Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

According to record from the police she brought his name into the conversation, at least how I remember it. There is no doubt in my mind that the police led her to her statement in most every element. Do you have your account handy from a neutral/reliable source?

I was going to cite Ficcara as a neutral, reliable source but she has just asked me not to - she said something about charging me with calunnia. And I can't seem to find my copy of the police recording of the interrogation. I probably left it in my garage.

Knox's book is my source. The police tied together the text message with the murderer. See her book, pages 110 -118, hardcover edition.

 

[Grinder]

Aaaaaahhhh. But that would make you responsible for the comments. Either way...it's you as the defendant. But I do agree with your point that establishing what the damages were, would be challenging.

No it would make YOU responsible. I'm sure in the halcyon days of piling on the kids that HR didn't worry about libel. I would add that perhaps it could be a defense to say someone else used your id. What do you think Anglo?

 

[Kauffer]

Stop that!


In the good ole days all libel and some specific slanders were actionable without proof of damage. Now, it must be proved that the claimant has suffered or is likely to suffer substantial harm. I think someone like Rag is capable of causing such harm just through being so prolific. Also, to call someone a murderer is such a serious libel that I would expect it to be easier to prove substantial harm than with some less odious slur. UK-based guilters should not be sleeping too easily in their beds IOW and if any of them would like to consult me for advice they will find my terms not altogether unreasonable

Interesting - I presume you would advise a settlement. But at what level? Or, on the other hand, if you were representing the plaintiff, what would you look for to settle - having first established that there are in fact assets to pursue?

 

[Grinder]

I was going to cite Ficcara as a neutral, reliable source but she has just asked me not to - she said something about charging me with calunnia. And I can't seem to find my copy of the police recording of the interrogation. I probably left it in my garage.

Knox's book is my source. The police tied together the text message with the murderer. See her book, pages 110 -118, hardcover edition.

No, she says she was the one that first said it was Patrick. She does not say the police named him first as the killer. The police questioned her about lying about leaving Raf's and wanted to know about the "see you later" message to Patrick. They told her they had proof she was at the cottage but they did not say Patrick was the murderer. Go read it again.

As Bill said we must be accurate.

 

[acbytesla]

No it would make YOU responsible. I'm sure in the halcyon days of piling on the kids that HR didn't worry about libel. I would add that perhaps it could be a defense to say someone else used your id. What do you think Anglo?

You're right. Improper use of pronoun by me. I've been thinking about damages and while I think that it would be difficult to prove damages based on comments made in the past, I think that future public comments could be proven to be damaging. It keeps falsehoods alive and could be disturbing to the emotional well being of Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[anglolawyer]

Interesting - I presume you would advise a settlement. But at what level? Or, on the other hand, if you were representing the plaintiff, what would you look for to settle - having first established that there are in fact assets to pursue?

Let's assume we are talking about Michael.net who, so I'm told, is based here and who continued to libel them after the acquittal. I am not a libel lawyer but just going with my gut I would advise him at the outset to tender a grovelling and fulsome apology, an undertaking not to repeat the libel (on pain of committal for contempt) payment of costs and damages, both in the relatively low thousands. The sooner the white flag goes up the better.

 

[Bill Williams]

Perhaps it's just me but I'm almost feeling a sense of sadness seeing the guilter sites going away. I find many of their posts fascinating and an excellent source for pointing out the flaws in their arguments. Take this most recent post by Fast Pete;



This is outstanding stuff.. Ole Pete is claiming the prosecution didn't make anything up and his evidence to this is.... a full day of the prosecution making things up.

What testimony, Pete, did the prosecution present that showed there was a sex orgy with all three defendants? As far as I know, only Guede's DNA was in Meredith.. only his palm print, his shoe prints were in Meredith's room. The expert testimony was overwhelming in it's conclusion the injuries were compatible or consistent with a lone attacker. ANY reference to a sex orgy HAD to be pure fiction as there was nothing to substantiate it.

Of course there was no comeback, you idiot, how do you respond to fanciful tales unsubstantiated by a single fact?

Add to this - Fast Pete is now making things up to mask that the prosecution(s) just made things up when it suited them, particularly when the last made-up thing had just collapsed.

His proof that they didn't make things up? It is that they presented their made-up things in "closed-court", and all AK et al. could do was, "sit and watch...."

I was just about to pound away at this keyboard all the things that Fast Pete has made up over the years, but my mom has just called down from upstairs, saying that a fresh pot of coffee is on, and that I should change the light-bulb on the stairs up from here in the basement.

Oh yes, she yelled down, "Dear: the case is OVER! Those two young people have been proven innocent, at least that's what CNN said on the news a week ago!!! And you're still pounding away on that keyboard, and it's a nice day outside, and your friends want to take you skateboarding.... all except the ones who got married two years ago and are giving their parents grandchildren, which, I might add, I'm still waiting for!!!!"

Ok, where was I. Mom is really ruining my train of thought these days. Oh yes, Fast Pete is the all time champion at making things up. Remember his editorial page on TJMK as to how evil the Mellas's were? At how they'd locked Amanda in the upstairs bathroom because they knew all along she was guilty and was a danger to the rest of the family?

Who's crazier..... I still claim Fast Pete maintains a slim lead in that department. The only question is: how will Pete respond to a tap on the shoulder as compared to Peggy? That tap on the shoulder being either a lawyer's letter or a visit by the FBI? Just a friendly visit mind you.

 

[Dan O.]

No, she says she was the one that first said it was Patrick. She does not say the police named him first as the killer. The police questioned her about lying about leaving Raf's and wanted to know about the "see you later" message to Patrick. They told her they had proof she was at the cottage but they did not say Patrick was the murderer. Go read it again.

As Bill said we must be accurate.

Haven't we been over this enough. The police knew about the text exchange as early as November 3. They had Patrick's phone number and this would give them his name. They had bugged his bar and were intercepting his phone calls. They directed the interrogation towards that text and specifically took the phone and showed the text to Amanda. Then they have the unmitigated gall to testify that Amanda was the first to say Patrick's "name".

Is this your definition of police work? Is it just a game to trick a suspect into saying a name so they can make the arrest and blame the consequences on the suspect that said the name?

 

[Bill Williams]

No, she says she was the one that first said it was Patrick. She does not say the police named him first as the killer. The police questioned her about lying about leaving Raf's and wanted to know about the "see you later" message to Patrick. They told her they had proof she was at the cottage but they did not say Patrick was the murderer. Go read it again.

As Bill said we must be accurate.

Haven't we been over this enough. The police knew about the text exchange as early as November 3. They had Patrick's phone number and this would give them his name. They had bugged his bar and were intercepting his phone calls. They directed the interrogation towards that text and specifically took the phone and showed the text to Amanda. Then they have the unmitigated gall to testify that Amanda was the first to say Patrick's "name".

Is this your definition of police work? Is it just a game to trick a suspect into saying a name so they can make the arrest and blame the consequences on the suspect that said the name?

A rare Grinder blunder. It was not me who said we have to be accurate. It was YOU who said we must be accurate.

Just for the record. Kind'a zen-like.....

 

[Grinder]

A rare Grinder blunder. It was not me who said we have to be accurate. It was YOU who said we must be accurate.

Just for the record. Kind'a zen-like.....

Just two days you (Bill Williams) wrote:

I need to correct something - as per a PM I got. I may have left the impression that the relationship between the Kerchers and Maresca is now severed. I do not know that.

The intent of Mareca's statement was merely to say that as far as the criminal case involving AK and RS, and the concurrent victim's prosecution of it, it is now "case closed" as per the ISC acquittal and annulment and exoneration.

No use criticizing the other side of taking liberties with facts, if one does it as well.

 

[Strozzi]

No, she says she was the one that first said it was Patrick. She does not say the police named him first as the killer. The police questioned her about lying about leaving Raf's and wanted to know about the "see you later" message to Patrick. They told her they had proof she was at the cottage but they did not say Patrick was the murderer. Go read it again.

As Bill said we must be accurate.

The police introduced a connection of Patrick to Meredith in the interrogation. The police told her she had gone out, insisted she had a meeting.
Police: "Stop lying. Who's Patrick?
P: "What's he like?",
P: "Did he know Meredith?",
P: "Did he like her?",
P "Did he think Meredith was pretty?"
P "When did you leave to meet Patrick?"
Knox: "I didn't meet Patrick. I stayed in."
P: "No you didn't. This message says you were going to meet him."
Knox: "I didn't see him."
Interpreter - "You're a liar."
Knox: "No I'm not. I never left Raffaele's apartment."
P "Who did you meet with? Who are you protecting. Why are you lying? Who's this person? Who's Patrick?" (p. 116)
P: "Stop lying. You sent a message to Patrick." Police woman hits Knox in head.
P: "You know who the murderer is. You know who killed Meredith."

The police told Amanda she was at the murder (house) and that she was traumatized and didn't remember it. The police are the ones who brought Patrick into it. That is what this whole conversation was about. They connected Patrick to Meredith, to Amanda's test message of a meeting, to Amanda meeting with Patrick, to Amanda protecting Patrick, to Amanda being at the house with the murderer.

 

[Grinder]

Haven't we been over this enough. The police knew about the text exchange as early as November 3. They had Patrick's phone number and this would give them his name. They had bugged his bar and were intercepting his phone calls. They directed the interrogation towards that text and specifically took the phone and showed the text to Amanda. Then they have the unmitigated gall to testify that Amanda was the first to say Patrick's "name".

Is this your definition of police work? Is it just a game to trick a suspect into saying a name so they can make the arrest and blame the consequences on the suspect that said the name?

Of course, it's ALL been covered many a time but he said a couple of times that the police named Patrick as the murderer and Amanda just repeated it. After the second or third mention I asked where that version came from and he said Amanda's book. I went to the page and not even Amanda's own account of that says that.

Since I agree with BW ,that if we aren't accurate we have a harder time criticizing the other, I finally spoke up.

Why would any of this imply that this is my idea of police work?

 

[Grinder]

The police introduced a connection of Patrick to Meredith in the interrogation. The police told her she had gone out, insisted she had a meeting.
"Stop lying. Who's Patrick?
What's he like?",
Did he know Meredith?",
"Did he like her?",
"Did he think Meredith was pretty?"
"When did you leave to meet Patrick?"
"I didn't meet Patrick. I stayed in."
"No you didn't. This message says you were going to meet him."
"I didn't see him."
Interpreter - "You're a liar."
"No I'm not. I never left Raffaele's apartment."
"Who did you meet with? Who are you protecting. Why are you lying? Who's this person? Who's Patrick?" (p. 116)
"You know who the murderer is. You know who killed Meredith."

The police told Amanda she was at the murder (house) and that she was traumatized and didn't remember it. The police are the ones who brought Patrick into it. That is what this whole conversation was about. They connected Patrick to Meredith, to Amanda's test message of a meeting, to Amanda meeting with Patrick, to Amanda protecting Patrick, to Amanda being at the house with the murderer.

No you said the police said he was the murderer and they didn't. Did they lead her to say it? Sure. If you said they said it first I believe they have legal grounds against you .

It says Knox accused Lumumba of being the murderer. That is actually false. The police told Knox that the person (Lumumba) on the other end of the text messages is the killer. The police told her, Knox did not originate it - she did not know the alleged connection until the police told her that that person is the killer, eliciting a shocked and frightened "It's him! It's him!" reply from Knox. (Don't believe it? Just listen to the police's recording of the interrogation.)

That is not true according to her own account.

I gasped I said his name. "Patrick--it's Patrick"

 

[Kauffer]

Let's assume we are talking about Michael.net who, so I'm told, is based here and who continued to libel them after the acquittal. I am not a libel lawyer but just going with my gut I would advise him at the outset to tender a grovelling and fulsome apology, an undertaking not to repeat the libel (on pain of committal for contempt) payment of costs and damages, both in the relatively low thousands. The sooner the white flag goes up the better.

I rather like the recent McAlpine v Bercow case as guidance, as well as the novelty attached to most of the out of court settlements that took place with hundreds of others connected to the libel at issue - all be it that case concerned purely matters relating to twitter, (except for the settlements with the BBC and ITV) where the numbers of followers was a determining factor in the level of damages pursued by McAlpine. There will be, I am sure, twitter libels connected to our case, but most of the discussion so far has surrounded 'forum posts' rather than blog entries or twitter feeds.

But readership is highly relevant.

Sally Bercow was absolutely hammered precisely as a result of not following the sample advice you have suggested. It's a fascinating case, which the non Brits here might enjoy reading:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlpine_v_Bercow

The settlement with the journalist George Monbiot, was particularly novel. Here is his public letter:

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/03/12/my-agreement-with-lord-mcalpine/

Monbiot's position was practically identical to Bercow's, but by capitulating early, he saved himself an absolute fortune.

Anyway, potential offenders need to be aware both of the natural meaning of their words AND the innuendo meaning.

 

[Strozzi]

No you said the police said he was the murderer and they didn't. Did they lead her to say it? Sure. If you said they said it first I believe they have legal grounds against you .

We are working from a book text that is obviously partially verbatim (according to Knox's use of quotation marks) included in parts of a two hour interrogation that occurred four+ years before the book was written. I believe the police literally said or implied that Patrick was the one. I can't provide precise words, but the account as written by Knox shows that the police brought in the connection of Patrick to Meredith, to Amanda being with him, and being at the house when the murder occurred.

I hold the police responsible for feeding their version to Knox by virtue of their focusing on and connecting Patrick to Meredith, a meeting the police believed occurred, to Knox protecting Patrick, to Knox being at the murder (house). Knox did not come up with this by herself. She did not originate the thoughts. She was prompted via questions and harsh accusations to create this thought track.

The accusation to Knox made by the police that she was protecting Patrick means, per the police, that Patrick was involved. The police position that Knox came up with this by herself is a lie.

 

[anglolawyer]

I rather like the recent McAlpine v Bercow case as guidance, as well as the novelty attached to most of the out of court settlements that took place with hundreds of others connected to the libel at issue - all be it that case concerned purely matters relating to twitter, (except for the settlements with the BBC and ITV) where the numbers of followers was a determining factor in the level of damages pursued by McAlpine. There will be, I am sure, twitter libels connected to our case, but most of the discussion so far has surrounded 'forum posts' rather than blog entries or twitter feeds.

But readership is highly relevant.

Sally Bercow was absolutely hammered precisely as a result of not following the sample advice you have suggested. It's a fascinating case, which the non Brits here might enjoy reading:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlpine_v_Bercow

The settlement with the journalist George Monbiot, was particularly novel. Here is his public letter:

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/03/12/my-agreement-with-lord-mcalpine/

Monbiot's position was practically identical to Bercow's, but by capitulating early, he saved himself an absolute fortune.

Anyway, potential offenders need to be aware both of the natural meaning of their words AND the innuendo meaning.

I remember that. Pedophile is as bad as it gets, maybe except for murder ... It's important that Bercow's case pre-dated 1st Jan 14 and that, per your link, she had a huge twitter following. I doubt saddo Michael is quite in the same league in that regard. That train crash must have cost Sally Bercow an absolute fortune in costs but she must have had deep pockets (and bad/unlucky advice) to make it trial.

 

[komponisto]

Oh yes, Fast Pete is the all time champion at making things up. Remember his editorial page on TJMK as to how evil the Mellas's were? At how they'd locked Amanda in the upstairs bathroom because they knew all along she was guilty and was a danger to the rest of the family?

LOL! But wait -- shouldn't that make them less evil in Pete's mind?

Every time I think I've got a handle on the level of Quennell's derangement, he sees it and raises me one.

 

[anglolawyer]

We are working from a book text that is obviously partially verbatim (according to Knox's use of quotation marks) included in parts of a two hour interrogation that occurred four+ years before the book was written. I believe the police literally said or implied that Patrick was the one. I can't provide precise words, but the account as written by Knox shows that the police brought in the connection of Patrick to Meredith, to Amanda being with him, and being at the house when the murder occurred.

I hold the police responsible for feeding their version to Knox by virtue of their focusing on and connecting Patrick to Meredith, a meeting the police believed occurred, to Knox protecting Patrick, to Knox being at the murder (house). Knox did not come up with this by herself. She did not originate the thoughts. She was prompted via questions and harsh accusations to create this thought track.

The accusation to Knox made by the police that she was protecting Patrick means, per the police, that Patrick was involved.

Let me add, as Grinder may have missed it, Amanda mentioned Patrick in a call we know the cops intercepted and transcribed. My THEORY predicted this several threads ago. No need to look it up

 

[Kauffer]

I remember that. Pedophile is as bad as it gets, maybe except for murder ... It's important that Bercow's case pre-dated 1st Jan 14 and that, per your link, she had a huge twitter following. I doubt saddo Michael is quite in the same league in that regard. That train crash must have cost Sally Bercow an absolute fortune in costs but she must have had deep pockets (and bad/unlucky advice) to make it trial.

Yes - all in she was out close to 500,000 USD. But the little fish paid less than 50 bucks each to charity, but importantly, desisted.

 

[Grinder]

We are working from a book text that is obviously partially verbatim (according to Knox's use of quotation marks) included in parts of a two hour interrogation that occurred four+ years before the book was written. I believe the police literally said or implied that Patrick was the one. I can't provide precise words, but the account as written by Knox shows that the police brought in the connection of Patrick to Meredith, to Amanda being with him, and being at the house when the murder occurred.

I hold the police responsible for feeding their version to Knox by virtue of their focusing on and connecting Patrick to Meredith, a meeting the police believed occurred, to Knox protecting Patrick, to Knox being at the murder (house). Knox did not come up with this by herself. She did not originate the thoughts. She was prompted via questions and harsh accusations to create this thought track.

The accusation to Knox made by the police that she was protecting Patrick means, per the police, that Patrick was involved. The police position that Knox came up with this by herself is a lie.

She wrote it 5 years after the fact and during the interrogation she said she was confused etc. The quotes hardly are verbatim. More like literary style.

No you can't provide anyone saying the police said Patrick was the murderer which was the sole point I disputed.

She doesn't say they said she was protecting Patrick. On page 116 she tells them who Patrick is and then she says they asked again on page 118 and I don't believe she even says they were different cops.

Her account is understandably jumbled which reinforces that she didn't remember quotes from the cops verbatim.