to get Patrick released from her own jail cell?

Cianmcliam

irishash wrote: »

Just to back up a little, I notice you have not addressed the fact that you lied in your statement about the interrogation hours - you said it was just a few hours and somebody slapped her on the back of the head.

Amanda spoke to Filomena on the phone from the police station at 10.29pm while Sollecito was being questioned. Her first admission was translated by the interpteter at 1.45am. So the interview could not have been much longer than about 2 hours 30 minutes before she confessed.

CMOTDibbler

anna080 wrote: »

And one she committed to for two weeks until he provided an ailibi. She also had a lawyer at this stage.

How do you know she committed to it? She retracted her first statement within four hours including casting doubt on Lumumba's invlovement, but the police didn't accept that.

What difference would a lawyer make after the fact? The statement was made without a lawyer. It can only be deemd inadmissable by a court. And you still can't accept the police incompetence apparently.

retro:electro

irishash wrote: »

She retracted the statement and confession - what more did you want her to do? You do know she was also locked up at the same time.

And you realise that Guede, who actually committed this brutal rape and murder, is out of jail already. But yet you complain that Knox did not do enough to get Patrick released from her own jail cell?

She retracted it after he provided them with an ailibi.

ohnonotgmail

anna080 wrote: »

Yes yes the police this the police that. Lets totally skim over the part where this woman was perfectly happy to let an innocent man go to jail for the most henuious of crimes. What does that tell you about the character of someone? Assuming she is innocent, her time she spent in jail was wel justified in my opinion. She has probably ruined forever the reputation and business livelihood of a man who did nothing only offer her a few hours work. To commit yourself such a life altering statement even weeks after you made it is not at all normal behaviour.

he would never have spent any time in jail if the police had done their job properly.

retro:electro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he would never have spent any time in jail if the police had done their job properly.

He would never had spent any time in jail if Amanda hadn't lied and said she heard him murder Meredith.

ohnonotgmail

anna080 wrote: »

He would never had spent any time in jail if Amanda hadn't lied and said she heard him murder Meredith.

can you point to the part of her statement where she said that?

retro:electro

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

How do you know she committed to it? She retracted her first statement within four hours including casting doubt on Lumumba's invlovement, but the police didn't accept that.

What difference would a lawyer make after the fact? The statement was made without a lawyer. It can only be deemd inadmissable by a court. And you still can't accept the police incompetence apparently.

Of course I can accept how incompetent the police were. They were shocking. But I wonder where they got all their mad ideas from. It's you guys here who can't seem to grasp that if she hadn't concocted a bs story and lied then he wouldn't have been unjustifiably locked up for two weeks.

retro:electro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you point to the part of her statement where she said that?

She says it in the documentary.

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

Just to back up a little, I notice you have not addressed the fact that you lied in your statement about the interrogation hours - you said it was just a few hours and somebody slapped her on the back of the head.

Amanda spoke to Filomena on the phone from the police station at 10.29pm while Sollecito was being questioned. Her first admission was translated by the interpteter at 1.45am. So the interview could not have been much longer than about 2 hours 30 minutes before she confessed.

She was interrogated for 43 hours that week. You make it sound as if that night time interrogation was the first time she spoke with them. Again, twist the facts to fit your preferred version of the story. You have not lied, just not told all the facts.

retro:electro

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

In a statement that was obtained under duress without the presence of a lawyer and deemed inadmissable in court because of that.

Something that is not unusual in those circumstances and in fact (as I posted earlier) was also done by Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four.

It's also the case that the police homed in on Lumumba as a suspect due to the texts on her phone. They brought him into the interrogation. Are they not also responsible?

It's not pretty, but it's certainly not unusual.

But if we're trawling the sea for whataboutery, what about the fact that she spent four years in jail? Lumumba's two weeks pale into insignificance in comparison and I'm still waiting to hear anyone protesting on his behalf, acknowledge the incompetence of the police in arresting him in the first place.

An implicating statement from one suspect should not be the end point in investigating the implicated suspect.

His two weeks pale in comparison? And so they should! He is innocent! Even if she isn't involved in the murder, she incriminated an innocent man who thank god had an ailibi. She has possibly ruined his life forever, can you imagine that happening to you? She deserved her four years in jail for that alone.

Cianmcliam

irishash wrote: »

She was interrogated for 43 hours that week. You make it sound as if that night time interrogation was the first time she spoke with them. Again, twist the facts to fit your preferred version of the story. You have not lied, just not told all the facts.

I'm pretty sure it was only her second interview at the police station since the murder, and in fact we know she chose to be there herself, she was not called in for questioning, only Sollecito.

I can check it for you though. The '43 hours' surely includes all the time she was questioned after she had already made a confession of being at the murder scene after at most 2.5hrs of interviewing that evening. That would not be unusual after such an admission.

irishash

anna080 wrote: »

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

In a statement that was obtained under duress without the presence of a lawyer and deemed inadmissable in court because of that.

Something that is not unusual in those circumstances and in fact (as I posted earlier) was also done by Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four.

It's also the case that the police homed in on Lumumba as a suspect due to the texts on her phone. They brought him into the interrogation. Are they not also responsible?

It's not pretty, but it's certainly not unusual.

But if we're trawling the sea for whataboutery, what about the fact that she spent four years in jail? Lumumba's two weeks pale into insignificance in comparison and I'm still waiting to hear anyone protesting on his behalf, acknowledge the incompetence of the police in arresting him in the first place.

An implicating statement from one suspect should not be the end point in investigating the implicated suspect.

His two weeks pale in comparison? And so they should! He is innocent! Even if she isn't involved in the murder, she incriminated an innocent man who thank god had an ailibi. She has possibly ruined his life forever, can you imagine that happening to you? She deserved her four years in jail for that alone.

She deserved 4 years in jail for telling police officers exactly what they wanted to hear? I suppose you think Brendan Dassey deserved his time in jail for exactly the same thing then.

You keep talking about how she ruined his life, yet you say nothing of the fact that the police ruined her life and that of Raffael. Selective sympathy here.....