In a legitimate extradition request, if the Department of State is satisfied that there is reason to go ahead, the Secretary or delegated officer in DoS notifies the Department of Justice, which (after its own review) is the one which pursues the arrest of the person sought and assigns an Assistant US Attorney to request an extradition probable cause hearing. The documents received from the requesting foreign state would be given by State to Justice, so in that sense Justice would represent the foreign state.
Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Diocletus
- Start date
- Status
In a legitimate extradition request, if the Department of State is satisfied that there is reason to go ahead, the Secretary or delegated officer in DoS notifies the Department of Justice, which (after its own review) is the one which pursues the arrest of the person sought and assigns an Assistant US Attorney to request an extradition probable cause hearing. The documents received from the requesting foreign state would be given by State to Justice, so in that sense Justice would represent the foreign state.
There isn't an Italian government lawyer involved; an Assistant US Attorney would present the Italian government's case.
Did the prosecution have a strong case?
7 years have passed since Meredith’s murder. No other crime case has caused so much discussion on the International Skeptics Forum and we are now currently on part 13. I am sure the discussion will go on for a long time. I feel there are myths about this case which need to be destroyed. A persistent myth which runs in this case which Machiavelli and others like to promite likes to promote is as follows “the evidence for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele was overwhelming. The prosecution had a very strong case”. I will be posting a series of posts which will attack this notion in depth. My posts will be in three parts. Two posts will look at the conduct of the prosecution and one post will look at the arguments of the PGP.
7 years have passed since Meredith’s murder. No other crime case has caused so much discussion on the International Skeptics Forum and we are now currently on part 13. I am sure the discussion will go on for a long time. I feel there are myths about this case which need to be destroyed. A persistent myth which runs in this case which Machiavelli and others like to promite likes to promote is as follows “the evidence for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele was overwhelming. The prosecution had a very strong case”. I will be posting a series of posts which will attack this notion in depth. My posts will be in three parts. Two posts will look at the conduct of the prosecution and one post will look at the arguments of the PGP.
A strong case? Conduct of the prosecution part 1
The interrogation
When Amanda and Raffaele were interrogated, they were denied access to lawyers, their interrogations were not taped and they were not officially told they were suspects. Why did the prosecution have to resort to these underhand tactics if they had a strong case?
If the police had built so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why were they not presented with this evidence in the interrogations and asked to explain it? Amanda and Raffaele were not asked questions about ehri behaviour in the period after the murder of Meredith and Amanda and Raffaele were not presented with any forensic evidence.
The two statements Amanda was asked to sign were clearly prepared by the police which makes these statements false evidence. If the prosecution had a a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using false evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?
Evidence
• The evidence used to convict Amanda and Raffaele was extremely dubious. I will concentrate on three pieces of evidence :-
1) A knife with the following characteristics
Not matching the wounds
Not matching a bloody imprint on the bed
It had no blood in it which would make it impossible for DNA to stay on the knife
When C * V tested the knife it was negative for the human species which againt makes it impossible for the DNA to stay on the knife
The collection of the knife was highly suspect. Only one knife was taken. How were the police able to say this knife been used in the murder. Is it credible that the only knife the police would take would just happen to be the knife used in the murder.
The two statements prepared by the police in the interrogation said nothing about Amanda stabbing Meredith. The statement Amanda prepared after the interrogation said nothing about stabbing. Amanda was not accused of stabbing Meredith in the interrogation. How is this explained if Amanda was supposed to have stabbed Meredith?
Massei said the murder was not pre-meditated. If this was the case, how do you explain the knife from Raffaele's apartment being used to stab Meredith in the cottage? Massei argued Amanda carried the knife in her bag. No evidence was provided of this such as cuts in her bag, witnesses seeing the knife or witnesses hearing Amanda mentioning the knife
Mignini was asked in an interview how Amanda committed the murder without leaving forensic traces in the room. He said Amanda may have directed the murder from the corridor. If this scenario was true, how was Amanda supposed to have stabbed Meredith?
The length of the fatal wound was 8 cm with the length of the knife being 17 cm. The knife went in more than once. Is it credible a 17 cm knife would go in exactly 8 cm several times?
C&V and the carabineri could not find any of Meredith’s DNA on the knife.
If Amanda had used the knife to stab Meredith, why did Amanda’s defence team have no objection to opening the knife but the prosecution opposed opening the knife.
The problems with Stefanoni’s DNA are well documented
2) The prosecution released a CCTV of a woman who bore no resemblance of Amanda.
3) The testimony of Nara Capazzeli who supposedly heard a scream despite the following :-
Nara was deaf and suffering from mental health problems
A scream was supposed to have carried from a bedroom at the back of the cottage through thick stone walls, a busy road and double glazing in Nara’s flat
Nara did not wake her daughter, call the police or check or check her watch. Nara did not go to the police for 24 days.
Nara claimed she was told about Meredith’s murder before the body was even discovered and saw posters of Guede, Kox, Sollecito and Lumumba before they were arrested
There are numerous with the evidence listed above. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using dubious evidence totally lacking in credibility? Basic logic and common sense dictates if a knife is used to stab someone, it should match the wounds and a knife which does not match the wounds, can’t be a murder weapon and has zero credibility as evidence. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence as dubious as a knife which does not match the wounds as evidence? If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution feel it necessary six years after the murder to release CCTV of a woman who clearly was not Amanda?
* The witness Curalto claims he saw Amanda and Raffaele away from the cottage at the time of the murder which gives them an alibi. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence which undermined their case?
* During the Hellman trial the prosecution released showed a photograph of Meredith's body. This picture did not show who killed Meredith and was an irrelevant piece of information. Why did the prosecution have to resort to using irrelevant evidence if they had a strong case?
* The defence proved conclusively Raffaele called 112 before the arrival of the postal police. Despite this the prosecution still continued to maintain Raffaele called 112 after the arrival of the postal police. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they have to rely on discredited evidence?
The interrogation
When Amanda and Raffaele were interrogated, they were denied access to lawyers, their interrogations were not taped and they were not officially told they were suspects. Why did the prosecution have to resort to these underhand tactics if they had a strong case?
If the police had built so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why were they not presented with this evidence in the interrogations and asked to explain it? Amanda and Raffaele were not asked questions about ehri behaviour in the period after the murder of Meredith and Amanda and Raffaele were not presented with any forensic evidence.
The two statements Amanda was asked to sign were clearly prepared by the police which makes these statements false evidence. If the prosecution had a a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using false evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?
Evidence
• The evidence used to convict Amanda and Raffaele was extremely dubious. I will concentrate on three pieces of evidence :-
1) A knife with the following characteristics
Not matching the wounds
Not matching a bloody imprint on the bed
It had no blood in it which would make it impossible for DNA to stay on the knife
When C * V tested the knife it was negative for the human species which againt makes it impossible for the DNA to stay on the knife
The collection of the knife was highly suspect. Only one knife was taken. How were the police able to say this knife been used in the murder. Is it credible that the only knife the police would take would just happen to be the knife used in the murder.
The two statements prepared by the police in the interrogation said nothing about Amanda stabbing Meredith. The statement Amanda prepared after the interrogation said nothing about stabbing. Amanda was not accused of stabbing Meredith in the interrogation. How is this explained if Amanda was supposed to have stabbed Meredith?
Massei said the murder was not pre-meditated. If this was the case, how do you explain the knife from Raffaele's apartment being used to stab Meredith in the cottage? Massei argued Amanda carried the knife in her bag. No evidence was provided of this such as cuts in her bag, witnesses seeing the knife or witnesses hearing Amanda mentioning the knife
Mignini was asked in an interview how Amanda committed the murder without leaving forensic traces in the room. He said Amanda may have directed the murder from the corridor. If this scenario was true, how was Amanda supposed to have stabbed Meredith?
The length of the fatal wound was 8 cm with the length of the knife being 17 cm. The knife went in more than once. Is it credible a 17 cm knife would go in exactly 8 cm several times?
C&V and the carabineri could not find any of Meredith’s DNA on the knife.
If Amanda had used the knife to stab Meredith, why did Amanda’s defence team have no objection to opening the knife but the prosecution opposed opening the knife.
The problems with Stefanoni’s DNA are well documented
2) The prosecution released a CCTV of a woman who bore no resemblance of Amanda.
3) The testimony of Nara Capazzeli who supposedly heard a scream despite the following :-
Nara was deaf and suffering from mental health problems
A scream was supposed to have carried from a bedroom at the back of the cottage through thick stone walls, a busy road and double glazing in Nara’s flat
Nara did not wake her daughter, call the police or check or check her watch. Nara did not go to the police for 24 days.
Nara claimed she was told about Meredith’s murder before the body was even discovered and saw posters of Guede, Kox, Sollecito and Lumumba before they were arrested
There are numerous with the evidence listed above. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using dubious evidence totally lacking in credibility? Basic logic and common sense dictates if a knife is used to stab someone, it should match the wounds and a knife which does not match the wounds, can’t be a murder weapon and has zero credibility as evidence. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence as dubious as a knife which does not match the wounds as evidence? If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution feel it necessary six years after the murder to release CCTV of a woman who clearly was not Amanda?
* The witness Curalto claims he saw Amanda and Raffaele away from the cottage at the time of the murder which gives them an alibi. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence which undermined their case?
* During the Hellman trial the prosecution released showed a photograph of Meredith's body. This picture did not show who killed Meredith and was an irrelevant piece of information. Why did the prosecution have to resort to using irrelevant evidence if they had a strong case?
* The defence proved conclusively Raffaele called 112 before the arrival of the postal police. Despite this the prosecution still continued to maintain Raffaele called 112 after the arrival of the postal police. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they have to rely on discredited evidence?
A strong case? Conduct of the prosecution part two
Misconduct
• The prosecution lied on a massive scale. The lies told by the prosecution are detailed here http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html and here https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/. If the prosecution had such a strong case why did the prosecution have to lie on this scale and tell such a wide variety of lies:-
Why did the prosecution have to resort to lying about non existent evidence if they had a mountain of solid evidence?
Why did the prosecution have to resort to distorting the evidence to support their arguments if they had a strong case? To support the notion Raffaeel called 112 after the arrival of the postal police, the police lied about their time of arrival by 20 minutes which was proved on video. In court Comodi told Amanda she called her mother at 12.00 pm when in fact she called her mother at 12.47 pm. Rinaldi lied about the size of Rudy’s foot to support the notion Raffaele left the footprint on the bathmat.
If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to lied to cover things up. Stefanoni lied about the negative TMB results, changing gloves and her lab never suffering from contamination.
The prosecution lied to Amanda that a positive HIV test was done. Amanda's list of sexual partners was leaked to the media to attack her character. Why did the prosecution have to resort to this tactic if they had solid evidence?
Prosecutor Crini lied in court saying Raffaele's knife matched the outline on the bedsheet a claim which the prosecution had not made before. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they feel it necessary six years after the crime to make up new lies?
• The prosecution suppressed evidence on a massive scale which is detailed here http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-dna-methodology-sources-summary/ http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/ http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/contamination-stefanonis-labwork-coverup-thereof/ . Why did the prosecution have to suppress evidence on this scale if they had a strong case?
• The prosecution carried out fraud with documentation. For instance, in the Hellman trial the prosecution released documents from another case. Why did the prosecution have to resort to committing fraud if they had a strong case?
• The circumstances surrounding the discovery of the clasp are highly suspect. It is very suspicious the bra clasp turns up six weeks later when Raffaele's family showed the footprints left in Meredith's room did not belong to him. When the police returned to the cottage, why did the police make such a drama of finding the bra clasp? This has led to speculation the bra clasp was planted. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resor to manufacturing evidence?
Other aspects of the prosecution's conduct
* When Stefanoni was questioned in court, she was unable to tell how much DNA was on the knife and the bra clasp. If the prosecution had a strong case, why were the prosecution evasive in court and unable to answer questions?
During the Nencini trial, the prosecution came with a ridiculous scenario where Amanda killed Meredith over a stranger leaving an unflushed toilet. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they have to resort to presenting such ludicrous scenarios?
* When a group of Meredith's friends testified in court, Frank Sfarzo reported that the testimony of the friends was identical which indicated they had been coached what to say. If this was true, why did the prosecution have to influence the witness testimony if they had a strong case?
* There were several instances when the prosecution opposed testing evidence :-
* The prosecution did not want to open the knife to see if there was blood between the handle and blade.
* The prosecution opposed testing the direction the glass was broken in Filomena's room.
* The bra clasp was allowed to rust which prevented re-testing. There is speculation this was deliberate.
* The defence wanted to carry out audiometric tests to see if sounds could be heard from Nara Capezzalis apartment. Massei opposed it. The prosecution had no objection.
* The prosecution did not carry out a detailed survey of the area around Filomena's room to support a staged break in.
If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they oppose testing and examining the evidence?
The Nenci report was full of falsehoods as detailed here. http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=301. The Chieffi report also contained errors detailed here http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=3142. If there was a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do judicial reports have to resort to using falsehoods?
Misconduct
• The prosecution lied on a massive scale. The lies told by the prosecution are detailed here http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html and here https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/. If the prosecution had such a strong case why did the prosecution have to lie on this scale and tell such a wide variety of lies:-
Why did the prosecution have to resort to lying about non existent evidence if they had a mountain of solid evidence?
Why did the prosecution have to resort to distorting the evidence to support their arguments if they had a strong case? To support the notion Raffaeel called 112 after the arrival of the postal police, the police lied about their time of arrival by 20 minutes which was proved on video. In court Comodi told Amanda she called her mother at 12.00 pm when in fact she called her mother at 12.47 pm. Rinaldi lied about the size of Rudy’s foot to support the notion Raffaele left the footprint on the bathmat.
If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to lied to cover things up. Stefanoni lied about the negative TMB results, changing gloves and her lab never suffering from contamination.
The prosecution lied to Amanda that a positive HIV test was done. Amanda's list of sexual partners was leaked to the media to attack her character. Why did the prosecution have to resort to this tactic if they had solid evidence?
Prosecutor Crini lied in court saying Raffaele's knife matched the outline on the bedsheet a claim which the prosecution had not made before. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they feel it necessary six years after the crime to make up new lies?
• The prosecution suppressed evidence on a massive scale which is detailed here http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-dna-methodology-sources-summary/ http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/ http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/contamination-stefanonis-labwork-coverup-thereof/ . Why did the prosecution have to suppress evidence on this scale if they had a strong case?
• The prosecution carried out fraud with documentation. For instance, in the Hellman trial the prosecution released documents from another case. Why did the prosecution have to resort to committing fraud if they had a strong case?
• The circumstances surrounding the discovery of the clasp are highly suspect. It is very suspicious the bra clasp turns up six weeks later when Raffaele's family showed the footprints left in Meredith's room did not belong to him. When the police returned to the cottage, why did the police make such a drama of finding the bra clasp? This has led to speculation the bra clasp was planted. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resor to manufacturing evidence?
Other aspects of the prosecution's conduct
* When Stefanoni was questioned in court, she was unable to tell how much DNA was on the knife and the bra clasp. If the prosecution had a strong case, why were the prosecution evasive in court and unable to answer questions?
During the Nencini trial, the prosecution came with a ridiculous scenario where Amanda killed Meredith over a stranger leaving an unflushed toilet. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they have to resort to presenting such ludicrous scenarios?
* When a group of Meredith's friends testified in court, Frank Sfarzo reported that the testimony of the friends was identical which indicated they had been coached what to say. If this was true, why did the prosecution have to influence the witness testimony if they had a strong case?
* There were several instances when the prosecution opposed testing evidence :-
* The prosecution did not want to open the knife to see if there was blood between the handle and blade.
* The prosecution opposed testing the direction the glass was broken in Filomena's room.
* The bra clasp was allowed to rust which prevented re-testing. There is speculation this was deliberate.
* The defence wanted to carry out audiometric tests to see if sounds could be heard from Nara Capezzalis apartment. Massei opposed it. The prosecution had no objection.
* The prosecution did not carry out a detailed survey of the area around Filomena's room to support a staged break in.
If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they oppose testing and examining the evidence?
The Nenci report was full of falsehoods as detailed here. http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=301. The Chieffi report also contained errors detailed here http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=3142. If there was a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do judicial reports have to resort to using falsehoods?
A strong case? PGP arguments
* These are examples of falsehoods which PGP spread in Amazon reviews and the comments sections of articles about the case
Heiress Amazon review WTBH - "For starters was found cleaning the place with bleach when the police arrived". Truth: Amanda was not caught cleaning when the police arrived.
Bejamin Fletcher "BRFC are back" Amazon review WTBH - "They've found Meredith's blood on a knife in his apartment". Truth: There was no blood on Meredith's knife.
Christina comments page 7 Amazon review WTBH - "whose is the female fooprint who applied female sized bruises on MK's neck in strangulation" Truth: There were no female footprints in Meredith's room or female thumbprints on Meredith's neck.
JF Rodrigue Amazon review WTBH - " She was doing cartwheels in the police station." Truth: It has been proved Amanda did not do cartwheels.
Wendy Murphy in her blog - "pro Amanda forces forget to note the knife was found hidden in a shoebox far back inside a coset at Sollecitito's apartment and that the knife had been scrubbed with bleach." Truth:The knife was found in Raffaele's kitchen drawer and the knife had not been cleaned with bleach.
Reza Ganjavi Amazon review Forgotten Killer - "who bought the bleach" "who wanted to have kinky sex instead of going to Meredith's memoral" "the police who called the postal police after the postal police arrived" "who bleached the footprints selectively" Truth: There is no evidence Amanda and Raffaele purchased bleach. The police lied about the purchase of bleach receipts. There is no record of Amanda and Raffaele saying they wanted kinky sex instead of going to Meredith's memorial. It has been conclusively proved Raffaele called the police prior to the arrival of the postal police. No attempt had been made to clean footprints with bleach.
Harry Rag is notorious for spreading lies and misinformation on the internet. Here are some examples :-
The woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith's body matched Amanda Knox's foot size, but was incompatible with Meredith's shoe size." Truth: All the footprints belonged to Rudy Guede The notion the Amanda left her prints in Meredith’s room is debunked here http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html
No-one managed to the scale the wall and climb through the window when Sollecito's defense team attempted to show that it was possible." Truth: Raffaele’s defense lawyer attempted the climb and managed to climb it. A recent documentary on British TV showed someone climbing to the window without difficulty.
The website themurderofmeredithkercher is riddled with falsehoods detailed here http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/guilter-wiki-myths-lies-distortions/ and here http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/guilter-wiki-lies-myths-contd/
Machiavelli lies in his posts. For example, he claimed Amanda had the telephone numbers of drug dealers on her phone. I confronted Machiavelli over this lied and Machiavelli denied he was lying. To prove Machaivelli was not lying, I challenged him to provide the following details :-
The name of the dealers
The number of the dealers
Records of phone calls/texts between the dealers and Amanda
When the number of the dealers ended on Amanda's phone
Did Amanda knew the dealers on her phone contacts were drug dealers
Machiavelli could not provide these details which indicated he was lying. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why do PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case? If there was so much solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why do the PGP have to resort to making things up to argue their case?
* Books, documentaries and films about the case contain falsehoods which are detailed here http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ . John Kercher's book Meredith is discussed here http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1870
Other examples of items about the case containing falsehoods
Documentary on British TV is Amanda Knox Guilty of which there is a rebuttal here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVBRHbOBXDw
The lifetime movie which is discussed in Chapter 2 of Finding Justice in Perugia
If the case against Amand and Raffaele was so strong, why do books, documentaries and films which argue the case for guilt have to resort to using falsehoods?
* If the the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did the PGP have to rely heavily on things which happened outside the murders such as Amanda's ticket for noise violation and Raffaele watching animal porn rather than direct evidence.
* If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why do PGP have to resort to lying about things which happend outside the murder such as Amanda carrying a rape prank, Raffaele stabbing a girl in school and Amanda's father beating her.
* On the TJMK/PMF sites, the comments sections of articles about the case and Amazon reviews, the PGP make vitriolic attacks on the characters of Amanda and to a lesser extent Raffaele. If there was a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do the PGP have to rely so heavily on character assassination?
* If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why is that the PGP can not respond to the arguments of Amanda and Raffaele's supporters? When Machiavelli posted on the IIP forum, I challlenged him to rebutta Mark Waterbury's arguments over the DNA results on the knife and Ron Hendry's articles on the break in. He was unable to do so. The fact that the PGP have to resort to making vitriolic personal attacks on Amanda and Raffaele's supporters indicates frustration at not being to answer their arguments.
If there was so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why is that the PGP are unable to list this evidence? This is an example from Amazon reviews when a reviewer who wrote a negative review of Ron Hendry’s book Single Attacker Theory Of The Murder of Meredith Kercher http://www.amazon.com/review/R5HSR8...PA8PAWXNPB7&store=digital-text#wasThisHelpful
* These are examples of falsehoods which PGP spread in Amazon reviews and the comments sections of articles about the case
Heiress Amazon review WTBH - "For starters was found cleaning the place with bleach when the police arrived". Truth: Amanda was not caught cleaning when the police arrived.
Bejamin Fletcher "BRFC are back" Amazon review WTBH - "They've found Meredith's blood on a knife in his apartment". Truth: There was no blood on Meredith's knife.
Christina comments page 7 Amazon review WTBH - "whose is the female fooprint who applied female sized bruises on MK's neck in strangulation" Truth: There were no female footprints in Meredith's room or female thumbprints on Meredith's neck.
JF Rodrigue Amazon review WTBH - " She was doing cartwheels in the police station." Truth: It has been proved Amanda did not do cartwheels.
Wendy Murphy in her blog - "pro Amanda forces forget to note the knife was found hidden in a shoebox far back inside a coset at Sollecitito's apartment and that the knife had been scrubbed with bleach." Truth:The knife was found in Raffaele's kitchen drawer and the knife had not been cleaned with bleach.
Reza Ganjavi Amazon review Forgotten Killer - "who bought the bleach" "who wanted to have kinky sex instead of going to Meredith's memoral" "the police who called the postal police after the postal police arrived" "who bleached the footprints selectively" Truth: There is no evidence Amanda and Raffaele purchased bleach. The police lied about the purchase of bleach receipts. There is no record of Amanda and Raffaele saying they wanted kinky sex instead of going to Meredith's memorial. It has been conclusively proved Raffaele called the police prior to the arrival of the postal police. No attempt had been made to clean footprints with bleach.
Harry Rag is notorious for spreading lies and misinformation on the internet. Here are some examples :-
The woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith's body matched Amanda Knox's foot size, but was incompatible with Meredith's shoe size." Truth: All the footprints belonged to Rudy Guede The notion the Amanda left her prints in Meredith’s room is debunked here http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html
No-one managed to the scale the wall and climb through the window when Sollecito's defense team attempted to show that it was possible." Truth: Raffaele’s defense lawyer attempted the climb and managed to climb it. A recent documentary on British TV showed someone climbing to the window without difficulty.
The website themurderofmeredithkercher is riddled with falsehoods detailed here http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/guilter-wiki-myths-lies-distortions/ and here http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/guilter-wiki-lies-myths-contd/
Machiavelli lies in his posts. For example, he claimed Amanda had the telephone numbers of drug dealers on her phone. I confronted Machiavelli over this lied and Machiavelli denied he was lying. To prove Machaivelli was not lying, I challenged him to provide the following details :-
The name of the dealers
The number of the dealers
Records of phone calls/texts between the dealers and Amanda
When the number of the dealers ended on Amanda's phone
Did Amanda knew the dealers on her phone contacts were drug dealers
Machiavelli could not provide these details which indicated he was lying. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why do PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case? If there was so much solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why do the PGP have to resort to making things up to argue their case?
* Books, documentaries and films about the case contain falsehoods which are detailed here http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ . John Kercher's book Meredith is discussed here http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1870
Other examples of items about the case containing falsehoods
Documentary on British TV is Amanda Knox Guilty of which there is a rebuttal here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVBRHbOBXDw
The lifetime movie which is discussed in Chapter 2 of Finding Justice in Perugia
If the case against Amand and Raffaele was so strong, why do books, documentaries and films which argue the case for guilt have to resort to using falsehoods?
* If the the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did the PGP have to rely heavily on things which happened outside the murders such as Amanda's ticket for noise violation and Raffaele watching animal porn rather than direct evidence.
* If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why do PGP have to resort to lying about things which happend outside the murder such as Amanda carrying a rape prank, Raffaele stabbing a girl in school and Amanda's father beating her.
* On the TJMK/PMF sites, the comments sections of articles about the case and Amazon reviews, the PGP make vitriolic attacks on the characters of Amanda and to a lesser extent Raffaele. If there was a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do the PGP have to rely so heavily on character assassination?
* If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why is that the PGP can not respond to the arguments of Amanda and Raffaele's supporters? When Machiavelli posted on the IIP forum, I challlenged him to rebutta Mark Waterbury's arguments over the DNA results on the knife and Ron Hendry's articles on the break in. He was unable to do so. The fact that the PGP have to resort to making vitriolic personal attacks on Amanda and Raffaele's supporters indicates frustration at not being to answer their arguments.
If there was so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why is that the PGP are unable to list this evidence? This is an example from Amazon reviews when a reviewer who wrote a negative review of Ron Hendry’s book Single Attacker Theory Of The Murder of Meredith Kercher http://www.amazon.com/review/R5HSR8...PA8PAWXNPB7&store=digital-text#wasThisHelpful
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
In the fall of 2013, at the Florence trial, Prosecutor Crini made a startling assertion - providing no proof, but asserting it anyway: the kitchen knife from Raffaele's was a match for the bedsheet stain-outline on Meredith's bedsheet.
In an act of clairvoyance that would have made Ergon proud, no less than Machiavelli from this forum anticipated this assert by about a week, on a post in this forum.
Then a few weeks ago, Machiavelli posted a photo, which he claimed to have assembled, showing the match. It was of the kitchen-knife from one photograph photoshopped on top of the bedsheet stain.
When asked how he could have accomplished this feat of evidence-engineering his only comment was, "I measured."
Nonetheless, it took six years and three trials where this equivalence was unknown and never once asserted by anyone in the Italian judicial system (incl. police) before it came to light.
My view is that at this point in time - ahead of the final Cassazione ruling on the case - someone is in a hurry to manufacture evidence. The unknown is why.
ETA - I do not believe for a second that Machiavelli photoshopped that assembled image, and I will address the reasons in PM if you wish.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,838
LOL. I see so an extradition hearing would take place in WA, with WA judge and US attorney from WA? Is that how it works?
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Pretty much. The judge will be a federal judge. But--you guessed it--US Senators have certain perogatives in their appointment to the bench.
The habeas appeal would be decided consistent with the precedents from the US court of appeals for the 9th circuit, and ultimately end up there (before petition to the US Sup. Ct). They're nuts.
Puzzled by your question. The hearing would be in Washington State. The magistrate would be a US magistrate. (Are you suggesting that a state judge hears an extradition? Not so.) Of course in the State of Washington, it's in the 9th Circuit. The US Attorney would also be in the State of Washington. Are you asking if these individuals are citizens of the State of Washington? If they live there, they are - its in the US Constitution.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I'm not sure why you find this funny?
AFAIK it is not a Washington State court, but a US District Court. The federal government has district courts in every US State, and those states are organized into 11 larger districts. WA is in the same larger area as CA, OR, MT, AZ, NV, and ID.
The federal government has two districts within WA. I would imagine the court which would convene (if necessary) would be the Western WA one.
From Wikipedia - "The district courts exercise original jurisdiction over—that is, they are empowered to conduct trials in—the following types of cases (which include) Civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.
Not sure why you find this funny, given that you have always tried to defer to the way Italian courts work.
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,838
Thank you all for explaining the US process.
I have no complaint about the process as laid out above, seems perfectly reasonable and I am sure impartial and fair.
To clarify, the US magistrate may be a US Judge acting as a magistrate, or a US magistrate.
The US Attorney is appointed by the President (in consultation with the Attorney General) with the advice and consent of the Senate, including, of course, the Senators from the state where the US Attorney will be in office. One could not become a US Attorney in a particular state if one of the Senators from that state objected - that's the practice, by Senate rule.
ETA: Extradition probable cause determination in the judicial branch starts with a hearing. It's not a trial. The information from the foreign government is, after all, hearsay. That information can be challenged by the person sought; if it is deficient - for example, not the type of information that would be compatible with US laws - an extradition certificate may be denied.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
AFAIK an extradition cannot take place unless a certificate is granted. However, the granting of a certificate does not necessarily result in extradition. The analogy I found helpful was that if the cops get a search warrant, this does not compel the cops to search, just that it would be legal to do so.
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,838
Do you mean if the extradition papers are not in order, name spelt incorrectly or something else?
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'm copying this part over to the Lockerbie thread because it set me wondering about something. Do you want to wander over and discuss it?
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
They are seizing property fron the crime scene without notifying the attorneys of the suspects under arrest. Perhaps they think this makes it legal.
Amanda said in her testimony that they put several papers in front of her for her to sign. She wasn't able to read them and just signed as ordered.
What I want to know is where was this document. It wasn't part of the case file. What is the civil parties lawyer doing with it?
Not possible. When the keys were found, they would have been taken back to the boys to see if they recognized them. If one of the boys said "yea, those are the keys I gave to the cops", they would cover their tracks and forget about those keys.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Not so fast. That might be what normal cops would do, but not necessarily the Keystone Kops. They were done with the downstairs boys at this point, so they wouldn't necessarily have gone back to them right away to discuss keys.
Anyway, the cops did, in fact, forget about the key shortly after this document.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Anyone aware of a situation where an extradition has occurred against the wishes of the relevant US Senator?
- Status