Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kestrel said:
There certainly are things that don't add up in the case summary.



The pattern of the broken glass and the mark on the inner shutter prove that the rock was thrown from the outside and the window was closed when it was broken.

It seems that Italian court decisions don't need to conform to the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

It proves no such thing. It proves the opposite. You seem to operate by laws of physics from an alternative universe.
 
Open Inquiry said:
For one thing, there is a new prosecution, new judge, new jury. They might have a different take on the evidence, what is valid, etc...

But there is more to it than what you present in the above comment. I have to step away but I'll get back to with a reply. Thanks............
Click to expand...


In other words, there's nothing new in the report regarding the DNA that wasn't in the original case file and/or raised in court in the trial.

The fact the appeal will have new judges is irrelevant. What is relevant is, is any of the evidence new or is there any newly discovered faults with the evidence? Are any of the questions new, ergo not been asked in the first degree?


There are new judges, there is no new jury. The judges are the jury and vice versa (two professional judges and six lay judges). There are not two separate bodies as in judge and jury as with the common law system (case law, adversarial) in the US and UK. Italy has a civil law system (inquisitorial).
 
Fulcanelli said:
There are new judges, there is no new jury. The judges are the jury and vice versa (two professional judges and six lay judges). There are not two separate bodies as in judge and jury as with the common law system (case law, adversarial) in the US and UK. Italy has a civil law system (inquisitorial).
Click to expand...

The jury consists of two judges and six "lay judges", or lay people (I believe).
But all will be new for the appeal hearing.
 
Open Inquiry said:
The jury consists of two judges and six "lay judges", or lay people (I believe).
But all will be new for the appeal hearing.
Click to expand...


Everything you just wrote above is in my previous post, aside from the "lay People" bit. There are no "lay people". There are only lay judges.
 
Open Inquiry said:
I don't think so. I think the defense can only challenge previous, existing evidence. I'll get back to you on that.
Click to expand...


You don't need to get back to me on that, 'I'm' telling 'you'. The defence can introduce any new evidence they like. If you doubt me and want to go and research it for yourself, great.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Everything you just wrote above is in my previous post, aside from the "lay People" bit. There are no "lay people". There are only lay judges.
Click to expand...


Aren't they citizens like in a US jury (except of course the two noted, additional judges). My main point, however, is that it is a new jury.
 
Fulcanelli said:
You don't need to get back to me on that, 'I'm' telling 'you'. The defence can introduce any new evidence they like. If you doubt me and want to go and research it for yourself, great.
Click to expand...


What I mean is, I've read otherwise. I want to verify what you said. Of course I am going to do that. Verification is a good idea, don't you think?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Why?

You have a habit of making statements without explaining them.
Click to expand...

The new jury and prosecution might have a different perspective. There are certain factors that might have weighed on the first group.

The fact is that I don't know the situation in detail. But I am curious of what a new group will have to say.
 
Kestrel said:
There certainly are things that don't add up in the case summary.



The pattern of the broken glass and the mark on the inner shutter prove that the rock was thrown from the outside and the window was closed when it was broken.

It seems that Italian court decisions don't need to conform to the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

So...could Raf or Amanda have thrown the rock?
 
Open Inquiry said:
What I mean is, I've read otherwise. I want to verify what you said. Of course I am going to do that. Verification is a good idea, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you confused what you read. It is the prosecution that cannot enter new evidence in the appellate court. The defence can enter any new evidence they please. If you need to go and verify it for yourself go right ahead.
 
Fulcanelli said:
You don't need to get back to me on that, 'I'm' telling 'you'. The defence can introduce any new evidence they like. If you doubt me and want to go and research it for yourself, great.
Click to expand...

New evidence during the appeal by the defence is only allowed in rare circumstances such as new technology or techniques that weren't available when the judge gave the verdict. That is information from someone close to the defense. I can check one other source. I am also looking for links.

Where did you get the information that it is allowed? Just wondering. There seems to be a discrepancy.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Perhaps you confused what you read. It is the prosecution that cannot enter new evidence in the appellate court. The defence can enter any new evidence they please. If you need to go and verify it for yourself go right ahead.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the person who told me was misinformed.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Yes, they are citizens (college level educated), hence the term "lay".
Click to expand...


I was referring to this statement by you: "There are no "lay people". There are only lay judges."

I then asked if the lay judges are citizens (ie not having to do with court).
 
Open Inquiry said:
The new jury and prosecution might have a different perspective. There are certain factors that might have weighed on the first group.

The fact is that I don't know the situation in detail. But I am curious of what a new group will have to say.
Click to expand...

"Perspective"? You mean they may equate 1 + 1 = 3 simply by virtue of the fact that they are different judges? Amanda and Raffaele along with their defence teams have failed in 5 courts via a total of 19 judges already, capped by an 11 month long first degree trial arriving at a unanimous guilty verdict.

6th time lucky?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom