Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

"Devil's Knot" is described as a True Crime book. I do not know how you are defining novel from book. If you accept Devil's Knot as at least being accurate in the broad sense, you will at least accept that the court case was mostly focused on Damian and others were almost brought along for the ride.

nov·el1
ˈnävəl/Submit
noun
a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.

I really don't care if they focused on one or the other but if it is important to you, fine they focused on Damian.

I will deal with the third argument in our list of three here.
My argument is that the case was far more focused on Amanda than Raff.
The thing is that in previous posts you pretty much already admitted that it was her odd activity that caused the focus on her.

I am pretty sure if Raff just lied and said that Amanda left for a short time, they would have happily let him off. You will of course disagree even though I think it is pretty clear.

Yes you've cracked the secret code. If Raf had turned states they probably would have gone easier on him. If Amanda had done the same they would have gone easier on her. If Patrick had killed Meredith and Amanda was involved she would have been given a break.

When was he supposed to have lied?

It was both of their behaviors, but never mind.

Let's get back to the only issue that matters and that's how the OSC will rule. Do you still maintain that a six year limit will be applied by the ISC or even can be applied?

 

[Desert Fox]

As far as term limits, that is only one of three issues you disagreed with me on.
Assuch, I am going to hold that off to the side for the moment.

As far as bringing up other cases, I think we can learn from previous cases. I consider that in part the Amanda Knox case is a mash up between the West Memphis Three and the Norfolk Four cases. There are differences but broad lessons can be drawn.

So, you argue that they were equal focused on Raff. What do you point to as evidence of that?

 

[Grinder]

As far as term limits, that is only one of three issues you disagreed with me on.
Assuch, I am going to hold that off to the side for the moment.

As far as bringing up other cases, I think we can learn from previous cases. I consider that in part the Amanda Knox case is a mash up between the West Memphis Three and the Norfolk Four cases. There are differences but broad lessons can be drawn.

So, you argue that they were equal focused on Raff. What do you point to as evidence of that?

So the PLE all thought she was a witch from the git-go just like the Memphis people thought one of the guys was a warlock and practiced satanism and therefore each was the focus.

Do you think all of the PLE thought that from the very first?

The only thing that remains relevant at this time is what the ISC will do. I'm really not interested in what case this crime "expert" or another thinks is most like this case.

Whether the police focused more on one or the other doesn't seem very significant to me though as the roommate and first discoverer it makes sense she would be the key and not Raf.

Please provide your updated theory on time limits etc.

 

[Bill Williams]

So the PLE all thought she was a witch from the git-go just like the Memphis people thought one of the guys was a warlock and practiced satanism and therefore each was the focus.

Do you think all of the PLE thought that from the very first?

The only thing that remains relevant at this time is what the ISC will do. I'm really not interested in what case this crime "expert" or another thinks is most like this case.

Whether the police focused more on one or the other doesn't seem very significant to me though as the roommate and first discoverer it makes sense she would be the key and not Raf.

Please provide your updated theory on time limits etc.

I tend to agree with you, Grinder.

The case against Knox and Sollecito as it relates to the murder was properly judged at the Hellmann trial in 2011.

What they are facing right now is something different, only peripheral to the case against them which is non-existent, really.

The reasons why Cassazione reversed the acquittals has to do with things other than what was found at the Hellmann trial:

1) harmonizing the final result of the Knox/Sollecito process, with the Guede process which all-but convicted K/S in absentia with no representation.

2) protecting the Scientific Police from external scrutiny because, as the ISC wrote in their motivations, it could cause speculation about all DNA-forensics produced since 1986.​

Etc., etc., etc. The only choice the ISC faces this time is between these two options:

1) adjudicating guilt or innocence based on the evidence, or
2) protecting the reputations of the court and supporting forensic labs.​

If the ISC chooses #1 they will acquit. If they choose #2 they will convict.

 

[carbonjam72]

nov·el1
ˈnävəl/Submit
noun
a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.

I really don't care if they focused on one or the other but if it is important to you, fine they focused on Damian.



Yes you've cracked the secret code. If Raf had turned states they probably would have gone easier on him. If Amanda had done the same they would have gone easier on her. If Patrick had killed Meredith and Amanda was involved she would have been given a break.

When was he supposed to have lied?

It was both of their behaviors, but never mind.

Let's get back to the only issue that matters and that's how the OSC will rule. Do you still maintain that a six year limit will be applied by the ISC or even can be applied?

I think there is a misunderstanding of how the "6 year limit" became relevant, or raised here.

IIUC, Amanda's lawyer CDV raised the length of the trial without a definitive outcome as another issue for consideration on the current ISC appeal (as per Luca Chelli's analysis), I would guess in the context of a dismissal of charges in the event ISC agrees to set aside the conviction, rather than requiring a new appeal trial.

Again, IIUC, the 6 year limit is a guideline for timely trial process from ECHR, but not technically adopted in Italy.

Statutes of limitations, requires cases be brought within a specified time frame, or the time dated acts are no longer legally recognized as criminal. Murder, at least in the US, has no statute of limitations, hence murderers can be tried decades after the fact.

So its not so much an argument, as a request for courtesy, that in the event that ISC sets aside the convictions, they should just dismiss the charges rather than requiring another appeal, followed by another return trip to ISC again, even then with no guarantee it will be over.

 

[Bill Williams]

Did I just read from you that you in effect will accept no second hand source no matter how well referenced? If so, it is absolutely useless to discuss any issue with you at all.

If this is not the case, you better clarify or I will suggest that every poster completely ignores anything you ever post.

Grinder is annoying that way. What is inexplicable is that the second-hand sources in questions are ready and willing, if asked, to share their primary sources. Grinder simply refuses to do that sort of checking - then writes them off as if they are the one saying potentially unverifiable things.

The point is, the times I have gone to the second-hand source, I have come away with the original source which was needed.

The reason to choose "true crime" as a genre is so that a flowing account can be written. Both Dempsey and Follain chose this genre....

 

[Grinder]

I think there is a misunderstanding of how the "6 year limit" became relevant, or raised here.

IIUC, Amanda's lawyer CDV raised the length of the trial without a definitive outcome as another issue for consideration on the current ISC appeal (as per Luca Chelli's analysis), I would guess in the context of a dismissal of charges in the event ISC agrees to set aside the conviction, rather than requiring a new appeal trial.

Again, IIUC, the 6 year limit is a guideline for timely trial process from ECHR, but not technically adopted in Italy.

Yes. They did raise it on the appeal there is no doubt As we all know Italians are famous for throwing spaghetti on the wall and seeing what sticks. Previously I speculated that the time length was included more for the ECHR than the ISC.

The issue here was that someone on IIP or somewhere contended that the six year max term would be the way they would get out of jail free on both sides.

The problem is that isn't the law in Italy and certainly not for murder.

Statutes of limitations, requires cases be brought within a specified time frame, or the time dated acts are no longer legally recognized as criminal. Murder, at least in the US, has no statute of limitations, hence murderers can be tried decades after the fact.

Yes and when I pointed this out DF dropped statute of limitations and shifted to length of trial. When I cited several sources showing that there is no 6 year max in Italy he gave a cite from IA. Even that cite stated that the constitution of Italy assured a speedy trial and six years was a reasonable time which doesn't say maximum time.

So its not so much an argument, as a request for courtesy, that in the event that ISC sets aside the convictions, they should just dismiss the charges rather than requiring another appeal, followed by another return trip to ISC again, even then with no guarantee it will be over.

That certainly could be an angle. Their system does allow for an endless case and I would be surprised to find that theis case will cause them to adjust their system.

It would provide a bit of an out for them to say that the appeal was flawed because Nencini conferred with lay judges or some other technical reason and set them into some sort of limbo by saying too much time had gone by.

It would be better than another trial but would leave them without resolution.

What a mess.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder is annoying that way. What is inexplicable is that the second-hand sources in questions are ready and willing, if asked, to share their primary sources. Grinder simply refuses to do that sort of checking - then writes them off as if they are the one saying potentially unverifiable things.

Have I told how you are annoying...of let me count the ways. One should not have to resort to one on one communications. The writer of a book should source their material if the book is non-fiction and of this type, crime. Please note that the book DF referred to about the Memphis case was not a novel.

The point is, the times I have gone to the second-hand source, I have come away with the original source which was needed.

The reason to choose "true crime" as a genre is so that a flowing account can be written. Both Dempsey and Follain chose this genre....

True crime novel (TCN)and yes they picked it so that they could make stuff up.

Obviously my two favorites are the gold watch caper and the dialogue or the cops in the police station.

Most recently DF stated that one of the M3 was the focus and I asked on what that was based. If a TCN or a movie I discount it. If it was from a non-fiction book or documentary I wouldn't.

Tesla (where the h is he) contacted Nina and received a bunch of PGP bashing and swearing of a police report that would come forward...but alas we still wait.

I do not think they make everything up and if there a couple of TCNs on the dialogue or the watch it would be more compelling.

Could you give examples of the first hand sources CD or JF provided you? Thanks in advance

 

[Desert Fox]

So the PLE all thought she was a witch from the git-go just like the Memphis people thought one of the guys was a warlock and practiced satanism and therefore each was the focus.

Do you think all of the PLE thought that from the very first?

The only thing that remains relevant at this time is what the ISC will do. I'm really not interested in what case this crime "expert" or another thinks is most like this case.

Whether the police focused more on one or the other doesn't seem very significant to me though as the roommate and first discoverer it makes sense she would be the key and not Raf.

Please provide your updated theory on time limits etc.

As I wrote, I will get to term limits in good time.

My argument is that another boyfriend could have very easily have been slotted into the issue. A good question is if Amanda had been murdered and Meredeth have effectively found the body, if it would be Meredeth fighting a murder conviction.

Now, onto point number two was that my argument is that if it was an Italian defendant in a questionable case, my position is that Italy would refuse extradition with a case as poor as this one.

You argued "Would you trust Florida." If the only argument is that there is a concern with execution, yes. If it is put in writing that execution is not on the table, sure.

The Koon custody case is more important than you think. Think of it this way. Koon battled out for years in court for custody, spending millions of dollars. A US judge stated that he has full legal custody. It was suppose tobe binding across countries. The Italian Supreme court basically stated "We don't care what a US court decide, we will do what we want."

 

[Desert Fox]

Grinder is annoying that way. What is inexplicable is that the second-hand sources in questions are ready and willing, if asked, to share their primary sources. Grinder simply refuses to do that sort of checking - then writes them off as if they are the one saying potentially unverifiable things.

The point is, the times I have gone to the second-hand source, I have come away with the original source which was needed.

The reason to choose "true crime" as a genre is so that a flowing account can be written. Both Dempsey and Follain chose this genre....

Often it is pretty hard to get evidence from all the sources. Can you imagine trying to go to the West Memphis courthouse and try to get all of the sources of the case. Tend to operate on the assumption that items are mostly correct but that mistakes will be made and accept corrections where needed.

 

[Grinder]

You argued "Would you trust Florida." If the only argument is that there is a concern with execution, yes. If it is put in writing that execution is not on the table, sure.

The Koon custody case is more important than you think. Think of it this way. Koon battled out for years in court for custody, spending millions of dollars. A US judge stated that he has full legal custody. It was suppose tobe binding across countries. The Italian Supreme court basically stated "We don't care what a US court decide, we will do what we want."

There wasn't a binding agreement and once they had him what could Italy do to prevent execution by the system or the jail system. The example has no weight in this case, many many countries refuse extradition on death penalty cases.

Child custody cases are notorious for the country where the children are not to release them regardless of what another country's judges may rule.

If you think this is a worthwhile argument, we won't return Amanda because you wouldn't either, then you'd better get a better example(s).

 

[Grinder]

Often it is pretty hard to get evidence from all the sources. Can you imagine trying to go to the West Memphis courthouse and try to get all of the sources of the case. Tend to operate on the assumption that items are mostly correct but that mistakes will be made and accept corrections where needed.

Huh?

 

[Desert Fox]

There wasn't a binding agreement and once they had him what could Italy do to prevent execution by the system or the jail system. The example has no weight in this case, many many countries refuse extradition on death penalty cases.

Child custody cases are notorious for the country where the children are not to release them regardless of what another country's judges may rule.

If you think this is a worthwhile argument, we won't return Amanda because you wouldn't either, then you'd better get a better example(s).

Do you know of any cases where the U.S. promised not to execute a defendant and capital punishment was introduced in the case anyway.

I read another article on the case and according to it. . . .
Opposition to the death penalty has traditionally been the domain of Italy's leftist parties. Ersilia Salvato, a member of the Senate from the Communist Refoundation party, called the court's decision a "stupendous victory." She said it ended the "subordination of Italy's constitutional life to the exigencies of realpolitik."

Italian officials pointed out that the penal code requires that Mr. Venezia be tried by an Italian court. But American officials were not satisfied. Mr. Russell, the Justice Department spokesman, said, "That falls short of what we want."

The trial of Ms Knox violated the US constitution on several grounds. Based on that, extradition should be able to be refused.

 

[Bill Williams]

Have I told how you are annoying...of let me count the ways. One should not have to resort to one on one communications. The writer of a book should source their material if the book is non-fiction and of this type, crime. Please note that the book DF referred to about the Memphis case was not a novel.



True crime novel (TCN)and yes they picked it so that they could make stuff up.

Obviously my two favorites are the gold watch caper and the dialogue or the cops in the police station.

Most recently DF stated that one of the M3 was the focus and I asked on what that was based. If a TCN or a movie I discount it. If it was from a non-fiction book or documentary I wouldn't.

Tesla (where the h is he) contacted Nina and received a bunch of PGP bashing and swearing of a police report that would come forward...but alas we still wait.

I do not think they make everything up and if there a couple of TCNs on the dialogue or the watch it would be more compelling.

Could you give examples of the first hand sources CD or JF provided you? Thanks in advance

Here we go.

Not until you've given an example of something they've written that you claim is made up - but here's the kicker: please cite an instance where you've asked them for a source, have received the source and discovered at the end of that that they are making stuff up.

Otherwise your just making up this claim they just make up stuff. You're as bad as the people you criticize.

 

[Grinder]

Do you know of any cases where the U.S. promised not to execute a defendant and capital punishment was introduced in the case anyway.

I read another article on the case and according to it. . . .
Opposition to the death penalty has traditionally been the domain of Italy's leftist parties. Ersilia Salvato, a member of the Senate from the Communist Refoundation party, called the court's decision a "stupendous victory." She said it ended the "subordination of Italy's constitutional life to the exigencies of realpolitik."

Italian officials pointed out that the penal code requires that Mr. Venezia be tried by an Italian court. But American officials were not satisfied. Mr. Russell, the Justice Department spokesman, said, "That falls short of what we want."

The trial of Ms Knox violated the US constitution on several grounds. Based on that, extradition should be able to be refused.

Nope. But it wasn't the U.S. that made the promise it was Florida. I know France held onto Einhorn for quite a while because of the death penalty issue.

In the Venezia case the Italian did arrest him and tried him. Looks like a bad example but by all means push the point on this as the way to beat extradition. The US Constitution doesn't apply and I'm not arguing that one again.

 

[Grinder]

Here we go.

Not until you've given an example of something they've written that you claim is made up - but here's the kicker: please cite an instance where you've asked them for a source, have received the source and discovered at the end of that that they are making stuff up.

Otherwise your just making up this claim they just make up stuff. You're as bad as the people you criticize.

Bill since I have never and have no intention of directly contacting them. Their work should stand by itself.

I need not make any claim but do not give credence to claims made in a novel if there is no second source. The gold watch caper and the dialogue inside the police station are two that don't have backing.

Tesla asked for the source and received nada, zilch, zero, nil, nichts, niente.

Why do you refuse to give a few examples of what you have ferreted out.

 

[Desert Fox]

Nope. But it wasn't the U.S. that made the promise it was Florida. I know France held onto Einhorn for quite a while because of the death penalty issue.

In the Venezia case the Italian did arrest him and tried him. Looks like a bad example but by all means push the point on this as the way to beat extradition. The US Constitution doesn't apply and I'm not arguing that one again.

First off, you completely messed up the Ira Einhorn case. . . .
He tried to use the Death Penalty as an argument but Pennsylvania did not have it at the time. Instead it was based on trials in absentia. The extradition was also only four years.

As far as the US Constitutions, you just argued that the Italian Constitution does apply one way but not the United States Constitution the other way. That is a really bad precedent.

edit: I am also waiting on a case where a state promised that they would not seek the death penalty to gain extradition and did it anyway?

 

[Grinder]

First off, you completely messed up the Ira Einhorn case. . . .
He tried to use the Death Penalty as an argument but Pennsylvania did not have it at the time. Instead it was based on trials in absentia. The extradition was also only four years.

As far as the US Constitutions, you just argued that the Italian Constitution does apply one way but not the United States Constitution the other way. That is a really bad precedent.

edit: I am also waiting on a case where a state promised that they would not seek the death penalty to gain extradition and did it anyway?

yes I'm not up on every murder my crime tourist visa ran out.

Although his sentence was not the death penalty, Einhorn's defense attorneys argued that Einhorn would face the death penalty if returned to the United States. France, like many countries that have abolished the death penalty, does not extradite defendants to jurisdictions that retain the death penalty without assurance that the death penalty will be neither sought nor applied.​

That was his first line of defense.

Once again please show me where I said the Italian constitution applied.

I have no example and frankly don't care. There is no example of a case where an Italian was found guilty in the US and they wouldn't extradite him.

Actually, never mind, just push the point that this is the argument Amanda should make. Italians don't give us their murderers so why should we give them ours.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill since I have never and have no intention of directly contacting them. Their work should stand by itself.

I need not make any claim but do not give credence to claims made in a novel if there is no second source. The gold watch caper and the dialogue inside the police station are two that don't have backing.

Tesla asked for the source and received nada, zilch, zero, nil, nichts, niente.

Why do you refuse to give a few examples of what you have ferreted out.

I've given many. One had to do with the content of Knox's third memorandum, the one that Dempsey quotes in part. I was able to find out why it is quoted in part.

You on the other hand continually claim that they just make things up. I can think on one thing one of the true crime authors just made up.... John Follain. When Follain relates that Battistelli looks into Filomena's room and says, "This is not burglary, Follain concludes with a sentence: Amanda and Raffaele say nothing.

Now THAT'S just made up, but not in the sense that it did or din't happen. It's the placement of that sentence that Follain intends to be suspicous - that Knox and Sollecito knew WHY it didn't look like a burglary.

However, you say they just make things up. That is not how the true crime genre works. You've just made THAT up, based on your prejudices.

Why should I argue with someone who claims to know the answer to the questions he asks? We've had this conversation before when you asked rhetorical questions of me, in an attempt to make claims about me that were laughable. You couched them as questions when you intended them as statements. Laughable ones at that. Why not just state your bias and move on?

What you should do to back up the claim you've just made up, is how you've actually asked the author to source out their claim and THEN have found it wrong or just made up. Until then you simply lack information to back up what you've pulled out of thin air... that they've just made things up.

If you'll note with Follain, I've shown why he's just made up his factoid. Over to you.

 

[Desert Fox]

yes I'm not up on every murder my crime tourist visa ran out.

Although his sentence was not the death penalty, Einhorn's defense attorneys argued that Einhorn would face the death penalty if returned to the United States. France, like many countries that have abolished the death penalty, does not extradite defendants to jurisdictions that retain the death penalty without assurance that the death penalty will be neither sought nor applied.​

That was his first line of defense.

Once again please show me where I said the Italian constitution applied.

I have no example and frankly don't care. There is no example of a case where an Italian was found guilty in the US and they wouldn't extradite him.

Actually, never mind, just push the point that this is the argument Amanda should make. Italians don't give us their murderers so why should we give them ours.

With the Norfolk Four, Derick Tice's conviction was vacated because he requested a lawyer and stated that he was not willing to answer more questions. The police continued to question him and he confessed to murder.

Now, I am sure he falsely confessed but it does not matter if he was guilty or not if the police violated his constitutional rights.

As I see it, it does not matter if Amanda is or is not guilty if her U.S. Constitutional rights are violated. Italy is requesting that the U.S. government act against their own highest legal document with an extradition. These are both that the defendant has the right to confront all accusers and no double jeopardy.

Following the laws of our own nation are more important than her guilt or innocence. The same with regards to Italy. If Italian law argues that Mr Venezia has to be tried by the Italian legal system, that is what should occur. The trouble is that the state has the big guns and the only defense is that the state follows its own laws.

And I am still waiting on a case where a U.S. State got somebody extradited from a foreign country with a promise of no death penalty and was still used?