Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antony said:
I would be disappointed if that wasn't true, legally. But the practicalities of pursuing an anonymous internet poster are not the same as taking action against the author of a book.

Incidentally (assuming the Hellmann court makes the rational decision), will there be a way that people like us can draw the attention of the Knox/Sollecito lawyers to libellous comments appearing in print or on-screen?
Click to expand...


I would imagine that Knox's (and Sollecito's) lawyers won't find it hard to keep tabs on the most likely places for potential libels to be spewing forth. You're correct to say that obviously the author of a mainstream published work or a newspaper article is more at risk of any legal action if they make libellous comments, since a) the piece in question is more likely to be far higher-profile than any comment on an online news story or post on a forum, and b) the author and publisher are both readily identifiable. But anything in the printed, online or broadcast media is subject to action if it's potentially libellous: it just remains to be seen how active the legal teams wish to be in pursuing potential libels.
 
I suspect they're not going to be hunting down anonymous internet posters, though I suppose they might contact them and tell them to cease and desist or else. Plenty of people have been saying they believe O. J. Simpson was really guilty and got off, ditto Casey Anthony, and no sign of anything happening in that department. And just because we think Knox and Sollecito are clearly innocent while these other two, er, aren't, doesn't make them different in law.

I would hope the guilter community would find another hobby post-acquittal. While campaigns to free victims of miscarriages of justice tend to continue as long as the victim is in jail, there isn't a lot of mileage in getting permanently outraged over someone you believe to have been guilty but who walked because there was insufficient evidence.

Rolfe.
 
Fuji said:
I accept that showering in cold conditions is nothing to be suspicious about absent any ready-at-hand alternatives. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Ahh so when Amanda left Raff's to go for a shower, she would have already known her house was freezing as she had left a broken window and an open front door behind after murdering her flatmate, and we know she broke that window and murdered her flatmate because she lied about having had a shower in her house the morning after the crime and we know she lied about this because there was a house that wasn't cold up the road where she could have had a shower and she knew that her house would have been cold because she had murdered her flatmate there the night before and left a broken window and a door open and we know she was the murderer because she lied about having a shower... Lather, rinse, repeat.

By Jove, I think you've cracked it!
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
And quite apart from Fuji's ridiculous claim of you photoshopping this picture (which, as you say, makes no sense whatsoever when you stop to think about it for more than a nanosecond), Fuji chooses to end the post with an extremely unpleasant insulting expletive aimed at you. I have to say in total honesty that I was shocked that someone who had been seemingly debating here in good faith could simultaneously throw around such a deeply unpleasant insult on another forum. So I'm done with Fuji: (s)he's really showed his/her true colours with this single word. What a shame.
Click to expand...


I noticed that. The bias and indeed venom are very telling. I think those who advocate a wholesale relaxation of the JREF forum rules should take a look at that thread as a demonstration of what might happen. Fuji is really extremely unpleasant in that thread.

Rolfe.
 
christianahannah said:
According to a reply from Frank on September 15, 2011, it was not a local paper which faxed this information to the prosecutor's office but rather the police themselves.

The local paper il Giornale dell'Umbria was the paper with journalists who located some of the "superwitnesses" for the prosecution (among other things) and some of the journalists also wrote a book about the crime.

http://online.giornaledellumbria.it/portal/Iniziative/Meredithillibro/tabid/79/Default.aspx
Click to expand...

Thanks RW and Christiana for clearing this up. The cops faxed the prosecutor. As Frank said, it is written so it must be true.
 
The cold shower claims are just getting more and more ridiculous. You only have to run the hot water for a couple of minutes and the whole bathroom would have been lovely and toastie. And most young women would know that washing hair alone does not make you look like you've just walked out of a salon - washing your hair and then not taking the time to blow dry straight or use hair straighteners, turns you into birds nest head.
 
Rolfe said:
Fuji, I'd prefer that you and your pals didn't use quite a lot of terms you do use, but hey, we don't always get what we want. "Crazed sex killer" is sort of a meme on the guilter forums, I merely pick up on it.
Click to expand...

Is it meme or a trope? I get so confused over there.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
The truth is that my wife took the photo that you claim is photoshopped but only after my daughter tried out Shay's camera. Problem was, when she took the photo we were photo bombed by a wise guy!

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/8qk5X.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Bruce--you care to explain the crumpled/messy hair, puffy face, smeared makeup and sexy smell?
 
What annoys me about a lot of this, as with other blatant miscarriages of justice, is all the spinning of peripheral irrelevancies as prima facie evidence of guilt. Every confused contradiction, even instances of behaviour which aren't quite in line with how the poster thinks he or she would have reacted to the same circumstances, are paraded as reasons for a guilty verdict.

If there were objective physical evidence implicating Knox and/or Sollecito in the murder, then these issues could add to the picture. But with absolutely nothing reliable to place either of them in the same room as the murder, ditzy behaviour on its own is evidence of nothing but ditzy behaviour.

By the way, not to import this in here, but do have a look at this exchange.

http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=324&start=11000#p87210

Words fail me.

Rolfe.
 
Well, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have reacted like that. But then, I'm not 20. And I don't conclude from that statement that Amanda murdered her flatmate in a motiveless crazed sex killing.

Funny, my next-door-neighbour where I used to live was from Seattle. Amanda sounds just like her (and indeed my neighbour has a daughter called Amanda who was born in 1986). "Girl-next-door" indeed!

Pity they didn't record the actual interview Amanda is talking about.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Draca said:
Katie Crouch was contacted to confirm her story and she advised that Patrick Lumumba told her the police "HIT him". She is indeed revealing what Patrick told her directly the police had done to him during their lunch. She said he used the word HIT and not beat though.
Click to expand...

So Patrick Lumumba really claims the police hit him, pretty much the same claim Amanda Knox makes and Lumumba is suing the police...Amanda Knox for making the police hit him?

How about if some real investigation into this claim was being done? Maybe by the authorities since two murder suspect tell similar stories about the Perugia police? Or by journalists, maybe?

if Lumumba is a victim of police brutality it's still no excuse for him not telling the truth and suing Knox instead. Even if I agree that despite the circumstances it was still wrong of Knox to accuse Lumumba and Lumumba has his rightful reason for disliking Knox's actions.

I know it's not the first time this is discussed, but someone ought to get to the bottom of this important question. Was Lumumba really hit by the police or not?
 
Rolfe said:
What annoys me about a lot of this, as with other blatant miscarriages of justice, is all the spinning of peripheral irrelevancies as prima facie evidence of guilt. Every confused contradiction, even instances of behaviour which aren't quite in line with how the poster thinks he or she would have reacted to the same circumstances, are paraded as reasons for a guilty verdict.

If there were objective physical evidence implicating Knox and/or Sollecito in the murder, then these issues could add to the picture. But with absolutely nothing reliable to place either of them in the same room as the murder, ditzy behaviour on its own is evidence of nothing but ditzy behaviour.

By the way, not to import this in here, but do have a look at this exchange.

<SNIP>

Words fail me.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Indeed.

There are delusions. And then there are, apparently, delutions.
 
Dan O. said:
Same as above. What I recall is that the police had checked the footage and decided that there wasn't anything useful. To the police, a tiny unrecognizable blip crossing the road is useful if they can claim it is Amanda returning to the cottage in time to participate in the murder. Someone carrying a bright red mop and bucket directly under a 360º view camera late the next morning is apparently not useful in their eyes.

The camera in question is over the Tobacco/Stationary store just across the street from Amanda's university and in front of which Amanda and Raffaele would surely pass when going between the cottage and Raffaele's apartment. There is however no proof that this particular camera was operational at that time.

Court testimony of officers Maurizio Arnone and/or Mauro Barbadori talks about investigating traffic control cameras on the route that Meredith would have taken home that night and doesn't mention checking the contents of other cameras. This would be reasonable if this part of the investigation happened before Amanda and Raffaele became suspects and there was no need to verify their claims.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dan. I managed to find that discussion, so I'll go back and re-read it.

I'm not sure it's safe to assume the police didn't check any cameras other than the ones on Meredith's route home, just because they do mention checking those cameras: since they were presenting an image they claimed to be Meredith returning home in Court, perhaps that's simply the journey they were reconstructing. I can't believe they wouldn't have checked any available cameras looking for evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, for example.

If they really didn't check any cameras other than those on Meredith's way home, then as Grinder says, that would be just more evidence of incompetence. Obviously the right way to proceed would have been to seize all CCTV footage within a certain distance from the cottage, and go through it for any information. At the moment I don't think we have enough information to say they didn't do that, though. Yet another area where transcripts would be helpful.
 
Paninaro said:
So Patrick Lumumba really claims the police hit him, pretty much the same claim Amanda Knox makes and Lumumba is suing the police...Amanda Knox for making the police hit him?

How about if some real investigation into this claim was being done? Maybe by the authorities since two murder suspect tell similar stories about the Perugia police? Or by journalists, maybe?

if Lumumba is a victim of police brutality it's still no excuse for him not telling the truth and suing Knox instead. Even if I agree that despite the circumstances it was still wrong of Knox to accuse Lumumba and Lumumba has his rightful reason for disliking Knox's actions.

I know it's not the first time this is discussed, but someone ought to get to the bottom of this important question. Was Lumumba really hit by the police or not?
Click to expand...

Quite probably, though he didn't say the same thing in court, however his lawyer would likely have advised him that saying so would garner him a calunnia charge like it did Amanda, and of course there's no tapes of his all-day interrogation without a lawyer when he was most definitely under arrest. My guess is that during that time and the following two weeks the police didn't exactly tell him the precise nature of those statements Amanda signed. Just like they pretended to Amanda they had 'hard evidence' of her being at the scene, either exaggerating the CCTV video or simply inventing it, they probably didn't tell him 'we have two statements signed by this girl who couldn't really read them that look like she's barely coherent and she either vaguely remembers you murdering someone, or confusedly doesn't actually remember that moment but she heard a scream, or some thuds, or maybe she didn't--she's so confused.'

I'm guessing it was more along the lines of 'we know your bar was closed, that you met Amanda and she confessed she was there when you murdered Meredith! We have a full confession with details, we know all about your murder of Meredith--a complete eyewitness account! Confess now, or you'll be in prison thirty years!' They probably put the pressure on pretty hard, and he might well have believed their representation of Amanda's statements, he may never even have read them himself. He spends two weeks with them, if they treated him like Amanda they probably put the psychological pressure on him just as hard, reiterating that they have a 'signed eyewitness account and full confession' from Amanda. Something like that.

Then as it becomes more and more apparent his alibi will stand up and that Guede was involved they probably started to blame it on her first to Patrick, before doing the same publicly. Patrick gets out of prison and the first thing he does is hire a lawyer and file a calunnia charge against Amanda the same day. Shortly thereafter he's giving interviews to the Daily Mail and Italian newspapers netting him 80k Euros, and blaming Amanda totally for his incarceration. No one really had a chance to tell him differently.

Patrick has a 500k Euro suit filed against the police in Perugia over his arrest with the ECHR. He was wrongfully arrested, interrogated without a lawyer all day without tapes of that either and probably under harsher conditions than Amanda was. He has every right to be pissed and want recompense, especially as the police kept his bar closed for about four months after the murder as a 'crime scene.' It's just sad that he got it into his head from the beginning that it was all Amanda's doing, when she is just as much a victim of Perugian police tactics as he was, more so if you consider the murder charge being pursued, the defamation campaign and the almost four years in prison.

However as has been noted before, a fair number of the townspeople in Perugia went out in the streets at midnight to applaud the verdict, thus whenever most come across him they might just reinforce in his mind that he was the victim of this evil lying depraved creature their police arrested and their court convicted. Perhaps not many want to disabuse him of the notion that he was the only victim of that arrest, and it was Amanda's fault.
 
Last edited:
Paninaro said:
So Patrick Lumumba really claims the police hit him, pretty much the same claim Amanda Knox makes and Lumumba is suing the police...Amanda Knox for making the police hit him?

How about if some real investigation into this claim was being done? Maybe by the authorities since two murder suspect tell similar stories about the Perugia police? Or by journalists, maybe?

if Lumumba is a victim of police brutality it's still no excuse for him not telling the truth and suing Knox instead. Even if I agree that despite the circumstances it was still wrong of Knox to accuse Lumumba and Lumumba has his rightful reason for disliking Knox's actions.

I know it's not the first time this is discussed, but someone ought to get to the bottom of this important question. Was Lumumba really hit by the police or not?
Click to expand...

Katie Crouch updates her interview with Patrick on her twitter account (some 8 tweets or so) and gives an email address where to contact him. There is the possibility that some meaning was lost or added when doing the interview (which was done through a translator).

https://twitter.com/#!/KatieACrouch
 
katy_did said:
If they really didn't check any cameras other than those on Meredith's way home, then as Grinder says, that would be just more evidence of incompetence. Obviously the right way to proceed would have been to seize all CCTV footage within a certain distance from the cottage, and go through it for any information. At the moment I don't think we have enough information to say they didn't do that, though. Yet another area where transcripts would be helpful.
Click to expand...

If the prosecution did collect all the CCTV camera footage of that night, they were required by law to make it available to the defense. We do have evidence that the defense asked for camera footage and were refused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom