Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
This juror confirmed the obvious: The trial was a sham. Now why didn't she speak up at the time?
 
Last edited:
Newsweek magazine and Nina Burleigh have weighed in, with a cover story on Amanda Knox.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/will-amanda-knox-be-dragged-back-italy-murder-case-314970.html

The scene in Perugia played out like a colorized version of that harrowing mob scene in Frankenstein—outraged villagers storming the castle to slay the monster who has been terrorizing them. But this bogeyman was a pretty American exchange student sometimes known as Foxy Knoxy, and the villagers were modern-day Italians whipped to a froth by tabloid headlines about resplendent Satanic rituals and depraved sex.​
Click to expand...
 
Machiavelli said:
We can call this a lie. You are seemingly "forgetting" that Mignini and Giuttari were proven innocent of the main charge (allegedly having forged the voice recording of a conversation) already in the first instance, the their conviction on remaining charges was annulled, not because of time limitation - which would be legally impossible, time limits at that stage only effect the penal consequence but not the civil and disciplinary ones nor the fact finding - but it was annulled because their whole prosecution was performed by an illegitimate authority, given that the Florentine magistrates prosecuting him and the offended parties were the same people. So not only the conviction, but the entire case, including the indictment and even the investigation was annulled. The investigation file, basically blank, was sent to Turin. Only at that point the time limitations enter into play, because Turin prosecution office won't start an investigation from scratch on hypothetical charges that have expired even theoretically and are no longer prosecutable.
Click to expand...

Thank you for giving us Mignini's version of this. The truth is more likely elsewhere.
 
Machiavelli said:
We can call this a lie. You are seemingly "forgetting" that Mignini and Giuttari were proven innocent of the main charge (allegedly having forged the voice recording of a conversation) already in the first instance, the their conviction on remaining charges was annulled, not because of time limitation - which would be legally impossible, time limits at that stage only effect the penal consequence but not the civil and disciplinary ones nor the fact finding - but it was annulled because their whole prosecution was performed by an illegitimate authority, given that the Florentine magistrates prosecuting him and the offended parties were the same people. So not only the conviction, but the entire case, including the indictment and even the investigation was annulled. The investigation file, basically blank, was sent to Turin. Only at that point the time limitations enter into play, because Turin prosecution office won't start an investigation from scratch on hypothetical charges that have expired even theoretically and are no longer prosecutable.
Click to expand...

Why are you so cheerfully the malignant buffoon Mignini's water carrier? Herein lies the thread amidst the absurd and contradictory arguments you make.
 
Statement from the article about the juror:

"The jurors constructed a timeline with mobile phone records and statements from the witnesses that showed how the pair could have been at the murder scene at the time of death, but she questioned whether it was sufficient proof to condemn them."

Really? Where's the timeline? And more importantly, what is the time of death, because it's not disclosed in Nencini's report.

Also, "they could have been there" is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
MichaelB said:
This juror confirmed the obvious: The trial was a sham. Now why didn't she speak up at the time?
Click to expand...

She said she did (at the very least afterward), but the panel (6-popular and 2-professional judges) go by majority vote.

What is telling is that she said that the atmosphere of their deliberations room was "guilt" right from the start.

Miss Ballerini, 48, suggested that the pair did not get a fair trial because there was 'an atmosphere of guilt' in the deliberation room before it even began.

I guess Cassazione was very clear to Judge Nencini how his trial was supposed to end.
 
Diocletus said:
Statement from the article about the juror:

"The jurors constructed a timeline with mobile phone records and statements from the witnesses that showed how the pair could have been at the murder scene at the time of death, but she questioned whether it was sufficient proof to condemn them."

Really? Where's the timeline? And more importantly, what is the time of death, because it's not disclosed in Nencini's report.

Also, "they could have been there" is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

There seems, then, to be a difference between what that jury deliberated upon, from Nencini's report 3 months later. Someone needs to ask Miss Ballerini what she understood to be the time of death.... a basic piece of data to arrive at these sorts of decisions.

If this kind of talk around Rome does not end this farce, nothing will.
 
Diocletus said:
Statement from the article about the juror:

"The jurors constructed a timeline with mobile phone records and statements from the witnesses that showed how the pair could have been at the murder scene at the time of death, but she questioned whether it was sufficient proof to condemn them."

Really? Where's the timeline? And more importantly, what is the time of death, because it's not disclosed in Nencini's report.

Also, "they could have been there" is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...


Yes that struck me too - this would help the guilters out a lot, since none of them ever seem to be able to provide a timeline.
 
lonepinealex said:
Blimey, it's all go today.

The Italian government must despair of the judiciary.
Click to expand...

That's good, because the government has control over ECHR proceedings and extradition proceedings.

The judiciary has screwed itself unless it can figure out some way to hold on to this case for even longer. What a joke.
 
Diocletus said:
That's good, because the government has control over ECHR proceedings and extradition proceedings.

The judiciary has screwed itself unless it can figure out some way to hold on to this case for even longer. What a joke.
Click to expand...

They can hold it forever. . . . . Just continuous turning it back down to lower courts. They could do it until Amanda and Raff die of old age :jaw-dropp
 
Bill Williams said:
Thank you for giving us Mignini's version of this. The truth is more likely elsewhere.
Click to expand...

No, what I said is limited to the judiciary truth you have in the papers. Which Numbers forgets.
If I wanted to convey Mignini's truth I would have added severs things.
 
js202 said:
Why are you so cheerfully the malignant buffoon Mignini's water carrier? Herein lies the thread amidst the absurd and contradictory arguments you make.
Click to expand...

I limit myself to point out conspiracy theorists reports of information that are provably false or mystifying.
 
Machiavelli said:
I limit myself to point out conspiracy theorists reports of information that are provably false or mystifying.
Click to expand...

There many cases of legal systems working to protect their own interests instead of working for justice. It is not as if we are arguing anything that radical.
 
Diocletus said:
Don't worry, Antony. When the echr rules against Italy, you can send them a letter attaching their decision together with the judgment declaring that Italy violated the defendants human rights. That will be rather poignant.
Click to expand...

Antony said:
Well, the ISC may still do the right thing on March 25th, which may be relevant to any further response. As I think I have said earlier, nothing the Italian courts could do will surprise me after the previous ISC decision 2 years ago.
Click to expand...

In either of these cases, the BBC will investigate itself and its approach in this case. It will uncover scandalous revelations of bias that it broadcasts in a documentary. (A likely scenario?)
 
Numbers said:
In either of these cases, the BBC will investigate itself and its approach in this case. It will uncover scandalous revelations of bias that it broadcasts in a documentary. (A likely scenario?)
Click to expand...

Not at all likely, and the BBC has no case to answer anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom