Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
anglolawyer said:
Rolfe

Re: Tabak



Yes, AC, I was joshing. My point was that very little can be derived from appearances. Innocent looking people turn out to be guilty and weirdos can be innocent.
Click to expand...

There is another factor at work. If the press believes a person is guilty, they will publish images of that person that make them look wierd.
 
Supercalifragilistic said:
I must say that this is how I currently see it. I can't comprehend how someone who is totally innocent in this case would think it perfectly moral or in any way reasonable to avoid paying court-awarded damages to the person who was mistakenly fingered by their statements. Plus, as you say, surely the dimmest innocent wit would want the world to see just how sorry they are by paying the damages pronto. I'm told Knox has apologized, but of course words on their own are far too easy.
Click to expand...

She has an appeal pending. Who has ever heard of filing an appeal and then paying the judgment before the appeal is heard?
 
Supercalifragilistic said:
I must say that this is how I currently see it. I can't comprehend how someone who is totally innocent in this case would think it perfectly moral or in any way reasonable to avoid paying court-awarded damages to the person who was mistakenly fingered by their statements. Plus, as you say, surely the dimmest innocent wit would want the world to see just how sorry they are by paying the damages pronto. I'm told Knox has apologized, but of course words on their own are far too easy.
Click to expand...

However, she's innocent of the calunnia charges as well and is appealing it to the ECHR. Paying him would be an admission of guilt which would be kinda stupid being as she's contesting it.

Patrick already got paid, he sold lies about Amanda to the tabloids for nearly a hundred thousand dollars, possibly more as that just accounts for the Daily Mail and one Italian outlet (70k + 10k Euros). He also has a case pending against the police in Perugia before the ECHR for half a million Euros, which might have been imperiled by his lying in court when asked about the conduct of his interrogation in which he said he was well treated to the detriment of Amanda. Before and after his court appearance he said he was beaten and his rights were violated, but not when called to testify against Amanda.

I still hope he wins that case, but if they look at his testimony in Amanda's trial he probably won't.
 
Last edited:
Supercalifragilistic said:
I must say that this is how I currently see it. I can't comprehend how someone who is totally innocent in this case would think it perfectly moral or in any way reasonable to avoid paying court-awarded damages to the person who was mistakenly fingered by their statements. Plus, as you say, surely the dimmest innocent wit would want the world to see just how sorry they are by paying the damages pronto. I'm told Knox has apologized, but of course words on their own are far too easy.
Click to expand...


aaaaah...well, that is two guilters opinions. Paying or not paying doesn't demonstrate innocence or guilt. But it can be spun either way. I can just see the comments on this site if she did pay it when she still had legal recourse NOT to pay it.

"See, the murderering bitch basically admitted that she wasn't coerced into fingering Patrick. See, she lied about that too."


My guess is that legally, the best thing to do was not to pay Patrick's judgement, so she could effectively appeal the decision to the ECHR. If the ECHR rules that Amanda was coerced into fingering Patrick, that means the police are responsible for those damages...NOT Amanda. It also shows that the prosecution's case is built on corrupt actions.

But I guess you don't comprehend that their may be legal considerations above this money?
 
LondonJohn, I ought to report that for off-topic! People have been infracted and threatened with suspension for less! :D

I agree all the way, but with this caveat. The police behavior was very bad in the early stages of that case. They stopped short of a perp walk, but they were clearly leaking to the press, and doing so because they believed the man they were slandering was a murderer. It's a lot closer to the Knox/Sollecito thing than is often realised.

But they still dropped all charges, and didn't try to tie Jefferies into some bizarre accomplice role to save face. That's what I find encouraging about it all. That and the fact that Jefferies both got his reputation back and a shedload of money from the gutter press.

Rolfe.
 
seems ominous

RoseMontague said:
I only sold a few copies last week, platonov. For updates follow the 'What is everyone writing right now' thread. Rolfe was doing well with his last time I checked.
Click to expand...

I was referring to your posting of AK book sales recently (and poster numbers :)).

So how is the AK petition doing ?????

Your lack of a response seems ominous.

OT
You have written a book ? fiction one hopes.
Good luck with that.
I shall check out the thread- is Rolfe's fiction also. If not fact checking is important.
 
Kaosium said:
First off as far as she knows Patrick is the murderer, at this juncture the police still have him in custody and the next day will present 'evidence in court again him including a 'witness' to his bar being closed and the implication he cannot provide an alibi. That's an example of brutal incompetence if not outright lying. So at this point the police and prosecutor definitely think Patrick was the murderer but she's already told them she can't be used as testimony and that none of what she signed actually happened, which a rational being should have been able to suspect from reading the statements themselves.

Second off what she says is that she wasn't lying, she'd been convinced by police it must be so, thus wasn't lying to them. She was convinced by the police continually telling her untruths that I don't think they were lying about either, even though it wasn't true, because they had reason to believe them because of their mistakes.
Click to expand...

Vibio said:
Oh. That makes sense.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's the difference between lying and being mistaken.
 
tsig said:
Especially if I had inadvertently caused him to be arrested and lose his business, it would be an opportunity to show to the world that I was honest about being sorry for mistakenly accusing him.
Click to expand...

The case is still under appeal. Wouldn't paying him be tantamount to a confession? Or do you think her position should be "I don't owe you this money, but here it is because I feel sorry for you." The cops should have been able to confirm his alibi within a couple of hours, certainly a day; their negligence is on them, not Knox.
 
Supercalifragilistic said:
I must say that this is how I currently see it. I can't comprehend how someone who is totally innocent in this case would think it perfectly moral or in any way reasonable to avoid paying court-awarded damages to the person who was mistakenly fingered by their statements. Plus, as you say, surely the dimmest innocent wit would want the world to see just how sorry they are by paying the damages pronto. I'm told Knox has apologized, but of course words on their own are far too easy.
Click to expand...


Hypothetical scenario:

Person A: I told you, I wasn't there - I know nothing about the murder.

Police officer: You're lying. We know you were there. We know you arranged to meet Mr B. Mr B killed Miss X while you were watching, didn't he?

Person A: No. That didn't happen. I was at my boyfriend's house all night.

Police officer: We KNOW you weren't. We have solid evidence that you and Mr B were at the house when Miss X was murdered.

Person A: That can't be true. I was at my boyfriend's all night.

Police officer: Maybe you want to remember it, but the trauma of the event has made you block it from your mind. That happens a lot, you know?

Police "interpreter": Yes, it happened to me once, when I broken my ankle. I blocked out all memory of the accident ever happening. Perhaps this is what happened to you on the night of the murder.

Police officer: So,you see, you were there, but you just cannot remember it. I now need you to try hard to remember it.

Person A: I can't.... I mean...... I wasn't there, I was at my boyfriend's apartment.

Police officer: Look, you're just blocking out the bad memories of it. We KNOW you were there, remember, and we know you met with Mr B. You must remember, so that we can stop the evil Mr B and help poor Miss X's family.

Person A: But...... I'm sure I was at my boyfriend's........

Police officer (with slap to head): STOP WITH THAT! We know you weren't at your boyfriend's all night. We've already told you that we know you met with Mr B and went to the cottage, where Mr B killed poor Miss X. You need to help us put Mr B behind bars where he belongs. What's more, Mr B won't be able to intimidate or hurt you if you manage to remember properly and give us the evidence we need to put him in prison.

Person A: But........

Police officer: You were there, Person A. We know that. Now you must remember. And if you don't remember, we'll have to assume that you're trying to protect Mr B. That will make you as guilty as Mr B. You'll get sent to prison for a very long time indeed. But tell us the truth right now, and you'll have nothing to fear. You were there, Person A. Tell us what happened.

Person A: Ummmmm........ well......... maybe I did meet up with Mr B. I don't know. I'm so confused.

Police officer: Good! So you did meet with Mr B. And you went to the cottage with him, didn't you?

Person A: Well, maybe.... yes.

Police officer: This is very good, Person A. Well done. You are helping yourself now, as well as helping us. And you were there when Mr B killed Miss X, weren't you?

Person A: Well, I don't know, maybe.....?

Police officer: Yes, you were there. What did you see?

Person A: I didn't see anything.

Police officer: Perhaps you heard something? Did you hear Miss X scream as she was attacked?

Person A: Yes, perhaps I heard the scream. Ughh, it's all too horrible.

Police officer: Well done, Person A. You did the right thing. You can relax now. We'll type all this up and you can sign it, then everything will be OK.



In this hypothetical scenario, I don't think I would be hugely inclined to pay compensation to Mr B if I were Person A. In fact, I don't think I would hold myself at all responsible for Mr B's arrest and/or subsequent treatment by the authorities. And I would fight any associated criminal slander convictions to the highest possible level.

But that's just a purely hypothetical scenario, of course.........
 
platonov said:
It appears I may have misspoke.

Apparently there is a whitehouse.org ? petition on the go.
How is that doing ?
Given that AK is going to avoid extradition due to a groundswell of popular support that the politicos dare not ignore one hopes the numbers are good.

With all the fawning TV coverage it must be up to 300/400 k at this stage.

So how is it looking.

Rose Montague - you are good at booksales etc ...
Can you give the board an update.
Click to expand...


It's whiteghouse.gov and they are hauling in at the rate of 200 per day with no publicity. I'd say if the Italians do ask for extradition the rate will spike.

Could you explain what the police knew to be correct before Amanda told them about PL which matched their idea?
 
200 a day - wow

Grinder said:
It's whiteghouse.gov and they are hauling in at the rate of 200 per day with no publicity. I'd say if the Italians do ask for extradition the rate will spike.

Could you explain what the police knew to be correct before Amanda told them about PL which matched their idea?
Click to expand...


No publicity !!
Her appeal against a murder conviction was just denied and she got some airtime. No ?

How is she going to top that - do a porno with Obama's dog. You know, the kind of stuff RS apparently liked.
 
Grinder said:
Links would be good and best if not only from Frank.
Click to expand...

The Committee to Protect Journalists documented some of the abuses:

In Italy, journalists threatened for reporting on murders.

CPJ is particularly troubled by the manifest intolerance to criticism displayed by Perugia Public Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who has filed or threatened to file criminal lawsuits against individual reporters, writers, and press outlets, both in Italy and the United States, in connection with the Kercher murder investigation as well as the investigation into the Monster of Florence serial killings.
Click to expand...
 
Rolfe said:
LondonJohn, I ought to report that for off-topic! People have been infracted and threatened with suspension for less! :D

I agree all the way, but with this caveat. The police behavior was very bad in the early stages of that case. They stopped short of a perp walk, but they were clearly leaking to the press, and doing so because they believed the man they were slandering was a murderer. It's a lot closer to the Knox/Sollecito thing than is often realised.

But they still dropped all charges, and didn't try to tie Jefferies into some bizarre accomplice role to save face. That's what I find encouraging about it all. That and the fact that Jefferies both got his reputation back and a shedload of money from the gutter press.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


He was never charged. He was arrested and questioned under caution for the "ordinary maximum" of three days, starting on 30th December 2010 (following the Tabak "tip-off"). This was more than enough time for the police to establish that there was not a shred of evidence against him. They then released him on police bail, on January 1st 2011. On 20th January, Tabak was arrested following a tip-off. Forensics and CCTV indicated that the version of events Tabak gave in interview-under-caution was false, and as a result he was charged with the murder on 22nd January.

However, the police didn't remove Jefferies' bail conditions at that point. Nor did they do so at all until his scheduled reappearance in mid-March. Therefore, between January and March, Jefferies was still very much able to be viewed - in not only the police's eyes, but also, much more importantly, the media's eyes - as a man under police suspicion for the murder. And since he'd not been charged (he never was, remember), there were no sub-judice rules governing the media reporting of Jefferies - whereas there was a ban on reporting about Tabak as soon as he was charged on 22nd January.

Had the police been acting entirely correctly (disregarding collusion with the media for a moment), they would have cancelled Jefferies' bail as soon as they charged Tabak on 22nd January. Instead, they let him remain officially "under suspicion" until mid-March. That was improper and unfair, and was almost certainly done in order to save face and deflect press/public attention away from the song-and-dance of the Jefferies arrest.


So I maintain that the police did in fact treat Jefferies with far less consideration and fairness than they could - and should - have done under the circumstances. And that's aside from the impropriety of how certain police officers were without doubt colluding with the media. But as you say, it's very clear that for all of the UK police's shortcomings in this case, they pale in comparison next to what happened in Perugia in November 2007 and beyond. And like you, I'm glad that Jefferies appears to have got full redress - both financially and reputationally - through the civil courts. Now that's something else that one cannot see being even possible in Italy........


(Now back to your scheduled discussion - although I would contend that the Jefferies story in relation to the Yeates murder investigation has some interesting and useful parallels with the Knox/Sollecito investigation, and is thus germane and relevant to the thread :))
 
Raffaele is making liars of the PGP camp...

-

kcoh said:
I remember Raffaele saying in an interview that he would not blame her if she never came back.
Click to expand...
-

Raffaele's got it right. I think he's a hero, but some folks don't agree with me, but what I really want to know from those who seem to know how guilty people act, how come Raffaele hasn't cracked yet?

d

-
 
LondonJohn said:
Had the police been acting entirely correctly (disregarding collusion with the media for a moment), they would have cancelled Jefferies' bail as soon as they charged Tabak on 22nd January. Instead, they let him remain officially "under suspicion" until mid-March. That was improper and unfair, and was almost certainly done in order to save face and deflect press/public attention away from the song-and-dance of the Jefferies arrest.

So I maintain that the police did in fact treat Jefferies with far less consideration and fairness than they could - and should - have done under the circumstances. And that's aside from the impropriety of how certain police officers were without doubt colluding with the media. But as you say, it's very clear that for all of the UK police's shortcomings in this case, they pale in comparison next to what happened in Perugia in November 2007 and beyond. And like you, I'm glad that Jefferies appears to have got full redress - both financially and reputationally - through the civil courts. Now that's something else that one cannot see being even possible in Italy........

(Now back to your scheduled discussion - although I would contend that the Jefferies story in relation to the Yeates murder investigation has some interesting and useful parallels with the Knox/Sollecito investigation, and is thus germane and relevant to the thread :))
Click to expand...


Indeed, I entirely agree. The police were anything but angels over this. I think we all knew Jefferies was innocent when they arrested Tabak and left Jefferies free, but I agree they should have formally exonerated him a lot sooner. I note he seems to be claiming that the blue hair photo was touched up by the newspaper.

Ultimately though, the Jefferies affair suggests to me that at least in that force, they're learning. It's a very relevant case to compare to the treatment of Knox and Sollecito and this discussion is relevant. I just think it's a howling scandal that we can have these "compare and contrast" discussions that go on for half a dozen posts or so about any other murder case on the face of the planet, but if I even casually mention the one I am an acknowledged world expert on I get slapped with an infraction.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
-


-

Raffaele's got it right. I think he's a hero, but some folks don't agree with me, but what I really want to know from those who seem to know how guilty people act, how come Raffaele hasn't cracked yet?

d

-
Click to expand...

Raffaele has been offered a deal more than once but refuses to fold. He did not have to return to Italy from the Dominican Republic and was even advised not to by his family and friends. However, he chose to return because he had a smidgen of faith left in the justice system of his country. He was convicted again and vows to continue to fight this injustice. Brave, indeed. If I were him, I do not think I would have the strength to carry on.

He served four years in prison and was in solitary confinement for a part of that despite being offered a deal. I think that if he did it, he would have caved by now for several reasons. It has been six years. Six years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom