• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope, Nencini was ruling on the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. The Court of Second Instance is a de novo trial. The court reviews the evidence and issues a verdict which can be completely different from the Court of First Instance. It can use the findings from the lower court but its role is not to merely uphold or overturn the lower court, but to establish it's own verdict.

Nope, it only looks at the legal points under appeal. Chieffi directed the DNA on the knife, in particular, sample 36(i) be looked at again, and also the witnesses Aviello and Curatalo needed to be reassessed.

That's all. It barely lasted two/three days, whereas the merits hearing was heard over weeks.
 
Last edited:
Yes he has made that clear for years. I once referred to him as a lawyer but corrected that.

Are you an Italian lawyer?

Dear god - Dalla so what?


So I'll ask you back the question you posed: Is Cheli an expert? If so, then upon what criteria do you award him the status of "expert"?

I'm not an Italian lawyer. But you and I both know that's not the point. The point is that you were defaulting (for some reason) to the view that Cheli knows what he's talking about (with no supporting evidence, mind you), and that I don't. And I'm wondering what basis you might have used to establish that particular piece of poor logic.

And if you don't care about spelling Knox's lawyer's name correctly, then I'm guessing you ought to start talking about "Knockers" and "Silly-Cheetoh". And that you wouldn't care one bit if people wrote your real name badly wrong in correspondence discussing you? Am I right?
 
Next, the current Wikipedia article on the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure makes it explicitly clear that once [sic] can only be found guilty or not guilty in Italian criminal trials these days, and that there are only a specific actual number of ways of acquittal (which do not tally with 530 as it is currently (incorrectly) written:

I'm sure the Italians would welcome you informing them their laws are written incorrectly.
 
This is what you said about London John and the barrage of phantom texts that Amanda sent to Meredith on Halloween.

But it matters little. No one is going to sue Amanda for this. I wonder if they are going to publish the book in Italian?

The thrust of the matter is true. Amanda was pleading to meet up with Mez. Mez ignored her.
 
Unfortunately for Rudy, Amanda and Raff, they are the ones under discussion, not me.

An Italian newspaper published clips of this grainy footage. Period.

That's right. We're not discussing the mendacious and hypocritical fabrications of any of the forum members as they are free to create out of thin air any fiction they want with any fear of recourse.

Good thing ?
 
She didn't say she got flashes of Patrick because she was told she had amnesia. She said the police harassed, yelled, and forcefully insisted she was there and the person in the text message was who she met at the cottage and they had proof she was there, and they wouldn't let her deny being there as an option, and the cherry on top is manipulating her by telling her she has amnesia, transforming the vague police reconstruction forced into her mind as the only story they were accepting into "memories." A coercive interrogation resulting in a false statement isn't an exciting new revelation and has a significant historical basis. And your last point is wrong, by admitting to being at the scene of a staged break-in that she later informed the police was genuine, she was very clearly implicating herself in the crime. The real killer probably would have remembered they spent hours staging a break-in and discovery and not tell the police they invited the killer in through the front door.




No, you just throw out one straw man after the other. Raff lied after caving into strong threats from the harassing police, thinking he was choosing the easy way out by cutting his losses with this girl he just met that the police insisted was involved in a murder of a girl he barely knew. It was a poor strategy on his part but interrogation tapes of the cops saying "protect her and we'll beat you to bloody pulp and put you in prison for 30 years" probably wouldn't play out favorably for the cops. And again, it makes little sense to immediately give up his accomplice to the police if she can implicate him and take them right to his knife.

You cannot claim to know what's inside their heads. Making excuses for inexcusable behaviour just comes across as rationalisation of the irrational.
 
So I'll ask you back the question you posed: Is Cheli an expert? If so, then upon what criteria do you award him the status of "expert"?

I'm not an Italian lawyer. But you and I both know that's not the point. The point is that you were defaulting (for some reason) to the view that Cheli knows what he's talking about (with no supporting evidence, mind you), and that I don't. And I'm wondering what basis you might have used to establish that particular piece of poor logic.

And if you don't care about spelling Knox's lawyer's name correctly, then I'm guessing you ought to start talking about "Knockers" and "Silly-Cheetoh". And that you wouldn't care one bit if people wrote your real name badly wrong in correspondence discussing you? Am I right?

Dear me, I misspelled his name on a thread - I had also spelled it correctly earlier.

Cheli has been recognized by the PIP and others as having valuable insights in this case. Yes I'd say an intelligent Italian that lives there and pays attention to legal issues is a better source than you.
 
Umm... now you're inventing my position to try to make a point. Not very edifying. And in any case, you're the only one who keeps bringing it up :)

Why don't you contact Cheli and ask him?
I think I'd made this very point with Grinder.... it's not as if electronic communication with is down with Italy!
I'm not really very confident about your understanding either, by the way - especially since you were labouring under the delusion that Cheli is/was a lawyer, and since you seem to take it as a (blindly) default position that he has a superior understanding of this section of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure and how it is applied in practice.....

I am highly confident that my position is the correct one. My position is that Italian courts only ever issue 530.1 acquittals when either a) they have ruled that no crime was ever even committed, or b) they can state with a very high degree of certainty that the defendant is factually innocent.

I am confident only because you are confident. Well, also that it makes sense, and doesn't try to make some phamtom distinction that no one, it seems, in Italy is making. IIUC Cheli's remarks on the difference between #1 and #2 are nowhere near the centre of his reasoning anyway.

Using common sense logic, from the starting point that being acquitted means being acquitted.... there is no such distinguighing things as "being acquitted because you're innocent, and did not commit the act," and "being acquitted but with shadows."
 
I think I'd made this very point with Grinder.... it's not as if electronic communication with is down with Italy!


I am confident only because you are confident. Well, also that it makes sense, and doesn't try to make some phamtom distinction that no one, it seems, in Italy is making. IIUC Cheli's remarks on the difference between #1 and #2 are nowhere near the centre of his reasoning anyway.

Using common sense logic, from the starting point that being acquitted means being acquitted.... there is no such distinguighing things as "being acquitted because you're innocent, and did not commit the act," and "being acquitted but with shadows."

What was the difference between "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven"?
 
Dear me, I misspelled his name on a thread - I had also spelled it correctly earlier.

Cheli has been recognized by the PIP and others as having valuable insights in this case. Yes I'd say an intelligent Italian that lives there and pays attention to legal issues is a better source than you.

"By the PIP"? Anyway, I very much do recognize Cheli as having insights vastly better than my own, and is vastly a better source.

But also as better that LondonJohn's? Maybe, maybe not. Both deserve a listen.... and it is actually not a competition.
 
I believe there was one witness that said he bothered women. Rudi had until very recently before the murder been living with a woman in Milan, how do you know he was any more frustrated than the average Joe?

Some guy "Momo" claimed Rudy behaved in this way and that way. However, courts are simply not interested in "character witnesses". These come after the verdict. Massei was dismissive of this and the Christian guy.


Oh course we don't have any verification that he desperately needed money. It seems his foster mom was still helping him and he had been doing some work. I guess you're not in the school of thought that it was Rudi that stole the 2000 from the Nursery



Yes Rudi is just like the Night Stalker:rolleyes:

Rudy's friend with a Russian name said Rudy never asked him for money. Someone said Rudy had borrowed €10 the week before the murder. He bought a kebab the murder night.

He was avoiding drugdealers to whom he owed money.
 
What was the difference between "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven"?

In Scotland or in Italy? IIRC, in Scotland "not proven" was once the definitive acquittal, for obvious reasons. But over the centuries Scottish juries insisted on a stronger statement being available for a verdict, and thus, for them, "not guilty" was born. Legally speaking, they are the same - but then, I an not a Scottish lawyer.

There is no such thing as "not guilty, because they didn't commit the act," vs "not guilty, with shadows."
 
Oh there are plenty of people ahead of me in the queue to do so.

Here's one:

http://www.bu.edu/ilj/files/2014/05/note_mirabella.pdf


It's worth a read. Very educative and informative...

Strangely 530 doesn't seem to be mentioned.

The 1989 Italian criminal procedure code made broad and bold reforms
to its previously inquisitorial system, debuting to mixed results. While
making great efforts to instill adversarial processes into the system, Italy’s
inquisitorial foundations have remained strong with the current criminal
procedure code creating a hybrid system, which neither common law nor
civil law comparativists know how best to discuss.

The Amanda Knox case and the resulting criticism of Italian criminal
procedure have led scholars to question the entire Italian criminal system.
Before engaging in a hasty denouncement, however, it is first necessary to
understand the background of the Italian code and recognize the biases
we bring to bear when engaging in comparison. As Mirjan Dama˘ska has
rightly noted, the dichotomy that Americans see between adversarial and
inquisitorial (and now between adversarial and hybrid systems) “seems to
suggest that the only alternative to some lofty conceptions of Due Process
is lapse into the horrors of a procedural system where charges are not
specific, the accused is not accorded the benefit of the doubt, his confession
is coerced, his detention before trial is unlimited, he has no right to
counsel and is not advised of his constitutional rights.”182 Despite the
media frenzy and flood of opinions on the Knox trial, the procedures of
the court and the opinion accompanying the verdict did not represent
either an invidious criminal procedure, or a country out to convict an
innocent. Instead, the differences in procedure from the American trial process represent choices by a country with different procedural foundations
but with a similar goal, justice. Criticism can and should be given to
the Italian system,183 and already the Knox case has created a debate in
Italy over possible reforms,184 but criticism abroad should be conducted
in a forum open to reasoned debate and on a level that accounts for historical
differences and personal biases.

 
That's right. We're not discussing the mendacious and hypocritical fabrications of any of the forum members as they are free to create out of thin air any fiction they want with any fear of recourse.

Good thing ?

Sadly, that's all the pro-Amanda lobby have got. Ad hominem attack, for they have no real explanation for all the lies, subterfuges and fraudulent statements of Amanda and Raff, so they attack innocent policemen and lab scientists instead.

So we have a parallel universe wherein all the cops, prosecutors and upright decent citizens are the criminals and liars.
 
In Scotland or in Italy? IIRC, in Scotland "not proven" was once the definitive acquittal, for obvious reasons. But over the centuries Scottish juries insisted on a stronger statement being available for a verdict, and thus, for them, "not guilty" was born. Legally speaking, they are the same - but then, I an not a Scottish lawyer.

There is no such thing as "not guilty, because they didn't commit the act," vs "not guilty, with shadows."

What do you think "not proven" means? It's much like paragraph 2.
 
The thrust of the matter is true. Amanda was pleading to meet up with Mez. Mez ignored her.

No its false. Made up in the mind of the guilters to explain what they couldn't explain with actual evidence.

I challenge you to present actual COURT EVIDENCE...not tabloid trash of any of the following guilters lies.

1. Amanda was jealous of Meredith.
2. Amanda felt slighted because Meredith didn't invite her to accompany her with her English friends.
3. That Amanda had ever engaged in group sex and the murder was the result of a sex orgy gone awry.
4. That Rudy ever contacted or was ever contacted by either Amanda or Raffaele before or after the murder.

There are so many many things you get wrong about this case . I'd like to see you prove just one thing in the way an actual lawyer does.

Just one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom