Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
RWVBWL said:
Come on Fulcanelli!
What's better?
A police officer's written memory
or a recording to re-hear or re-watch afterwards to go along with that officer's memory?

As I just mentioned a moment ago, Rodney King in Southern California sure was LUCKY that someone recorded his beating by police, even though, from what I recall, he was running away from them at the time.
Most people, including myself, would have thought that he was lying about police brutality without seeing that video tape, since most of us, the public, tend to believe that ALL police officers are on the right side.
But it seems the "us verses them" mentality does spoil a few cops sometimes.

Hence, audio+video, would definately help, don'tcha think, Fulcanelli?
Hmmm?
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

If there was a recording you would be claiming it was edited.
 
tsig said:
If there was a recording you would be claiming it was edited.
Click to expand...
Hi Fulcanelli,I mean tsig,
Thanks for the response.

But I beg to differ, for you do not know how I would view any video tape or recording,
especially since I shoot video and photography also, and I have been accused of Photoshop manipulation before, which I am, of course, personally forced to defend.

So tsig, I would look at it both ways before I made up my own mind,
especially since I am not backed into any corner, as some others are.
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
Amanda was recorded at least twice before

capealadin said:
Unless the police had ESP, how could they know what Amanda was going to say? And, they didn't know beforehand that she would be at the police station. At that ppoint, she was just a witness. I believe Amanda panicked when told Raffaele no longer backed up their story. And came up with Patrick. The thing is: Not only did she accuse him, she said: It was him, he's bad, I'm scared of him. Why would she say those things? He had employed her, she thought he was her friend. I,m assuming Amanda was ignorant as to the law, that once she said she was with him, she would become a suspect. I think she thought that while they went off to nab Patrick, she could go home, and confront Raffaele, and work on their stories. That didn't happen, obviously. And in Raffaele's diary, he reiterates that he doesn't trust Amanda, and that 90% of his story was a load of BS.
Click to expand...

The investigators recorded a conversation between AK and RS without their knowledge on 4 November. The police had also listened into AK's phone conversation(s?) as of 5 November and recorded at least one of them in some fashion. Given these police behaviors, it is difficult to understand why they would not record Amanda's interrogations.

Also, Dr. Giobbi wanted both of them to be brought in on 5 November, and he was close enough to hear her scream (see Perugia-shock). In other words, the police did know Amanda was coming in. This point, however, was disputed on the previous thread.

Raffaele goes back and forth in his diary, perhaps because of the rubbish he was being told. Raffaele backed up Amanda's alibi on 8 November in front of Matteni.
 
Last edited:
slander

Sherlock Holmes said:
Here is what is really sad about this case for Amanda:

Secondly, all the police were against her, right from the very beginning. Now even taking her back to court for slandering them, 26 years isn’t enough for them I guess.
Click to expand...

Is six years a just penalty for slander?
 
halides1 said:
The investigators recorded a conversation between AK and RS without their knowledge on 4 November. The police had also listened into AK's phone conversation(s?) as of 5 November and recorded at least one of them in some fashion. Given these police behaviors, it is difficult to understand why they would not record Amanda's interrogations.
Click to expand...

Wow!
Thanks for posting that, halides1.
I feel the need to read more about the recorded conversations done prior to the arrest of both Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. It is, as you mentioned, "difficult to understand why they would not record Amanda's interrogations.", and might I add, Raffaele's also.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
First of all, Halides, they were witnesses on the 4th. Second, tapping phones doesn,t mean you're a suspect. It is usually done to glean information. How do we know? Maybe Rudi calling asking Amanda to give him an alibi? What does her screaming have anything to do with them *knowing* she was coming in? Amanda herself said she went along, because she was scared of being alone. She was also screaming when she was next to the knife drawer. Yep. Raffaele was being told a lot of rubbish. According to Raffaele, however, he said it was AMANDA telling him rubbish.
 
halides1 said:
Is six years a just penalty for slander?
Click to expand...


I would say definately no, not when you only get one for falsely accusing an innocent man - it should be the other way arround.

I also read somewhere, (one of the 3 books I've read on this, not sure which one) that the accused could lie on the stand and was actually expected too.
 
RWVBWL said:
Wow!
Thanks for posting that, halides1.
I feel the need to read more about the recorded conversations done prior to the arrest of both Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. It is, as you mentioned, "difficult to understand why they would not record Amanda's interrogations.", and might I add, Raffaele's also.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...


Do we know for sure that none of these really were not recorded?

Is it possible that the all were, and we just haven't been made aware of yet?
 
The case is about calumny. In any event, 6 years is the guideline. Probably it will be a fine. Certainly, they have the right to protect the good name of the police. As for as calumny, that could be more serious.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Thanks for the smile - were up to 3 now, :)

I was being sarcastic - every word - but isn't this exactly how the FOA view this case?
Click to expand...

I was surprised that Fulcanelli bought it. It was obvious that you were being sarcastic.

I know you were trying to exaggerate everything but the truth is, you don't need a major conspiracy for a police department to make a mistake like this one. The higher ups tell you that the person is guilty. You think you are doing the right thing. She wont tell you what you need so you hit her a couple of times. She deserves it. She's guilty. The higher ups said she was guilty. The higher ups told you they had evidence that she committed a brutal murder. You are disgusted by her and feel that you are doing your job to guarantee that she confesses. You are taking an evil girl off the streets.

You never saw the actual evidence against her. You trust the higher ups and you want to please them.
 
capealadin said:
The case is about calumny. In any event, 6 years is the guideline. Probably it will be a fine. Certainly, they have the right to protect the good name of the police. As for as calumny, that could be more serious.
Click to expand...

The attempt to charge Amanda and her parents with slander is an egregious abuse of power. Hopefully the new judge appointed to Amanda's case will throw it out and end this nonsense. The Judge that hears the case with her parents should do the same.

The attempt to pile on Amanda and her family is going to backfire. People are seeing this for what it really is. Mignini is fueling this entire thing.

With the way it stands, the slander trial would overlap the appeal. The same BS will happen that happened in the first trial. Mignini will still be involved.

This needs to be stopped. Anyone that agrees with these tactics really needs to stop the hatred and think about what is really going on here.

I know you will respond stating that it's the police and not Mignini. If that's your response, you need to get a grip on reality. Open your eyes and see the big picture.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
I was surprised that Fulcanelli bought it. It was obvious that you were being sarcastic.

I know you were trying to exaggerate everything but the truth is, you don't need a major conspiracy for a police department to make a mistake like this one. The higher ups tell you that the person is guilty. You think you are doing the right thing. She wont tell you what you need so you hit her a couple of times. She deserves it. She's guilty. The higher ups said she was guilty. The higher ups told you they had evidence that she committed a brutal murder. You are disgusted by her and feel that you are doing your job to guarantee that she confesses. You are taking an evil girl off the streets.

You never saw the actual evidence against her. You trust the higher ups and you want to please them.
Click to expand...


That is very true - sad, but true. I’d bet she was cuffed a couple times and called a lyre as well, but basically, it's going to be 1 word against 12 and when those 12 are all police officers (basically) and the one is a convicted murderer, I think we can all see what the outcome will be.

I would be very surprised if she did get any extra jail time though - even the judges are going to feel it’s not right.

About that post I made, I actually thought it would be the FOA side that would take it seriously and the opposite side not - guess I was wrong again.

Happens a lot it seems.
 
Firstly, Bruce, Amanda is a woman. Not a girl. I see that you and Mary have a different take. Mary thinks the police were sexually aroused by Amanda. You think they were disgusted. I believe the *higher ups* as you call them, just wanted the guilty parties to face the consequences of their actions. I doubt any of them had an axe to grind with Amanda, Raffaele or Rudi, prior to hearing their *stories*. The police need to get to the truth. Let's say, for instance, money is missing from your house. Your kid, and two of his friends say..it wasn,t them, they're confused, different stories come out, you're going to just let it go? I think you'd want the truth. Of course, then you'll probably be sued by one of the parents, who say their kid said you beat him, screamed at him, etc.
 
They becareful for what they wish for Bruce. Casey Anton'y defence team had the presiding judge recused. Now they have a tougher one.
 
halides1 said:
The investigators recorded a conversation between AK and RS without their knowledge on 4 November. The police had also listened into AK's phone conversation(s?) as of 5 November and recorded at least one of them in some fashion. Given these police behaviors, it is difficult to understand why they would not record Amanda's interrogations.
Click to expand...
Not at all difficult to understand. The police isn't legally required to record the interviews and and as a result they quite often do not record them.

Also, Dr. Giobbi wanted both of them to be brought in on 5 November, and he was close enough to hear her scream (see Perugia-shock). In other words, the police did know Amanda was coming in. This point, however, was disputed on the previous thread.
Click to expand...
After starting to read Perugia-Shock and seeing them trying to whitewash the events that transpired between a stripper and a couple of 15 year old boys... I'm not interested in whatever else they might have to say.

Raffaele goes back and forth in his diary, perhaps because of the rubbish he was being told. Raffaele backed up Amanda's alibi on 8 November in front of Matteni.
Click to expand...
Backed up as we spent the evening/night together. Or did he add a little more detail then that? And well did that match with what Meredith said they did that night?
 
capealadin said:
Firstly, Bruce, Amanda is a woman. Not a girl. I see that you and Mary have a different take. Mary thinks the police were sexually aroused by Amanda. You think they were disgusted. I believe the *higher ups* as you call them, just wanted the guilty parties to face the consequences of their actions. I doubt any of them had an axe to grind with Amanda, Raffaele or Rudi, prior to hearing their *stories*. The police need to get to the truth. Let's say, for instance, money is missing from your house. Your kid, and two of his friends say..it wasn,t them, they're confused, different stories come out, you're going to just let it go? I think you'd want the truth. Of course, then you'll probably be sued by one of the parents, who say their kid said you beat him, screamed at him, etc.
Click to expand...

It doesn't surprise me that you completely missed the point. I am stating that there does not need to be a major conspiracy in a police department for mistakes like this to happen.

Why bring Mary's argument into this one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom