• 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 Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Finally some clarity on the "I fired Foxy Knoxy" rumor, started by the Daily Mail interview with Patrick.

This was reported on Nov. 29th 2007 in the Italian press:

And Patrick Lumumba, who had given her a job at his restaurant "Le Chic", just released from prison, he announced he was going to fire her (despite never having officially taken) because he lost too much time talking with customers.

He was planning on firing her. Mm-hm. I'm sure this decision was retroactive in nature.
 
Meeting on 5 November

Finally some clarity on the "I fired Foxy Knoxy" rumor, started by the Daily Mail interview with Patrick.

This was reported on Nov. 29th 2007 in the Italian press:



He was planning on firing her. Mm-hm. I'm sure this decision was retroactive in nature.
Malkmus,

When Amanda met Patrick on 5 November, she told him that she could no longer work because she was scared. Hmmm....
 
Malkmus,

When Amanda met Patrick on 5 November, she told him that she could no longer work because she was scared. Hmmm....

Yes, although I've been looking to find confirmation from Patrick of this. However, I keep finding little gems like this:

Patrick Diya Lumumba, released Nov. 20 after two weeks in prison but all 'now under investigation, has not had time to write, but on the other hand, when free, he became a star of the talk show and released (behind generous compensation) interviews pepper the British tabloids in which he accused the police of having beaten him and told special public prosecutor concealed ("I wanted to lay by my local take Amanda and Meredith") and then denied.
 
Does anybody know anything more about the knife found outside the cottage?

With a tense moment when one of the lawyers of Raffaele Sollecito, the 'German lawyer, found in the slope not far from the house of a knife crime table and two blood-stained tissues.

I think I've heard that it was a butter knife, but does anyone know for sure?
 
I saw this posted Monday @ PMF:

The JLOL thread is moribund nowadays. Not sure exactly why they're posting there at all since Knox is back in Seattle and has posed for her obligatory photo-ops while being dragged across the pavement by MadPax. There is clearly nothing further for them to discuss and I've asked them again to close it down. At the Community, of course, most of the regular JLOL'rs have accepted that it will be impossible to get the Amandamaniacs to participate in any of the discussions apart from Knox.

Aren't there any other young-ish white women in prison somewhere?

Just curious if there is a thread on this I am missing?
 
The Italian press certainly was critical:

Three times it was announced case closed!

In fact, the press was not especially appeasing the authorities, did not support them when they accused Lumumba and was not praising towards their policy such as their announcing the case closed three times.
The truth is, anyway, that the Italian press and public is addicted to much more and worse chaos.

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...2007/11/21/quelle-domande-senza-risposta.html

The above about Patrick, Mach, was written in the Italian press the day before he was released.

But you should read the full article, to understand the context. The article is a chronological summary of the various "truths" (the versions are numberes second, thirt truth, etc...):

... Seconda ricostruzione (9 novembre, ordinanza del gip di convalida del fermo): Amanda, Raffaele e Patrick piegano Meredith a un gioco sessuale cui la vittima si ribella, pagando con la vita. L' arma del delitto è uno dei due coltelli a serramanico sequestrati allo studente pugliese. L' impronta di scarpa impressa nel sangue di Meredith è incontrovertibilmente di Raffaele Sollecito. Lumumba è un fior di bugiardo: il suo locale era chiuso mentre uccideva Meredith e riapre i battenti per precostituire un alibi di cartapesta. Soprattutto, Lumumba è un gran furbacchione: traffica da raffinato conoscitore del tracciamento dei cellulari ...

.... Terza ricostruzione (20 novembre, cattura di Guede). Amanda, Raffaele e Guede uccidono Meredith. Lumumba si aggira da qualche parte non lontano (il suo cellulare viene agganciato dalla cella nei pressi della casa del delitto). Il perché, Dio solo lo sa. Resta indagato, ma il pm «sente il dovere» di segnalare al gip che gli indizi a suo carico non sono più gravi. Che in capo al furbacchione e assassino del 9 novembre non esiste oggi né il pericolo di fuga, né di inquinamento probatorio. Anche perché un professore universitario svizzero ha testimoniato di averlo visto nel suo locale (che dunque era aperto)


Second truth, Lumumba is a liar, his bar was closed. Third truth, Lumumba's cell phone was nearby but in the posecutor's opinion there is no serious evidence against him, there is a witness for his alibi and his bar was open.
The article's tone is obviously sarcastic. This is the context of your quote.
 
It seems to me you are quite unaccustomed to Italy.

Then I'm forced to ask the following questions:

are members of the public allowed free access to crime scenes at any time, for any reason? If not, how can they be excluded and under what authourity?

what is the process by which documents made known to the police are entered into the investigation file? Who (person, persons or body of people) has any management, legal or technical oversight into the investigation files to ensure all entries are relevant and

how are police or forensic photographers commisioned to take photos of a crime scene? Is it done on a case by case basis, or are official photographers embedded in teams, or are they effectively independant? How then, can you ensure someone even turns up to take any official photos?

how can a private photographer possibly be "someone who was allowed by the police or was working with the police" unless there is an authourity that allows them to do so?

I find your implied contention that documents are allowed to be submitted to the investigation file as relevant, accurate and true, by a process of any person simply putting them in there without invoking any formal process to be utterly unbelievable, and astoundingly worrisome if true.

As for your contention that no-one has any authourity to control or monitor or restrict access to a crime scene - this at least has some basis, especially as the LE appeared to testify that they deliberately did not make records of attendance.
 
____________________________

Machiavelli,

[1] The Italian press immediately dismissed Amanda's accusation against Patrick as not credible? So the Italian journalists are better qualified to establish the credibility of a witness than the cops and prosecutors. Do the cops and prosecutors therefore need more training? Or, maybe, they should decide who to arrest by reading the newspapers?

In this case they were better informed or better qualified than the judge for preliminary invesigation, anyway the fact is they guessed correctly.

[2] The murder investigation was reported correctly in real time? Yeah, within hours of Amanda's "confession" on November 6th, we read about it in the Italian press. The 1:45 and 5:45 statements composed by the cops in Italian. But Amanda's own statements written the same day in her Memorandum accusing the cops of molesting her are not reported till two weeks later. HERE. Why?

There is no accusation about police officers molesting Amanda Knox in her hand written note. Absolutely zero.
A molestation is a behaviour with a sexual content in my language.
Amanda did not accuse any police officer of molesting her in any of her writings.

It's a loss of time, in my opinion, to question why the press reports of a document later. The memoriale is damning to Knox's image.
 
Finally some clarity on the "I fired Foxy Knoxy" rumor, started by the Daily Mail interview with Patrick.

This was reported on Nov. 29th 2007 in the Italian press:

He was planning on firing her. Mm-hm. I'm sure this decision was retroactive in nature.

In his interview with The Daily Mail on the 25th of November 2007Lumumba claims to have been beaten by the Police. A couple of days later, on the 27th November 2007 he has taken this statement back, if indeed he ever made it, on the TV-show The Matrix and says the police treated him OK.

Lumumba: "Mai picchiato da polizia ma umiliato"
"Non ho mai detto di essere stato picchiato dalla polizia, ma certo non mi sono mai sentito così umiliato nella mia vita". Patrick Lumumba, ospite della trasmissione 'Matrix' di Canale 5, corregge parzialmente il tiro rispetto alla versione fornita alla stampa britannica sui momenti seguiti all'arresto per l'omicidio di Meredith Kercher. "Hanno fatto la faccia dura per farla confessare?", gli chiede Enrico Mentana. "Sì - risponde Lumumba -, ma nessuno mi ha picchiato, quello che mi ha umiliato è che sono venuti a bussare alla mia porta, mi hanno preso e mi hanno portato in Questura senza spiegarmi niente. Non ci sono stati atti di violenza - ribadisce - gli agenti hanno fatto il loro lavoro e io li rispetto ma qualcuno avrebbe dovuto spiegarmi qualcosa".

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo389776.shtml

He says he felt humiliated and scared, but that he never was beaten. The part about who yelled "dirty black" is a bit unclear in google translation:

PERUGIA - Patrick Lumumba adesso fa marcia indietro. Le interviste ai tabloid inglesi gli hanno creato seri problemi. «Non ho mai detto - queste le sue parole ieri sera a Matrix - di essere stato preso a pugni e calci in questura. Ho detto solo di essere stato umiliato, perché non sapevo per quale motivo mi stessero arrestando». Nelle lunghe interviste aveva invece dichiarato di essere stato «picchiato in testa» già al momento dell' arresto. Aveva raccontato di essere stato chiamato «sporco nero» e di avere subito altre umiliazioni. Ieri ha cercato di smussare molto gli angoli. «Mi sono sentito umiliato e sotto pressione non per avere ricevuto botte ma perché mi hanno portato via senza dirmi di cosa ero accusato». L' accusa ai poliziotti che l' avrebbero chiamato «sporco nero» era stata però gridata in piazza, con un megafono, già una settimana dopo il suo arresto. A denunciare il fatto erano i suoi amici della Repubblica popolare del Congo e altri giovani africani, solidali con il dj e barista congolese «messo in carcere senza alcuna prova». Anche adesso Patrick si sente «agli arresti domiciliari», ma solo perché «ci sono sempre i giornalisti sotto casa mia». Ha partecipato comunque a Matrix, non si sa se dietro compenso. «Mi avvalgo della facoltà di non rispondere», dichiara in proposito il suo avvocato Giuseppe Sereni. Pure sul possibile movente del delitto («Ho licenziato Amanda per assumere Meredith, perché la ragazza invece di fare la cameriera pensava solo a "flirtare" con i ragazzi») Patrick vuole correggersi. «Avevo intenzione di lasciarla a casa ma l' avevo detto a un amico, non ancora a lei. Sì, c' erano problemi. Dovevo ricordarle anche cinque volte in una sera che doveva tornare a servire i clienti». Patrick dichiara di avere sempre avuto fiducia nella magistratura, «anche se più passava il tempo più cominciavo a preoccuparmi». «Quando mi hanno arrestato potevano chiedermi dove fossi quella sera e io avrei spiegato. Sono stati usati due pesi e due misure. Non tanto perché io sono nero e Amanda è americana, ma perché io sono uomo e lei donna. E anche il prete, in carcere, è andato da Amanda e non è venuto da me. Col il delitto io non c' entro nulla, lo giuro davanti a Dio. Amanda? A volte penso sia colpevole, a volte no. È una vicenda troppo complicata».

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb.../27/lumumba-in-tv-sono-stato-umiliato-ma.html

There are a couple of options here. One is that Antonia Hoyle is lying when she insists that Lumumba said to her he was beaten. Another is that the Perugian Police got to Lumumba on the 26th and made him change what the true story he told to the Daily Mail. Yet another that Lumumba lied for som other reason. maybe to get better paid for his story.

But why is no Calunnia action taken against The Daily Mail and Lumumba? He's accusing the police of the same thing as Amanda Knox is accusing them of doing. Using violence and scare tactics in interrogation.
 
Then I'm forced to ask the following questions:

are members of the public allowed free access to crime scenes at any time, for any reason? If not, how can they be excluded and under what authourity?

Normally they can't. However, in Italy you will never find a coloured tape saying "police line - do not cross". This delimiation of areas is not done formally. It must be said that police cannot do anything realy "formal" in Italy. Only the judiciary can place formal seals and take official decisions.

what is the process by which documents made known to the police are entered into the investigation file? Who (person, persons or body of people) has any management, legal or technical oversight into the investigation files to ensure all entries are relevant and

There is no formal process as far as I know. The documents known to the investigators are the investigation file. The formal part is informing the parties about the collecting of the evidence. When there is something that might be relevant, parties can be informed. There are legal options to inorm the parties. For example, if a raid has to be done in a suspect's house or on the scene of crime and there is already a person suspected, the attorneys of all parties are advised that the inspection is going to take place. The collection of evidence can be under several "formulas" or legal options.
Whatever happens during one of these events is, in fact, not secret, because immediately available to many subjects.

how are police or forensic photographers commisioned to take photos of a crime scene? Is it done on a case by case basis, or are official photographers embedded in teams, or are they effectively independant? How then, can you ensure someone even turns up to take any official photos?

I don't think there is something as an "official photographer". There is a photographer on the scene, which can be basically a more or less trained officer or an embedded photographer specialized in crime scene photos. But there can be sevaral taking photos and viedeo recordings. On car accidents, for example, I have seen officers just documenting the scene with their compact cameras. In the Meredith murder there were tens of hours of video recordings of all forensics activities, there was one person always video recording and several forensics taking photos with different cameras.


I find your implied contention that documents are allowed to be submitted to the investigation file as relevant, accurate and true, by a process of any person simply putting them in there without invoking any formal process to be utterly unbelievable, and astoundingly worrisome if true.

As for your contention that no-one has any authourity to control or monitor or restrict access to a crime scene - this at least has some basis, especially as the LE appeared to testify that they deliberately did not make records of attendance.

Yes the police work is, legally speaking, something rather informal. In some ways the process is informal, on some other aspects there is a formal framework. There are some formal steps for example as I said which are related to the sharing of all documentation with the parties, when the evidence is collected under a legal formula that puts everyting "together" to be shared with the parties. In other cases, everything becomes automatically part of the file by a formal mechanism since a prosecutor is on the place.
 
In this case they were better informed or better qualified than the judge for preliminary invesigation, anyway the fact is they guessed correctly.

There is no accusation about police officers molesting Amanda Knox in her hand written note. Absolutely zero.
A molestation is a behaviour with a sexual content in my language.
Amanda did not accuse any police officer of molesting her in any of her writings.

It's a loss of time, in my opinion, to question why the press reports of a document later. The memoriale is damning to Knox's image.

Knox accused them of pressuring her into saying things that weren't true and a police woman of hitting her in the back of the head. They tried to scare and humiliate her. This was a police tactic and it was wrong. It resulted in a false confession. It doesn't matter that Amanda Knox lied, what matters is that the interrogators did a bad job which resulted in a false confession. They are therefore morally responsible for what happened. To blame people who are interrogated for lying is absolutely pointless. Since Knox is innocent, proclaimed by the court of law, she can't be guilty of what happens in a police interrogation. To convict an innocent person of Calunnia is logically and morally wrong. This makes Italy a corrupt and medieval country were people of power lika Mignini can bully individuals and the press to try to make them report things their way.

Sollecito gave testimony about the wrongful police scare-and-humiliation tactic too. So did Lumumba. Frank Sfarzo has told us about "the Pack". You yourself have told us your experiences with the Italian Police.

Do you think Lumumba lied to the Daily Mail or do you think that he lied to La Repubblica? Or do you think that Antonia Hoyle lied to me in her e-mail and that Lumumba never told her what she claims he did?
 
It's a loss of time, in my opinion, to question why the press reports of a document later. The memoriale is damning to Knox's image.

Huh? Not at all.
It is damaging only to the cops.

Hits to the head and verbal abuse described by Knox is a criminal behaviour of the cops and along with the sleep deprivation is regarded as torture by any civilised standards. Plain and simple.

That the statements they forced her to sign ended up in media the very next day, but her own words were withheld shows that Perugian cop-criminals manipulated the media from the day one.
 
We know the cops created the picture. The cops either placed the picture in the investigation file or held it privately. Some authority in Perugia had custody of the investigation file (you won't tell us who), and enforced restrictions on who could access the file. The picture was published in the UK press.

So, what is imagined?
...

The imagined part is the statement "some authority" had custody of the investigation file.
This is imagined. You imagine some authority has the duty to grant a custody of the investigation file and is accountable for it.

A second false, imagined and illogical statement, is that some officer sold the picture to the press in order to influence public opinion.

A third imagined thing is that the picture created prejudice in Perugia population.

A fourth imagined thing is that a (imagined) prejudice among Perugia polupation had an effect on the person's civil rights or on judges decision.

The points 1, 2, 3 and 4 are unproven, unsupported, and irrational.
 
Last edited:
Huh? Not at all.
It is damaging only to the cops.

Hits to the head and verbal abuse described by Knox is a criminal behaviour of the cops and along with the sleep deprivation is regarded as torture by any civilised standards. Plain and simple.

That the statements they forced her to sign ended up in media the very next day, but her own words were withheld shows that Perugian cop-criminals manipulated the media from the day one.

The hand written note is damning to Knox.

Hitting twice on the back of the head. This is the abuse reported in the hand written note.
Nothing else.
 
Knox accused them of pressuring her into saying things that weren't true and a police woman of hitting her in the back of the head. They tried to scare and humiliate her. This was a police tactic and it was wrong. It resulted in a false confession.

...

No, Knox claimed what happened (or better described, failed to explain and also failed to claim) with a series of inconsistent statements, descritpions, clamis and explanations.
Her claims are inconsistent and contradictory; her claims were late; her explanations are also contradictory (false memory?) and changing. She has witnesses against her. There is no way. What you say is false.
And she is not innocent: she is a convicted malicious liar; she lied voluntarily, repeatedly, and her convictions deems it was proven she was never forced into doing this. And the reason why she did this is obvious if you consider her guilty.
 
No you don't. You don't hate lies, injustice and intellectual arrogance that comes from Perugia, its Stato Polizia and Procura. You embrace their lies, injustices and arrogance.

Demonstrate that you can accuse the Procura of lying, of planting evidence, of fabricating bogus cases. I assert that you don't have a right nor intellectual entitlement for making these statements, I say you are stating falsehoods and I had pointed out the illogical structure, the absurdity of your assertions (like when you stated that the police should not ask Knox to sign a statement because self-incriminating). I didn't see any demonstration of the contrary coming from you.
 
Last edited:
Demonstrate that you can accuse the Procura of lying, of planting evidence, of fabricating bogus cases.

Good stuff. Guy accuses Procura of lying, planting evidence and fabricating bogus cases. Machiavelli demands he demonstrate that he can accuse the Procura of lying, planting evidence, and of fabricating bogus cases.

What a joke!
 
I was wondering what, if any responsibility does ILE have to allow an embassy to assist its citizens in legal manners such as this case?
 
I'm still waiting for one person who think AK and RS are guilty to say they believe budget cuts are the reason Amanda and Raffaele's interrogations weren't recorded.

I believe I asked Machiavelli several pages back if he bought Mignini's explanation. It really is a simple yes or no question. I'm assuming most guilt lovers would only answer with a long winded and illogical pile of dog crap as they dressed up excuse after excuse.

It's just amazing though, that not one person will publicly state they agree with Mignini's explanation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom