• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Danceme said:
How do you know this is true, that Amanda quit? Where is it cited?
According to Patrick she was demoted, is this accepted as truth? How would one go about finding the conversation between yourself and Capealadin in which you went through all this, which search terms will I use to avoid having to wade through a gazillion posts?
Click to expand...
Well, it was certainly no thanks to amanda's intervention.
 
Danceme said:
How do you know this is true, that Amanda quit? Where is it cited?
According to Patrick she was demoted, is this accepted as truth? How would one go about finding the conversation between yourself and Capealadin in which you went through all this, which search terms will I use to avoid having to wade through a gazillion posts?
Click to expand...
Patrick has said that amanda was flirting with the customers and was not a good worker; she was demoted to handing out fliers and there was some speculation that Patrick was going to offer her job to Meredith.
 
Danceme said:
How do you know this is true, that Amanda quit? Where is it cited?
According to Patrick she was demoted, is this accepted as truth? How would one go about finding the conversation between yourself and Capealadin in which you went through all this, which search terms will I use to avoid having to wade through a gazillion posts?
Click to expand...

There are a number of articles. One in People, dated December 10th 2007, Patrick talks about how angry Amanda was . He has said worse things. And, the point is, Patrick has never refuted any of the articles about what he said about Amanda. I believe the only article he refuted, was about police brutality. Hang on, though. They're not pro-Amanda. They will be dismissed. You know, lies.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
That's the one alright - try counting the errors in that piece. How can they write and print such things without consequences is beyond me. If Raff really did say this, then fine, or if the police did say that in yours, fine, but surly you can't just make this stuff up and get away with it, can you?
Click to expand...

The UK print media love to speculate luridly - it attracts readership. I can't remember whether you're UK-based or not, but if you're not then you'd be surprised to see the amount of wildly speculative and sensationalist reporting that's going on at the moment around the suspect in the Joanna Yeates murder case here. There's often a bizarre period between a suspect being arrested and any charges being brought - which is exactly the current situation in the Yeates case. As soon as any charges are brought against the suspect, then sub-judice rules kick in, and none of the media will be allowed to mention anything at all about the suspect, the victim or the crime. Therefore they're desperately trying to shoehorn as much sensationalist stuff in as they possibly can, in the short window before any charges might be brought.

And regarding the veracity of stuff printed, the unwritten rule among the media appears to be this: it's permissible to "stretch the truth" in terms of character portrayal of individuals, especially if you have people who are prepared to go on record in this area (e.g. in the current Yeates case, lurid headlines such as "we all thought Joanna suspect was a total weirdo"). But when it comes to anything regarding the details of the crime itself, or details of the investigation, a straight-bat line is adopted.

And the reasoning for this is obvious. Individuals don't have much power, and if they've already been arrested in relation to a serious offence they'd have a hard time proving libel unless very specific libellous allegations were made (e.g. "I saw Joanna suspect kicking a dog to death"). But if you start misrepresenting police or prosecutors, things can get rather difficult for you as a crime reporter (or foreign desk reporter in the case of overseas crimes). Journalists - especially crime and political journos - rely massively on their network of contacts. They are therefore usually very careful indeed to ensure that they only print/broadcast exactly what the contact wants to be printed/broadcast. And police and prosecution authorities have power and reach if your article brings them falsely into any sort of disrepute.

This is why it's very likely indeed that Lumumba said those things about police brutality in his interview with the Mail. And it's why it's far less certain as to whether Sollecito said any or all of the quotes attributed to him in the Sunday Mirror article.
 
Kaosium said:
However a frame would imply to me that they knew they were innocent and just wanted to convict them out of animus or convenience. I don't think that happened, and there's a number of reasons for me to think so. For one if they actually wanted to frame them they'd have just done it. With what looked like incontestable evidence, not embarrassments like the bra clasp and 'murder knife,' the stories of which I found frankly unbelievable.
Click to expand...

My take on it is this: the Perugian police were way out of their depth from the beginning of the investigation, as shown by the completely haphazard way in which they collected evidence, and the mess they made of the murder room. Their reaction was what frequently happens when police feel under pressure to get a quick result: they focussed on "suspects" who were near at hand, and set off a process of "building" a case against them which took on a momentum of its own.

The way it's turned out is that the fit-up has been as haphazard and incompetent as the so-called "investigation" - which rather shows how much confidence the police and prosecution had that their botched-together case would be rubber-stamped by the court. You are quite right in that it can hardly be described as a "conspiracy" - that would mean something altogether more coherent than what we have seen.

The problem isn't police dishonesty so much as the incentives that they are given in an adversarial system of justice. When "achieving" a conviction (rather than establishing the truth) is seen by the system as an objective in itself, then it isn't surprising that we see cases brought (and endorsed by the courts) that turn out to have little relationship with reality.
 
Danceme said:
How would one go about finding the conversation between yourself and Capealadin in which you went through all this, which search terms will I use to avoid having to wade through a gazillion posts?
Click to expand...


The first search term I would try would be "Patrick fired Amanda". With this I find 2 earlier posts in the current thread:

[Post 5358] (September, reply to tsig)
[Post 8374] (October, reply to Capealadin)​

You could start there and see if there is a continued discussion in subsequent posts.
 
So let's get this straight. Knox is asked to provide information at around 11:00. The interpreter gets there around an hour later. Surely we can all agree that the timing is very reasonable. No arguments there.

Around 90 minutes elapses, during which time Knox, who now has the aid of an interpreter, provides enough information to warrant her change of status to that of suspect.

All very clear and above board, I think we can all agree, so why are people still goiing on about unfair treatment?
 
Antony said:
My take on it is this: the Perugian police were way out of their depth from the beginning of the investigation, as shown by the completely haphazard way in which they collected evidence, and the mess they made of the murder room. Their reaction was what frequently happens when police feel under pressure to get a quick result: they focussed on "suspects" who were near at hand, and set off a process of "building" a case against them which took on a momentum of its own.

The way it's turned out is that the fit-up has been as haphazard and incompetent as the so-called "investigation" - which rather shows how much confidence the police and prosecution had that their botched-together case would be rubber-stamped by the court. You are quite right in that it can hardly be described as a "conspiracy" - that would mean something altogether more coherent than what we have seen.

The problem isn't police dishonesty so much as the incentives that they are given in an adversarial system of justice. When "achieving" a conviction (rather than establishing the truth) is seen by the system as an objective in itself, then it isn't surprising that we see cases brought (and endorsed by the courts) that turn out to have little relationship with reality.
Click to expand...

It's also very pertinent to note that the Perugia police and prosecutors had come in for criticism over their failure to bring any charges related to the murder of student Sonia Marra, which took place almost exactly a year previous to the Kercher murder. So when Meredith was murdered, they must have been aware of the perceived need to "do better this time".

Add to this the seeming fact that students were starting to desert Perugia in the wake of Meredith's murder, in fear of a serial student killer on the loose, and it's easy to see a situation emerging where the police and prosecutors have a near-desperate need to restore public confidence by announcing that they have - in the words of Hercule Poirot - "solv-eddd ze crime". And I think that the tone and content of the press conference of 6th November only adds to that suspicion.
 
LondonJohn said:
The UK print media love to speculate luridly - it attracts readership. I can't remember whether you're UK-based or not, but if you're not then you'd be surprised to see the amount of wildly speculative and sensationalist reporting that's going on at the moment around the suspect in the Joanna Yeates murder case here.
Click to expand...


No, I'm Canadian, across the pond. Is it not possible then, that the reason Raff was called into the police station on the 5th, was to explain this story and what he is quoted as saying in it? Seems likely does it not.....
 
colonelhall said:
So let's get this straight. Knox is asked to provide information at around 11:00. The interpreter gets there around an hour later. Surely we can all agree that the timing is very reasonable. No arguments there.

Around 90 minutes elapses, during which time Knox, who now has the aid of an interpreter, provides enough information to warrant her change of status to that of suspect.

All very clear and above board, I think we can all agree, so why are people still goiing on about unfair treatment?
Click to expand...

The debate was on the narrower issue of whether there had been an interpreter present "throughout" Knox's interrogation of the 5th/6th. Some claim that an interpreter was present throughout. The answer is that an interpreter was not present throughout. That is all.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
No, I'm Canadian, across the pond. Is it not possible then, that the reason Raff was called into the police station on the 5th, was to explain this story and what he is quoted as saying in it? Seems likely does it not.....
Click to expand...

I'm going to doubt that Perugia detectives read the Sunday Mirror. But of course, it's possible that this is what happened.
 
colonelhall said:
So let's get this straight. Knox is asked to provide information at around 11:00. The interpreter gets there around an hour later. Surely we can all agree that the timing is very reasonable. No arguments there.

Around 90 minutes elapses, during which time Knox, who now has the aid of an interpreter, provides enough information to warrant her change of status to that of suspect.

All very clear and above board, I think we can all agree, so why are people still goiing on about unfair treatment?
Click to expand...

By the way, given that Perugia Police Chief Arturo De Felice stated in the press conference the following morning that Knox "buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct" (thus clearly implying that the police "knew" Knox was involved before she even made the confession/accusation), do you think that Knox was correctly classified as a "witness" when she sat down for the interview that night, or should she have been re-classified as a suspect. Or do you think De Felice was misrepresenting the police's position?
 
colonelhall said:
So let's get this straight. Knox is asked to provide information at around 11:00. The interpreter gets there around an hour later. Surely we can all agree that the timing is very reasonable. No arguments there.

Around 90 minutes elapses, during which time Knox, who now has the aid of an interpreter, provides enough information to warrant her change of status to that of suspect.

All very clear and above board, I think we can all agree, so why are people still goiing on about unfair treatment?
Click to expand...

But wouldn't that blow away the idea of 40 hours of interrogation without food or interpreter, the starvation, lack of food and drink and the torture just short of water-boarding. If the interpreter didn't get there till 12:30, then the interrogation didn't start until 12:30, pretty hard to interrogate someone who doesn't know what you’re saying.
 
colonelhall said:
So let's get this straight. Knox is asked to provide information at around 11:00. The interpreter gets there around an hour later. Surely we can all agree that the timing is very reasonable. No arguments there.

Around 90 minutes elapses, during which time Knox, who now has the aid of an interpreter, provides enough information to warrant her change of status to that of suspect.

All very clear and above board, I think we can all agree, so why are people still goiing on about unfair treatment?
Click to expand...


After, as you agree, Amanda provides enough information to warrant her change of status to that of a suspect, the Italian police type up a statement to be used as a confession and require Amanda to sign it without the benifit of legal assistance that she is required by Italian law to have as a suspect. Thus the ruling by the Italian Supreme Court that this statement could not be used against her.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Anyone remotely connected to the case that read that could report it to the police, John Kercher for one, just saying.
Click to expand...

I agree - it's entirely possible.

On an unrelated matter, I see that I was wrong in my recollection of playing school sport against RMS, since it's an all girls' school. I was trying to recall schools that were in the particular vicinity of Gt Missenden (South-West of my school), and I remembered RMS because it's in Rickmansworth (many of the other schools with whom we played sport were North or East of our school, such as Stowe, Haileybury and St Edmund's, Ware). But I clearly misremembered it in a sports context - I think our school held a disco/dance there once; I've definitely been there. But, as was pointed out, it's some 20-odd years ago now.....
 
1:45 statement

Here is another area where my knowledge about what happened is sorely lacking.

Is there a written version of her 1:45 am statement? How do we know it occurred at 1:45 am?

Thanks in advance to any replies.
 
moodstream said:
Here is another area where my knowledge about what happened is sorely lacking.

Is there a written version of her 1:45 am statement? How do we know it occurred at 1:45 am?

Thanks in advance to any replies.
Click to expand...

Someone on here had photo coppies of them signed by Amanda, Charlie I think, with translations as well, regardless, these times are brought up throughout the trial many, many times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom