Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

In your post you were talking about H Wilkens in general.

Don't know how to break this but the ramblings of an 'expert' on a downmarket UK tabloid [or comment on same ] is not what convicted them.
Same paper has topless page 3 girls opining on events of the day - its not meant to be taken seriously.

.

I don't think anyone here took them seriously but some folks elsewhere did. I think the media played a role in this case and is playing a role in the Scazzi case as well. Not only that but there was direct involvement by so called journalists finding and leading the three super witnesses to the police. They remind me of deputies, just don't really have to follow all the same rules as cops are supposed to. Have you seen Frank's latest post? It is a good one.

 

[platonov]

Having trouble with reading accurately, Platonov? I guess you missed the

'...But Sollecito's team will bring documentation for it....'

I guess you must have had difficulty with the comprehension too, as the obvious point (to most people) I was making was that Frank is a well-known PERUGIAN local. Pretty good chance he knows more about the buses than you and I, no? Especially when you look at how long he has covered this case. He is, of course, a respected journalist and blogger but that's not crucial - what is more important is the question about the buses (I see you don't answer that, but no prizes for guessing why), so I'll just leave you with the line,

''...But Sollecito's team will bring documentation for it...''

Whether Frank is well respected or viewed as a partisan hack [opinion seems divided ]is not the issue.

Blogger opinion is Blogger opinion.

Either the defence can show no buses left between 11-11.30 or not.
One wonders why,if it was that simple, it wasn't presented at the first trial.

Perhaps they are just doing their job - trying to discredit the witness with whatever they have no matter how weak it is.

You are free to take Franks word for it - the court might not be so easily swayed.

.

 

[Alt+F4]

Have you seriously not considered the possibility of an 'escalation of violence' on Rudy's part? Seriously?.

If you use the search feature here you will see that the majority of poster who think Rudy is the lone killer reject the "escalation of violence" senario. Most think that Meredith was attacked almost immediately after she entered the apartment was incapacitated very quickly.

Since there was no violence at the nursery school there was no violence to be escalated there.

 

[katy_did]

I've always stated I think Rudy assaulted her sexually first, and that her death was the result of her not acquiescing. I've never bought in to the necrophilia aspect of it.

Yes, I agree. Your scenario (rather than the necrophilia theory) has always seemed like the more likely one to me.

 

[Withnail1969]

If you use the search feature here you will see that the majority of poster who think Rudy is the lone killer reject the "escalation of violence" senario. Most think that Meredith was attacked almost immediately after she entered the apartment was incapacitated very quickly.

Since there was no violence at the nursery school there was no violence to be escalated there.

Many points have been put to you by various posters. You don't appear to be responding to them. Issuing a sophistic one-liner evasion such as the one above does not enhance your credibility.

 

[katy_did]

I don't think anyone here took them seriously but some folks elsewhere did. I think the media played a role in this case and is playing a role in the Scazzi case as well. Not only that but there was direct involvement by so called journalists finding and leading the three super witnesses to the police. They remind me of deputies, just don't really have to follow all the same rules as cops are supposed to. Have you seen Frank's latest post? It is a good one.

You understood all that stuff about topless page 3 girls? Now I feel inadequate.

 

[Alt+F4]

I've always stated I think Rudy assaulted her sexually first, and that her death was the result of her not acquiescing. I've never bought in to the necrophilia aspect of it.

Ok, you have the right to your opinion.

I didn't say a woman has to be young and attractive to be assaulted. But I think Meredith fits the demographic of who he was sexually attracted to more than the nursery school owner - especially since we know from his own words that he was. And that, together with the other circumstances I mentioned, are very good reasons for him not to have tried to rape or kill her.

So this was not a break in gone wrong?

 

[Alt+F4]

Many points have been put to you by various posters. You don't appear to be responding to them. Issuing a sophistic one-liner evasion such as the one above does not enhance your credibility.

Quoting my four sentence post as a one-liner does not enhance your credibility. If you don't like my posts, use the ignore feature.

 

[Malkmus]

So this was not a break in gone wrong?

This seems like a non-sequitur, but are you implying that by my logic if it was a break-in then Rudy should have killed her? Not sure what you're saying here.

Either way, for the record, I believe Rudy had two "break-ins gone wrong" before the third and fatal one occurred (with one semi-successful break-in at the law office). The third resulted in a fatality because it involved a girl he was attracted to alone in her home at night. He tried to have his way with her and killed her knowing that if he didn't she could easily identify him to police.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

maybe the decree will turn up some day...

The defence rights of a suspect - in a logic of fair trial - have to be seen as conditions provided altogether: when a person is put under arrest, has the right to speak immediatly (with no delay) with a judge (within 48 hours), and there is a legal bond for the judicial office to make so this hearing with the suspect takes place immediatly. The office called G.I.P., which means judges for the preliminary investigation, always have a judge on duty for all cases of arrest and detention. The detainee has also the right to be assisted immediatly by a lawyer from the beginning of the detention, while the beginning of detention is considered by the time of validity of a decree of arrest. There is no right to have a counsel with the attorney prior to the GIP hearing. There is no rule that specifies that the detainee and an attorney must meet earlier in advance, to "prepare" for the GIP interrogation, no rule says this counsel must take place prior to the judge hearing. The right to legal assistence is immediate but not meant to be more immediate than the other immediate actions.

And meanwhile Raffaele was not "without rapresentation", properly he was without legal counsel during the time of his detention prior to the preliminary investigation judge hearing. Without a counsel in advance, obviously some defensive choices cannot be made, but the system is obviously not meant to allow the atorney to "properly prepare" the suspect for his appearance before a preliminary investigation judge. The GIP is, after all, an investigator as well as a judge, his task is to protect the quality of the investigation, not just the interests and rights of the arrested person.

If Tedeschi had any problem in finding the decree of differing, instead of just getting angry, he could have raised an objection to the questioning, since he spoke before Raffaele Sollecito. But this objection is missing. So because of the lack of this objection, while Amanda refused to speak, the interrogation of Sollecito took instead place, Raffaele made statements and answered the questioning. Only very late, before a court of Assise, the defence raises again the point, as after having realized they don't like Raffaele's statements, now they seek an opportunity to dismiss them.

Machiavelli,

Mr. Tedeschi did object. What is "missing" is the deferment decree. I also take issue with your implication that the conferring of a lawyer with his client can somehow impede an investigation. Moreover, what Bongiorno objected to was not Mr. Sollecito's answers but the abrogation of Mr. Sollecito's rights. Really, this is civil liberties 101.

 

[Withnail1969]

Quoting my four sentence post as a one-liner does not enhance your credibility. If you don't like my posts, use the ignore feature.

Sophistic evasion noted, again.

I myself have put several points to you, which you will no doubt have seen. What is your response to those four points? Please respond to each.

 

[Alt+F4]

1) Any possibility that the Italian justic system could be in any way in error or at fault in the Amanda Knox case, despite Italy's abysmal rank of 67 in the 2010 World Corruption Index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

2) Any possibility that any 'witnesses' in the case could be lying or mistaken, despite proof that they are.

3) Any possibility that the convicted murderer and sex criminal Rudy Guede had any history of crime, despite evidence to the contrary.

4) Any possibility that any discrepancies in Amanda and Raffaele's accounts of events are anything other than malicious lies, even when they do not benefit and in some cases harm their cases.

Any possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster committed the murder? Of course.

 

[RoseMontague]

You understood all that stuff about topless page 3 girls? Now I feel inadequate.

Mockingjay, you are. LOL.

 

[Withnail1969]

Any possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster committed the murder? Of course.

You are in no sense a skeptic, despite your claim of being one. You do realise this?

 

[Alt+F4]

Either way, for the record, I believe Rudy had two "break-ins gone wrong" before the third and fatal one occurred (with one semi-successful break-in at the law office). The third resulted in a fatality because it involved a girl he was attracted to alone in her home at night. He tried to have his way with her and killed her knowing that if he didn't she could easily identify him to police.

In regard to the break-in at the law office, I do recall this but what was the evidence for it?

As for the murder of Meredith, do you think he broke in through Filomena's window (as some say) or came through the front door (as others say)?

 

[Alt+F4]

You are in no sense a skeptic, despite your claim of being one. You do realise this?

You don't think I'm a skeptic because I don't believe what you do. That's your right of course, think whatever you like about me. Doesn't change anything, doesn't change how I regard this case.

 

[Withnail1969]

You don't think I'm a skeptic because I don't believe what you do. That's your right of course, think whatever you like about me. Doesn't change anything, doesn't change how I regard this case.

That's exactly the point. Nothing changes your opinion. That's why you are in no sense a skeptic.

 

[platonov]

Platonov,

Let us reconstruct this exchange, starting with what Mary_H wrote, “I am going to continue to infer, from the context of the deep, deep regret he expresses in the diary as a whole, that during his interrogation with the police, he said things he would not have said without their ‘encouragement.’” Danceme replied, “If that were true he would have said so, in his diary, regretting having succombed to their techniques.” I responded, “Raffaele made a de facto retraction of what he said on the 5th-6th with his statements in front of Judge Matteini on the 8th. Works for me.” You commented, “Yea that's fine, but it didn't work for Raff & Manders - murder investigators are slightly more skeptical than that.” You responded to a follow-up comment of mine by saying, “But simply taking the [changing] word of murder suspects is not how it works in the real world - and it doesn't convince on a forum either.”

My response (“works for me”) means that I agree with the inference drawn by Mary_H: Raffaele retracted what he said on the night of the 5th-6th and expressed his regret. I do not agree with Danceme: what he did not say in his diary does not change what he did say in front of Judge Matteini. I did not say that the police should simply stop the investigation at this point, which appears to be the straw man you assembled.

Suppose that Raffaele’s computer provides unimpeachable evidence that there was nearly activity between 9 PM and midnight on the night of the murder. How would your opinion of the case change?

halides1

Basically I find most of Mary H's [and those of other innocentsi ] arguments less than persuasive - you disagree. Fine.

For example I see the phantom interrogation has dropped off the radar.

On the issue at hand you cant simply lie/change your story when a suspect in a murder case and then expect anyone to buy Mary H's inference .
Whatever it actually is - cops 'forced' him and he never mentions it ? - its nonsensical.

He changes his story & she invokes the silence right on the 8th [or whenever] - one gets 'remanded' for that naturally, and all that follows.

On the hypothetical - if things were different they would be different.

But hypothetically, If nothing else changed he is still going down.

The alibi is still false and he is an accessory after the fact.

As I tried to impress with the issue of C's evidence and my early mention of Maccavity - Having spare alibis doesn't work in court.

.

 

[katy_did]

Mockingjay, you are. LOL.

And now my faith in my ability to understand randomly cryptic comments is restored, even if they don't explicitly and inexplicably refer to topless page 3 girls. Thanks.

 

[quadraginta]

You claim to be a skeptic, but it seems there are some things about which you have no skepticism at all. In fact for you these possibilities can under no circumstances be considered. Let me enumerate them for you.

1) Any possibility that the Italian justic system could be in any way in error or at fault in the Amanda Knox case, despite Italy's abysmal rank of 67 in the 2010 World Corruption IndexCorruption Perceptions Index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

<snip>

ftfy