The knowledge of the lack of credible evidence existed well before you made your statement that you " highly suspect she did it ".
And get your story straight, first it's she acted weird, now it's finger pointing. Either way, it doesn't point to her committing the act, it points to her panicking in the face of being accused of murder.
Actually, my story was straight - it was both. Find a post where when referring to my reasons, where I didn't mention the false accusation she made.
And before people were 'saying' the evidence was suspect, now it is proven to be.
The bold bit is a typo 'did it' should read 'didn't'.
As for the US system, do you care to state where you disagree with anything I said?
Last edited by Barnet Flame; 10-05-2011 at 12:54 PM.
Or thinks the site is as self serving as the other sides arguements.
The site is written with pretty staight forward logic, just read it. And of course it is self serving, the FBI agent knows that she was inocent so he is showing why he knows that. Nothing complicated about it.
I don't think anyone would argue that the cops were incompetant, actually one of the things I love about Italy is the whole country is a bit incompetent.
Or thinks the site is as self serving as the other sides arguements.
If you take the time to read the site he clearly outlines the other sides "arguements" and why they don't work at all. He even goes one step further and explains why they don't make any sense if you believe some of them to be true. They contrdict their own arguements with other pieces of "evidence".
If you take the time to read the site he clearly outlines the other sides "arguements" and why they don't work at all. He even goes one step further and explains why they don't make any sense if you believe some of them to be true. They contrdict their own arguements with other pieces of "evidence".
Trollolololol
You misunderstand my position, I don't think there has been any evidence that a wholly incompetant police investigation has uncovered that implicates her and as such her aquital was correct, that said I do think her own inconsistant statements lead me to believe that she knows more than she is letting on.
You misunderstand my position, I don't think there has been any evidence that a wholly incompetant police investigation has uncovered that implicates her and as such her aquital was correct, that said I do think her own inconsistant statements lead me to believe that she knows more than she is letting on.
Read the part about how she was interrogated, it would have been almost impossible for her to no be inconsistant. It would have been impossible for almost any one to not be inconsistant under the conditions she was placed under. The police even admit to the conditions that week and final night.
Someone doesn't see it entirely the way you do and you think it is trolling?
I think it would have been insane for the conviction to stand - utterly insane, but I can't get round the false accusation. If the police were coercing her into that, I don't know what they stood to gain from it - but then again, the police were a disgrace.
Someone doesn't see it entirely the way you do and you think it is trolling?
I think it would have been insane for the conviction to stand - utterly insane, but I can't get round the false accusation. If the police were coercing her into that, I don't know what they stood to gain from it - but then again, the police were a disgrace.
Sounds to me that you haven't even bothered to read about the 43 hours of interrogation. How you can't get around the false accusation is absurd.
The Following User Says Thank You to RogerWilco For This Useful Post:
I think this is relevant. Not because I want to vilify the police, rather that it goes over several ways the police can manipulate what you say. It gives insight in what how inconsistencies can be found in even an innocent person's story.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
The Following User Says Thank You to Weiser Wonder For This Useful Post:
Sounds to me that you haven't even bothered to read about the 43 hours of interrogation. How you can't get around the false accusation is absurd.
It sounds to me like you didn't read my whole post - about trying to understand what the police had to gain by having Knox implicate Lumumba.
It also sounds to me like you are happy to pick up on parts of what I post rather than the whole of it and therefore taking the context away from what I post.
I think this is relevant. Not because I want to vilify the police, rather that it goes over several ways the police can manipulate what you say. It gives insight in what how inconsistencies can be found in even an innocent person's story.
for her to point the finger at an entirely innocent person - that is being a bitch.
Or ... just maybe it was someone acting under extreme duress and she was coerced to do so.
I'm presuming you're familiar with one of the British Justice systems' biggest miscarriage of justice and fix job in recent memory that happened a few clicks down the road from you in the Old Bailey, i.e. the case of the Guildford Four.
All 4 gave statements saying they were guilty, one even said that another said he would kill him if he didn't do the job and implicated another at the scene of the crime. The actions of a bitch, a guilty man or of someone acting under extreme duress?
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
I personally have found people arn't that that inconsistant under interogation unless they are struggling to hold a lie together, there have been cases where a cop has managed to persuade mentally handicapped or ######ed guys to confess to things they didn't do but this was a very bright girl being interviewed by a cop who was not using their first language, I cannot see it being a particularly persuasive interrogation, unpleasent and stressfull, but that wouldn't make someone accuse someone else randomly or give such a contradictory story.
No? What makes you think she accused him randomly? Maybe she signed a dictated statement? Again ... consider the extreme duress factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
And can I be clear about this, my suspicions are based on her lying and pointing the finger at an innocent man - a man she knew to be innocent, which is conveniently ignored by those having a great time going after me.
I find it astounding that you're not even considering (a) the extreme duress factor and (b) that the cops might have been trying to fit the other fella up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
about trying to understand what the police had to gain by having Knox implicate Lumumba.]
A high profile crime case closed?
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
@Bagor - in respect of the last point - they were quick to discount Lumumba - I know, "you call two weeks quick"? In Italy it is.
Of course duress is a possibility, but why would the cops want her to piont the finger at a guy who being in a bar is likely to have a cast iron alibi? That does not make sense. But, hey, a lot of things in this case don't.
I'm not sure if this came up, but in the retrial was the 'staged break-in' also found not to have been staged?
