• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kestrel said:
The words "municipal infraction" have a special meaning in most states. It's a class of crimes that includes parking tickets, failure to shovel your walkway, not picking up after your dog and other minor offenses. It's not even in the same class as a moving violation.
Click to expand...

Thats what I was pointing out.
 
Chris C "Regardless of whether Knox doesn't remember or is lying about this phone call. Comodi has the times wrong. They asked her what time it was at midday in Seattle Knox says 3, "

So are you saying that Knox was lying?

I fail to see the relevance of all this.
 
Fulcanelli said:
I think you have serious difficulty grasping exactly what it is and how it works. After all, you and your friends have only just begun to grasp the concept of what "calunnia" is. By the time you manage to understand how the appeal works the third degree will be over and done with. Therefore, all apologies, I won't waste my time trying to teach you.
Click to expand...


I do have serious difficulty grasping exactly what it is and how it works. Here is what Andrea Vogt wrote about it:

The appeals trial process will differ in many ways from the first trial. Only the makeup of the court -- six lay jurors and two professional judges -- remains the same. It will likely proceed much faster because the court is mostly debating Judge Massei's judgment, not rehearing witnesses or re-examining evidence, though the court can specifically request to rehear key witnesses and the Knox and Sollecito defense teams have filed requests for an independent evaluation of certain pieces of contested evidence.

On appeal, the case is once again wide open, as the court could do anything from giving Knox a harsher life-in-prison sentence to turning over her conviction.

"The court can review all the same evidence presented in the first trial, but simply decide that there is reasonable doubt, that they don't believe it," explained University of Parma criminal procedure professor Stefano Maffei.

The court also can agree with prosecutors, who are also appealing the 26-year-sentence and asking for life, and give her even more prison time. Or, the court can agree with the murder conviction, but find that mitigating factors outweigh the aggravated ones, which leads to a one-third reduction in sentence. That is a most likely scenario, court observers such as Maffei say, especially since more than 18 Italian magistrates have reviewed the evidence in the Knox case and come to the same conclusion of culpability, which somehow ingrains the decision into the judiciary. For reasons that are sociological rather than legal -- such as good behavior, political pressure, changed public opinion or prison crowding -- sentences in Italy are often reduced on appeal.

"The tradition in this country remains that the court of appeal is usually more lenient than the court of first instance," Maffei said.
Click to expand...


I think this is the key phrase: "....the court is mostly debating Judge Massei's judgment, not rehearing witnesses or re-examining evidence...."

The confusing part for me is that people say the defendant is not considered guilty until after the decisions of the second appeal (and beyond), yet, half of the presentations made in the first appeal will be based on a presumption of guilt.
 
Last edited:
colonelhall said:
Chris C "Regardless of whether Knox doesn't remember or is lying about this phone call. Comodi has the times wrong. They asked her what time it was at midday in Seattle Knox says 3, "

So are you saying that Knox was lying?

I fail to see the relevance of all this.
Click to expand...

Im saying Comodi is trying to make Knox look like she is hiding something, except she is clearly using incorrect times. Because she is clearly stating that knox called her mother at 1200. Comodi should have used the 1247 time because whether or not knox remembered the 1247 call, knox starts talking about being at Sollecitos at 1200. That should have been a dead give away that knox believed Comodi was referring to a call at 1200. IF she would have asked what about a call at 1247 do you remember making that one. If Knox would have said no then continue on that line of questioning. By not correcting Knox and making it clear, the judge/comodi has entered false evidence into the trial. I have also noticed when reading the trial testimony the judge told Knox's lawyers to stop objecting and sit down.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
I do have serious difficulty grasping exactly what it is and how it works. Here is what Andrea Vogt wrote about it:




I think this is the key phrase: "....the court is mostly debating Judge Massei's judgment, not rehearing witnesses or re-examining evidence...."

The confusing part for me is that people say the defendant is not considered guilty until after the decisions of the second appeal (and beyond), yet, half of the presentations made in the first appeal will be based on a presumption of guilt.
Click to expand...

To be honest with you, I believe the courts will shy away from overturning the conviction on evidence, and let the slander of Patrick remain and overturn the rest of the charges of Knox/Sollecito's case on technical grounds. That way they can save face. Its clear that the Prosecution and Judge overruled a Supreme Court order. Then leave it up to the Prosecution to see whether they want to retry them on the overturned charges. If they overturn on evidence they might have to overturn Guede's by default. Since he is convicted also with helping them. They are starting to take heat on the evidence and manipulation of evidence. The obvious thing to do would be overturn on technical grounds and just choose not to retry. Let the slander conviction remain and let them fight that out in court. I honestly believe if this case goes to the supreme court completely intact the will be declared innocent of all charges.
 
Last edited:
treehorn said:
The murder was in Vancouver, Canada - about a 2.5 hours drive from Seattle, Knox's hometown.

Do you really think teenagers in Seattle are significantly different from teenagers in Vancouver?!

I've been to both cities and can see no difference at all.

The killing per se was pinned on Ellard and Glowatski. That's 2 killers, not 8.

The killing flowed from a group-bullying incident sparked by petty school girl jealousy. Do you not see a parallel with some of the case theories advanced by the "guilters"?

The fact that the bullies-turned-killers were 4-5 years younger than Knox hardly works in Knox's favor! If high school-age teenagers, with no history of homicide, could engage in a brutal hazing/murder of this kind, why couldn't 20 year olds, high on alcohol and street drugs, do the same thing ?!

Of course, I agree that there are some differences, but then no two crimes are exactly alike, and I submit that it can well be argued that the 'relevant similarities' outweigh the 'relevant differences'.

Alas, there is, with good reason, no 'correlation test' as a threshold test for the prosecution of an accused in respect of any violent crime - you simply go where the evidence takes you.
Click to expand...

This murder took place on Vancouver Island. There's a pretty good book about the case called Under the Bridge. These kids had problems. Any comparison between Amanda Knox and Kelly Ellard is superficial at best.
 
Chris C said:
And if Knox or Sollecito never committed the crime:
These apply to them how?

For example...do you buy that Fulcanelli showed genuine remorse for what they'd done by their actions during the staging?

I could plug anyones name in there and say that exact same thing. However, if Knox or Sollecito didn't commit the crime. Then they wouldn't be showing remorse for a crime they didn't commit by staging a crime they never staged.
Click to expand...


That may be your personal view, but you've completely missed the point I was making which was to explain the grounds for the prosecution appeal. Whatever your view, you need to understand the prosecution's and court's view is different...that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.
 
Diastole said:
Thanks for the reply, treehorn. I'll admit to sharing your scepticism of on-line personae (with the exception of RWVBWL of course, whom I'm personally convinced is living my dream). I would agree that there are few absolutes in medicine. And no, I'm not an Italian pathologist, nor did I stand at Dr. Lalli's side during Meredith Kercher's autopsy. But, as LondonJohn has suggested, ask your brothers, if you will, what they feel is the probability of an empty duodenum and jejunum five hours after a meal? What is the probability of completely evacuating a small bowel by manipulation during a laparotomy? (Incidentally, if they have actually attempted such a manoeuver, I'd also be interested to know who provides their medicolegal representation!)

Judge Massei certainly seems comfortable (if not, unfortunately, adept) in assessing probabilities. In a case full of irreproducible DNA tests, 2 cm blades that "match" 8 cm wounds, and a time of death pinpointed by the effect of a diuretic on an elderly bladder, I would suggest that Kercher's empty duodenum is, in fact, one of the more reliable pieces of evidence.
Click to expand...


If you're not going to represent Massei and the case faithfully why bother doing so at all? Massei never claimed the 8 cm wound was created with a 2 cm knife nor is the time of death narrowed down by one witness alone but by four (I would go further and say even seven). If the only way you can knock Massei down is with straw men and misrepresentation then that suggests to me his case is very strong indeed.

It also leads me to question your assessment of the medical evidence/arguments, MD or not (for which we only have your word for anyway), since you may be treating that the same way.
 
Mary_H said:
I do have serious difficulty grasping exactly what it is and how it works. Here is what Andrea Vogt wrote about it:




I think this is the key phrase: "....the court is mostly debating Judge Massei's judgment, not rehearing witnesses or re-examining evidence...."

The confusing part for me is that people say the defendant is not considered guilty until after the decisions of the second appeal (and beyond), yet, half of the presentations made in the first appeal will be based on a presumption of guilt.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way, the presumption can be of whatever, guilt or innocence (guilt if they were found guilty in the first degree, or innocent if they were found so in the first degree and it's the prosecution that's appealing) but the 'judgement' of guilt does not stand legally until it's finalised in the third degree. When it comes down to it, it's as simple as that.
 
Fulcanelli said:
That may be your personal view, but you've completely missed the point I was making which was to explain the grounds for the prosecution appeal. Whatever your view, you need to understand the prosecution's and court's view is different...that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.
Click to expand...
Misunderstood what you where saying. Though I did notice that Mignini wants knox punished further because of Knox's mother.
 
Fulcanelli said:
If you're not going to represent Massei and the case faithfully why bother doing so at all? Massei never claimed the 8 cm wound was created with a 2 cm knife nor is the time of death narrowed down by one witness alone but by four (I would go further and say even seven). If the only way you can knock Massei down is with straw men and misrepresentation then that suggests to me his case is very strong indeed.

It also leads me to question your assessment of the medical evidence/arguments, MD or not (for which we only have your word for anyway), since you may be treating that the same way.
Click to expand...

If you want to go by witnesses.
Italian lady hears the murderers speaking italian.

Homeless guys testifies he saw them past the time in which they was suppose to be killing Meredith. He also sees buses and people walking around in costumes.

2 people in the car see no one.

1 person sees a car that doesn't match the description of Sollecito's car in the drive way.

Guede is unable to identify Sollecito or Knox until his appeals. He also claims a left handed italian man that doesn't fit the description of Sollecito kills Merdith and possibly rapes her while he is on the crapper and also uses a Knife that doesn't fit the description of the knife taken from Sollecito's.

1 person in jail says his brother did it

Another says Guede confessed that him and a friend did it.

One of the witnesses is contradicted by 3 peoples testimony when he says he saw Knox in his store that next morning. Plus like atleast 2 other prosecution witnesses didn't remember this until a year later, while talking to reporters.

Guede bumps into a couple while fleeing the scene and he bumps into them alone.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
Think of it this way, the presumption can be of whatever, guilt or innocence (guilt if they were found guilty in the first degree, or innocent if they were found so in the first degree and it's the prosecution that's appealing) but the 'judgement' of guilt does not stand legally until it's finalised in the third degree. When it comes down to it, it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...


All right.
 
Magister said:
and here another source stating the appeal court process is a brand new trial

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?..._and_what_we_/
Click to expand...


It is, but it's essentially a different 'kind' of trial. It's like saying a whole new animal...it is a new animal, but the new animal is a horse whereas the first animal was a giraffe.

Also, I wouldn't take too much notice of "average" times for trials. The amount of time the average person may spend watching TV each day may be four hours. Yet there are some people that may spend 16 hours a day watching TV and still others that may watch none at all. Each case has to be viewed on it's own merits, not in terms of averages. This case for example, the predictions are that the second degree will last five or six hearings and be over by the end of January or February. The only thing that may extend that time is if more tests are ordered, bit I personally don't anticipate that as likely.
 
samba said:
Hi all....new poster here. Been following this case for quite awhile and have been enjoying all of your posts.

This may be a stupid question but, are plea bargains allowed in the Italian justice system? Forgive me for not searching the forum before asking, but I'm guessing that the answer is "no" since I've never seen it discussed in any article. I'm asking because I'm assuming that if AK or RS were guilty, one of them would have turned on the other.
Click to expand...


From Arrest of a U.S. Citizen in Italy, provided by Magister
http://www.usembassy.it/acs/emergency/emergency-arrest.asp

PLEA BARGAINING (Patteggiamento): The accused and the Public Prosecutor may agree to a reduced prison term in the event of a guilty plea. The conviction cannot be referred to in any civil or administrative case arising in connection with the criminal charge in question. There is no right of appeal and the conviction becomes final immediately. The right to plea bargain is also available in the courts of appeal.
Click to expand...
 
Chris C said:
If you want to go by witnesses.
Italian lady hears the murderers speaking italian.

Homeless guys testifies he saw them past the time in which they was suppose to be killing Meredith. He also sees buses and people walking around in costumes.

2 people in the car see no one.

1 person sees a car that doesn't match the description of Sollecito's car in the drive way.

Guede is unable to identify Sollecito or Knox until his appeals. He also claims a left handed italian man that doesn't fit the description of Sollecito kills Merdith and possibly rapes her while he is on the crapper and also uses a Knife that doesn't fit the description of the knife taken from Sollecito's.

1 person in jail says his brother did it

Another says Guede confessed that him and a friend did it.

One of the witnesses is contradicted by 3 peoples testimony when he says he saw Knox in his store that next morning. Plus like atleast 2 other prosecution witnesses didn't remember this until a year later, while talking to reporters.

Guede bumps into a couple while fleeing the scene and he bumps into them alone.
Click to expand...

Actually, Guede identified Amanda and Raffaele back in March 2008.

As for the guy who said his brother did it, you're going off topic. We're discussing the witnesses that contributed to Massei's conclusions for the TOD.

These would be Nara and the other witness who heard a scream. The other witness that heard arguing and running footsteps. Antonio Curatolo. The couple in the car and the mechanic. That makes a total of seven.

There is also the Albanian who'd make eight and Rudy who'd make nine and allesandra Formica and her boyfriend who'd make eleven, but Massei discarded the Albanian as he considered him unreliable and Rudy is no use whatsoever in determining TOD and the person seen by Allessandra and he BF was judged not to be Rudy. One could even include Meredith's English girlfriends, since they established they Meredith was alive until at least a little before 9 pm, but I'm trying to keep things simple)

Therefore, the total amount of witnesses used to determine TOD is seven.

To finalise with the main point I was originally making, TOD was determined by using seven witnesses (with other clues including medical and phones), not one 60 year old lady alone.
 
Magister said:
According to this source appeal court hearings in Italy last on average 2 to 3 years.

http://www.usembassy.it/acs/emergency/emergency-arrest.asp

and here another source stating the appeal court process is a brand new trial

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php..._appeals_process_actually_works_and_what_we_/
Click to expand...


Does anyone know the extent to which this was carried out? I believe the consulate guided Amanda's parents in obtaining lawyers, but did anyone from the consulate visit Amanda in jail?

An American consular officer will visit any U.S. citizen in jail as soon as possible after his/her arrest. Consular officers cannot obtain a prisoner's release. A consular officer's responsibility is to: ensure that the accused is receiving the same treatment that is accorded to anyone facing a similar charge in Italy, that the accused is receiving due process under Italian law, that he/she is not being discriminated against because he/she is American, that he/she is not being mistreated, and that he/she is being represented by an attorney of his/her choice. The consular officer will provide the accused with a list of attorneys from which the accused may select an attorney. It is the responsibility of the accused to reach agreement with the attorney over fees and conditions of the defense. The U.S. Government and its consular officers are not authorized to meet prisoners' expenses, including attorney's fees.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom