Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli
"And, the cops were certainly not yelling nor screaming nor asking her to imagine when she voluntarily wrote her infame hand written note."

Put up or shut up.

There is a video...only a fool would believe other wise. After all... we have a taped conversation with Filomena just minutes before questioning started on the 5th. We have tape of underwear shopping. We have intercepted email and phone calls Amanda made. We have 30 thousand plus taped and transcribed phone conversations of the defendants families...Which we come to find out led to the grand conclusion of....NOTHING! Italy must be a rich country to be able to spend all this money going after innocent citizens...listening in on their conversations...30 THOUSAND times! But no ...you have no tape of this particular interrogation... Who do you think you're fooling?

I suppose there is no tape of RS interrogation either right? And no tape of oh so innocent person Diya Lumumba right? Where is his interrogation tape that proves he was well treated? Not beaten and called a "dirty black"...not grilled for ten hours without water or food? Or …since he was certainly a suspect on Nov 6th….where was his lawyer? Can we talk to him? Opps forgot that one huh?. Seems the Perugia police and Mignini are willing to ignore the law when it works in their favor. And speaking of Diya…did Amanda also keep his bar closed until he was bankrupt? What was it 4 months? 5 months…?

No yelling you say? But what about Giobbis testimony in court ? He speaks of screams and yelling...SO it seems someone is lying...he is also mathematically certain he ordered both AK and RS into the Questura.. yet the other police say no…are both telling the truth or is it the best truth they know?

Is it Migninis little toady Yummi who maybe lies, cheats and distorts?


The Perugian judicial system is rotten right from the very core. Your clown boss Mignini is insane. Does he think everyone is blind or stupid? Even in defeat he is not smart enough to recognize the time has come for him to be silent. A smart man would know that the limitations of his case have long ago been exceeded. A smart man would let it go and hope that this "little mistake" of his would fade from the public memories. But not great and all powerful Mignini. This fool will go down in a flaming wreck and he will drag Comodi and Massei and few other of his good friends right along with him. And you know what? I say perfect! Nothing is sweeter than watching karma in action.

Novelli has already made a fool of himself and for what? Technician Stefanoni showed the world that da Vinci was the last good scientist to come out of Italy and even he was smart enough to leave for France in his last years on Earth.

Here is what the whole world also noticed about in your corrupt little village court.

1. We saw Stefanoni lie in court...yes finally some recording.
2. We saw Stefanoni the cleaning lady...again maybe someone should have “accidentally” burned up that tape too.
3. Then we saw Comodi try to sneak fake control data sheets into the court file...and be caught red handed by Hellmann himself...(everyone is stupid to you right?)
4. Then we saw the genius move by Mignini when he read a letter “written” by Guede ...except Guede couldn’t read his own handwriting and he didn’t understand all the words...again discovered in direct questioning by Hellmann...what a dolt!
5. And how about that delay by Stefanoni of providing the electronic data files to the Independent experts? Nice move having Hellmann have to order it. Do you think he may just have remembered that little fact in his 11 hour deliberations? (I bet the defense lawyers are still waiting for their copy of these files.)
6. Oh and this was pure genius….sending two cars full of Purugia police to Rome to shake down the Independent experts for a DVD that was available right there in the Perugia court house…pssssttt Hellmann noticed that too…right after the experts both called him to report the shakedown.

I have at least a hundred more of these….shall I continue? No I don’t think so…unless perhaps someone needs these truths to defend another fake case brought by a maniac in Perugia perhaps.

Or maybe some producer from PBS Frontline or 60 Minutes will do an investigative report on the corruption that is so foolishly laid out in the open there in Perugia… or is it the new promotional travel ad of Perugia? Come…be enchanted …visit our dungeon. See where we put our witches on trial and where we burn them…you thought that ended 600 years ago. Wrong!

And Yummi we also notice how you have lied to the Kerchers. To do that takes someone who lives lower to the ground than even a snake crawls. You, Mignini and Maresca have condemned them to a lifetime of false hate.

And finally… you Perugia goons should have had Guede in a jail cell prior to 1 Nov 2007... Then that “poor black man” wouldn’t have had the chance to rob, rape, and kill poor Meredith….yes we noticed that too! And someday the Kerchers will find out that truth as well…and you will cause their wounds to be ripped open yet again…nice work.

 

[Fine]

Occasionally, in Amanda's SPONTANEOUS DECLARATIONS the night of November 5th, there do appear elements that were not coerced and embroidered by the cops. Here's one of them. It appears near the end of her 5:45 am SPONTANEOUS DECLARATION.........

"I met Patrick this morning.... I think he also asked me if I wanted to see some journalists, maybe in order to know if I knew anything about Meredith's death."

Errm . How can the same person, Amanda--- who in her 1:45 am DECLARATION and earlier in this same 5:45 am DECLARATION had described meeting Patrick, taking him to the cottage, covering her ears while Meredith screamed, etc---now be wondering whether Patrick might wish to know whether Amanda "knew anything about Meredith's death"?

The cops should have called a medical doctor.

///

 

[HumanityBlues]

The thing about the video is, we already have Mignini's explanation for not video taping the interrogation: budget cuts.

Machiavelli is free to endorse this line of ********, and I would quite enjoy the anticipated longwinded and illogical explanation/excuse. Popcorn is ready.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I wonder how many cops had cell phones capability of taking video and audio recordings.

Budget cuts is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The video goes missing when it's convenient for the corrupt cops.

What the hell is a flying squad anyway?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I wonder how many cops had cell phones capability of taking video and audio recordings.

Budget cuts is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The video goes missing when it's convenient for the corrupt cops.

What the hell is a flying squad anyway?

I know it's amazing right? Budget cuts. I could seriously repeat it one thousand times and it's still just as amazing of an excuse. These guilters are great aren't they? They think they're magical magicians at spotting liars but when Mignini says something as stupid as the "budget cuts" thing, it's like it never happened.

It's just so funny because guilters come by this thread on their drive bys insinuating the mocking of the prosecution is all conjecture----while completely ignoring all the evidence that these guys are all mostly complete morons. Mignini might be the biggest moron of them all though. My signature quote alone proves that after all.

 

[Fine]

Finally. I see that someone has discovered why Mastermind Amanda murdered poor Meredith.....

"Happily, a motive now appears to have emerged. Knox, some people seem to want to believe, killed her flatmate, and inveigled two other men into helping her out, in order that she would be arrested, convicted, spend four years in prison, become a cause célèbre, be released on appeal, and, as the Daily Mail so charmingly put it, start "a new life as a professional martyr to injustice". Why not? The woman is capable of anything, after all. Or so the entire planet has been told." HERE

///

 

[Kaosium]

Occasionally, in Amanda's SPONTANEOUS DECLARATIONS the night of November 5th, there do appear elements that were not coerced and embroidered by the cops. Here's one of them. It appears near the end of her 5:45 am SPONTANEOUS DECLARATION.........

"I met Patrick this morning.... I think he also asked me if I wanted to see some journalists, maybe in order to know if I knew anything about Meredith's death."

Errm . How can the same person, Amanda--- who in her 1:45 am DECLARATION and earlier in this same 5:45 am DECLARATION had described meeting Patrick, taking him to the cottage, covering her ears while Meredith screamed, etc---now be wondering whether Patrick might wish to know whether Amanda "knew anything about Meredith's death"?

The cops should have called a medical doctor.

///

I read that differently, as Patrick saying the the journalists wanted to talk to Amanda about the murder, like Raffaele was by that one reporter shortly before the arrests. I suppose the implication is he's worried about the pressure getting to Amanda and her 'cracking' or something.

ETA: That last line doesn't fit either, I think the implication is more he wants her to talk to media.

 

[charlatan]

Decide for yourself how legal Amanda's interrogation was, and how honest Machiavelli is being:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

Thanks for posting this. I just came across it last night.

How many times do pro-innocence arguments have to be proven right before the holdouts recognize the innocentsi simply have a better logical framework for understanding this case? Then again, I suppose even a functioning clock is right 1440 times per day.

 

[Mary_H]

By the way, I have asked to quote a lie that people think the police told.
Nobody was able to quote a single one. I have explained what I mean by police lie. A factual lie told to the suspect during interrogation.

There was a poster who thought it was good to quote what he considered "leaks" published by tabloids. I may take this as an example of the total lack of arguments.

Nobody is able to quote a single lie. Althogh, I am sure that, statistically, there must be some lie told by someone to anyone among maybe 100+ people in the law enforcing authorities who were dealing with the case.
But none of you is able to quote this one single lie.
In particular, none of you is able to quote a single lie told by an authority to Amanda Knox during interrogation.

Amanda Knox made nothing like lying to save her life. He had no need nor utility in lying for weeks and months (and years) if she were innocent. Provided the known facts and the evidence, the only scenario in which her lies make sense, is her implication in murder.

I have quoted many times little parts of Knox's lies and no one has ever been able to counter my addressing of this points with any argument.
But I am not going to make a list of Amanda's lies, I don't want to show details on this topic. I say that the lies are evident to anyone who wants to discover them, like for example - a tiny example - the little lie accusing by which Amanda accused Meredith of being dirty (Kaosium's counter arguments can be further objected and their weakness can be shown).

I don't need to really prove anything because there is a conviction for calunnia, thus a formal acknowledgment that she is a liar beyond reasonable doubt.

Sorry, if I had noticed your request for police lies, I would already have submitted these earlier posts:

halides1:The police lied when they claimed that Amanda was not summoned on 5 November. Dr. Giobbi’s testimony made it clear that he wanted to interrogate both of them, as discussed at Perugia-Shock. Dr. Giobbi was there that evening, and arguments to the effect that the police did not do as he asked (by interrogating them in separate rooms) are risible. This was discussed in the previous thread here. Apparently the police did not tell Amanda that she was expected that evening, but that is not the same thing as not summoning her.

Charlie Wilkes: The Postal Police testified that they showed up at the cottage 20 minutes before Raffaele called the emergency number, but the video from the camera across the street proved they arrived after he made the call.

The Postal Police testified that they never set foot inside Meredith's room, but two witnesses testified that they did.

An unnamed police source told Richard Owen of the UK Times that they found receipts showing the purchase of bleach on the morning after the murder, and he went with the story, but no such receipts exist.

They lied on December 18 when they told the media that the book Amanda claimed to have been reading at Raffaele's apartment was found instead at the cottage. But the book to which she was referring really was at Raffaele's apartment, and they knew it. It was captured on police video taken more than a month earlier.

The police say they treated Amanda well during her interrogation, but they don't have a recording of that interrogation, even though it was required by law, they made recordings of all the other witness statements, and they secretly recorded Amanda and Raffaele when they were alone together.

Comodi lied about the call made "before anything happened" when she questioned Amanda. She said Amanda called her mother at noon, but in fact, Amanda did not make that call until 12:47, after she had spoken to Raffaele, after she had discovered the broken window, and after she had spoken to Filomena four times.

Rinaldi lied about the size of Guede's foot to create the false impression that it was too big to have made the print on the mat.

Stefanoni lied about performing a second blood test on the luminol footprints, saying that no such test was performed. Later, under pressure from defense lawyers, she provided documents showing that a second test was performed, and it was negative for blood in every case.

Stefanoni also lied when she testified that she changed gloves every time she handled a new sample. Raffaele's lawyers were able to prove from the video that she was lying.

The prosecution's entire case is predicated on lies.

Malkmus: I would add to that list the police telling Amanda they had video of her entering the cottage that night to further convince her she had been there but was just too traumatized to remember, the matching of Raf's shoe to Guede's bloody footprint (I don't think it's an "oopsie" when yo don't bother counting the number of rings in the pattern on the shoe), and Amanda being told she'd tested positive for HIV.

Mary H: What is more important to me, though, is that inherent in the claims that the police lied is the assumption that it is essentially lying to conduct a transaction in bad faith, as the police appear to have done when they interrogated Amanda on the night of November 5th-6th, 2007. Bad faith has been defined in legal terms as, "The fraudulent deception of another person; the intentional or malicious refusal to perform some duty or contractual obligation."

http://www.enotes.com/wests-law-encyclopedia/bad-faith)

Fraudulent deception and the intentional or malicious refusal to perform some duty or contractual obligation were present in all of these circumstances:

-The police allowed Amanda to believe the interrogation of the night of the 5th was just another in the series of informational interviews they had conducted over the previous few days, thus denying her the right to make an informed decision about whether or not to attend.
-Amanda testified that the police instructed her that a lawyer "would only complicate things."
-The police pretended they didn't know who the text message was from on Amanda's cell phone, when they actually had her phone records and were prepared to ask her about them.
-Amanda testified that the police told her she would go to prison for thirty years and never see her family again if she didn't agree with their allegations.
-The police accepted Amanda's written statement after the interrogation, withholding from her the information that she, as a suspect, should not be offering more testimony before consulting with the attorney they were required to provide for her.
-The police pretended they had no recourse but to arrest Patrick violently at dawn, when, in fact, other options were available to them.

As for what has occurred since November 6th, 2007, a lot of lying has continued to be done by omission. When are the police publicly going to accept responsibility for arresting Patrick instead of allowing people to believe Amanda made them do it? When are they going to withdraw or apologize for all the misstatements to the media, and all the deceits listed by the other posters here?

(These are from over a year ago. There probably have been a lot more uncovered since then, for example, in Conti & Vecchioti.)

 

[Mary_H]

In other words, you can't interrogate someone once they're incriminated, but you may interrogate them before they are incriminated. Thus, they are not incriminated before the interrogation, but they are incriminated after the interrogation. The interrogation is the means by which they become incriminated. The interrogation transforms the person from witness to suspect.

That's exactly what we have been saying all along.

If they are guilty. The interrogation transforms the person from witnss from suspect, only if the witness provides incriminating statements. People are incriminated after an interrogation only if the interroagtion was incriminating.
You know, this usually doesn't happen; most witness simply never become suspects. They never provide incriminating information. They answer questions, and there is nothing incriminating in their answers.

The problem stems, only if they provide incriminating statments, or if they refuse to answer. People who don't have anything to hide, well they don't do this.<snip>

Oops. So much for that theory. As it turns out, the suspects made incriminating statements, and they weren't guilty!

 

[Mary_H]

The police told her that there was a testimony against her by Raffaele Sollecito. And that was true!

I have never heard about this "hard evidence" claim by the police during interrogation; there isn't a trace of such a thing in the trial as far as I know.
Moreover that would make little sense, because Amanda had admitted to having been in the house after the murder, having taken a shower, changed her clothes, picked up a mop. What would it mean "there is physical evidence you were there"? She had been there according to her.

Did they discuss Amanda's "memoriale" or "gift statement" at the first trial?

Why, yes they did.

And in that statement, it says, "This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else. I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened."

As RWVBWL would say, "Hmmmm..."

 

[Mary_H]

Was it? Do we have a minute or recording of Sollecito's interrogation?

Of course.

And when will we be able to listen to or view this record? Around the same time you offer citations for your false claims that Amanda is a liar?

 

[DarkStar2011]

Well you could have said it was government policy, or at least suggested by the government.

Department of Ecology, State of Washington -

"let the yellow mellow"

SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES 2007 WATER SYSTEM PLAN -

Flush your toilet less often. Toilet flushing is the largest water use inside the home. As the saying goes, “If it’s yellow, let it mellow.”

The first of those links goes to a random grab-bag list of suggestions by Washington Conservation Corps members (environmentalist interns). It's under a section for WCC interns on "living on a budget" (specifically of around $1,000/month). As such, it is clearly a suggestion for WCC's own interns living in what, by Seattle standards, is extreme poverty, as opposed to general-purpose advice for all. And it no more constitutes a "government recommendation" than the suggestion, found slightly higher in the list, to attend the Compline service at St. Mark's Cathedral for free music.

The second link goes to a report covering steps that should be taken in a "drought or long-range disruption" of the water supply, to be declared by the Mayor of Seattle, something that has happened exactly zero times to date. And, yes, I can imagine a state of emergency (like the hurricane Rose mentioned, or a severe earthquake) where the government might call on people to conserve water by not flushing. For that matter, my parents did the same when stranded without power or water pressure for a solid week during the "Great New England Blizzard of 1978," but that doesn't mean that they did the same in normal circumstances. Nor do, I would guess, more than the smallest handful of Seattle enviro-fanatics.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The next question is to myself. The qustion that I put to myself, is why there are individuals unable to see that you need elements to build a claim of something. The existence of something is claimed rationally only if based on some element.
You don't have an element. Any information about this lie. You only have your prejudice about who is right between Knox and the rest of the world. It is the rest of the things you believe that makes you think there is a "lie". But you have no information and no elements to claim a lie.

Ludicrous request. Who claims, has to prove.

<snip>The innocent person was jailed for Amanda's fault, and no one else's.<snip>

If you don't want to believe what the Italian law is like, I just tell you this will not change facts. The law is like that. Your belief that it offends human rights is absurd in law, but if you want to think that, it's not my task to convince you. If you just don't believe I suggest you to get informed. It makes no sense that you try to argue with me what Italian law is like. Italian law is not a secret, not something that I have to convince you about. I have no interest in telling you something different from what it is. I don't want to spend my time trying to convince you of what is self-evident: look at the procedure code, study it a bit, ask for counsel.<snip>

Machiavelli, why do I get the feeling you are not the person to go to with questions about the law, Italian or otherwise?

Oh, I know why. It's because you don't seem to understand the most basic fundamentals of the purpose of laws. Laws are rules that civilizations develop to protect their citizens, in the face of two realities: first, that life is not fair, and second, that the law of the jungle is primitive and destructive to human beings as a group, i.e., civilization. The purpose of all rules and laws is to make any game -- that is, any social transaction, from conversations to nations -- more fair for everyone.

And how do I know that you don't understand this? It's because your posts in this venue don't follow the rules of social discourse, much less the laws of debate. You demand that other people cite, but your posts contain no citations. You demand other posters back up their claims, but your posts don't back up yours. You require that other people respect your allies, but your posts show disrespect for their allies. Your posts are almost exclusively opinion, yet you insist they win an argument of facts.

Do you think rules are only for other people? Do you believe that you and the members of the police and prosecution team in Perugia are above the law? Your posts suggest you do.

 

[Mary_H]

The first of those links goes to a random grab-bag list of suggestions by Washington Conservation Corps members (environmentalist interns). It's under a section for WCC interns on "living on a budget" (specifically of around $1,000/month). As such, it is clearly a suggestion for WCC's own interns living in what, by Seattle standards, is extreme poverty, as opposed to general-purpose advice for all. And it no more constitutes a "government recommendation" than the suggestion, found slightly higher in the list, to attend the Compline service at St. Mark's Cathedral for free music.

The second link goes to a report covering steps that should be taken in a "drought or long-range disruption" of the water supply, to be declared by the Mayor of Seattle, something that has happened exactly zero times to date. And, yes, I can imagine a state of emergency (like the hurricane Rose mentioned, or a severe earthquake) where the government might call on people to conserve water by not flushing. For that matter, my parents did the same when stranded without power or water pressure for a solid week during the "Great New England Blizzard of 1978," but that doesn't mean that they did the same in normal circumstances. Nor do, I would guess, more than the smallest handful of Seattle enviro-fanatics.

Do you happen to live on the east side of Lake Washington? I ask because people seem cleaner over there.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Do you happen to live on the east side of Lake Washington? I ask because people seem cleaner over there.

Well south of it, to be exact. Do you remember Almost Live's Folk Songs of South King County, or Green Riverdance?

I also lived in Everett for many years.

 

[LondonJohn]

And when will be able to listen to or view this record? Around the same time you offer citations for your false claims that Amanda is a liar?

OK, here's my current thinking about what happened on the night of 5th/6th November 2007 (note that this is just my opinion - to avoid me having to write "I believe" or "I think" at the start of every sentence!):

By the early evening of the 5th, the police and prosecutors had become convinced that Knox was involved in the murder. They thought this because of multiple factors: 1) their observation of Knox's demeanour and words/actions since the murder; 2) the growing suspicion of housemates and Meredith's friends (probably egged on by the police in a positive feedback loop); 3) the discovery of Knox's text exchange with Lumumba on the night of the murder; 4) Knox's meeting with Lumumba on the morning of the 5th.

Therefore, by 8pm on the 5th, the police believed that Lumumba had killed Meredith, aided and abetted by Knox. But the police had no solid evidence to support this theory, and nor therefore did they have just cause to arrest either Knox or Lumumba. In addition, they were aware that Knox's mother was due to arrive in Perugia the following day, and were terrified by the prospect of a high-profile murder suspect slipping through their fingers.

The police therefore decided to implement a "domino effect" series of interrogations. They decided that Sollecito was either lying to cover for Knox, or that he was lying to cover for his own participation in the murder. So the plan was this: bring Sollecito in first, and get him to implicate either Knox or both himself and Knox. With that in hand, they could send out the squad cars and armoured response unit to break down Sollecito's door and arrest Knox. The thinking was that Knox would be so terrified by the arrest that she might well have spilled the beans easily in front of Mignini (and might waive her right to a lawyer in the process). But even if she said nothing, the police would have her in custody, which was the most important thing. The police believed that the forensic results would provide ample evidence to remand and charge Knox within days - they simply needed just cause to arrest and detain her before her mother had the chance to take her out of the country.

But things didn't go exactly to plan when Knox decided to accompany Sollecito to the police HQ. The police realised that they now needed to finesse their plan. They knew that it would look strange if they arrested Knox while she was siting in the police station's waiting room, so they decided to question her as a "witness" and get her to implicate herself. That course of action, they knew, would give them sufficient grounds to arrest and detain Knox - which, don't forget, was the main objective of that night.

But the police and prosecutors got an unexpected bonus that night: Knox implicated Lumumba under coercive interrogation. And in doing so, Knox gave the police the ammunition to carry out the high-profile arrest that they had originally intended to carry out on Knox herself. They were therefore able to carry out the highly visible and theatrical arrest that they had been so keen to do - only it was for Lumumba rather than the original target, Knox. But once they got Lumumba into custody, they realised that they didn't really know what to do with him. His arrest was probably not in their original plans.

Underpinning all this are the highly-revealing words of Perugia police Chief Arturo de Felice in the triumphalist police press conference the following morning. In case anyone needs reminding, this is what De Felice said in regard to Knox's interrogation:

Initially the American gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct, and from that we were able to bring them in.

There are only two possible explanations for this statement: 1) De Felice was lying (perhaps because he was over-excited by being in the media spotlight, and he wanted to pretend that the police were more competent than they actually were); 2) De Felice was being truthful, and the police did know the "correct" version of the facts before Knox even stepped into the interrogation room. The first option implies that the Perugia police chief was incompetent and mendacious, and the second option implies that the police "knew" in advance of Knox's interrogation that Lumumba had murdered Meredith with Knox's assistance. Take your pick. I go with option 2 personally.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Anyway, back to my point. The police then relied on this statement, signed under duress and full of "coulds" and "mights" and "I'm not sures," to arrest Lumumba and subject him to the same garbage. Then they had the temerity to blame Knox for what they did to Lumumba based solely on a statement that any competent investigator would deem wholly unreliable. And they charged her for it. It would be comical if real lives weren't ruined.

Seriously, read her statement and tell me she is asserting that she knows Lumumba was there. It's obvious to anyone who knows anything about interrogations that Knox finally broke and told them what they had been demanding for hours to hear. And even then she couched it in language that makes it absolutely clear she was not at all sure if she was remembering or just confused. And she was still sure she did not take part in the crime.

Aren't you referring to the "gift note" rather than the signed statements? I saw a translation of them somewhere before the verdict came down, and recall that they were a lot less equivocal than her later, handwritten note.

On a similar point, I've often wondered if there was any way to verify that the 1:45 A.M. statement was really made at 1:45? It essentially covers the basis of her charges against Lumumba, and the 5:45 A.M. statement barely gives more than a minute level of detail. I wonder because a) it seems odd that the police would take four more hours to get that extra bit of detail, and b) the 1:45 time of the first note would suggest that the police didn't need that much investigative time to "break" her, thus implying that she gave up the information rather easily, making it appear more likely that it was free and voluntary rather than coerced. I'm wondering if the two statements were drawn up (in a language Knox didn't understand well, of course) and presented to her for signing at the end of the night, so that, if "eight hours of coercive investigation" was later charged, they could simply pull out the "1:45 A.M." statement and reply "see -- it only took a short time, not eight hours, of questioning before she admitted the truth."

 

[zeb]

I wonder how many cops had cell phones capability of taking video and audio recordings.

Budget cuts is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The video goes missing when it's convenient for the corrupt cops.

What the hell is a flying squad anyway?

The same has your SWAT squad.

 

[LondonJohn]

Folks, we are once again receiving an inordinate number of reports out of this thread. Please keep to the topic and remain civil and polite. If the bickering and incivility persist, this thread will be placed on moderated status, and no one (including the Mod Team) wants that. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

I realise that it's not good form to discuss mod-related issues in regular threads, but I wanted to raise an important issue related to this warning. You say that there have been an "inordinate" number of reports related to this thread. You then warn all participants in the thread to "behave", with the threat of moderated status hanging in the air. Yet the last post from this thread that was moved to AAH was some four days ago. Does that not suggest that the "inordinate" number of reports (which your language tends to suggest were made far more recently than four days ago) had no merit? And should you therefore not be primarily addressing the people who made these "inordinate" reports, rather than the total universe of participants in the thread?

I would add that it's never a bad idea to remind people to be courteous and civil in this thread - but I cannot understand how a large number of reports which appear to have been groundless have directly resulted in a warning to the wider posting community. I hope that I haven't behaved badly by bringing this issue up - but I do apologise if my observations are inappropriate to be made within the thread itself (I don't know where would be a better place to make them, and I feel that they need to be made).