• 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.
Sherlock Holmes said:
Well, if Meredith's window works the same, then Rudy wouldn't have to put his hand thru the glass at all to reach the latch, 1/2 the window is already open.
Click to expand...
If the window is half open, why does he have to throw a rock through it? Or have I misunderstood something here?
 
Mary_H said:
It doesn't matter what Amanda did or did not ask for. The police and the prosecutor were bound by law to provide Amanda with a lawyer once she became a suspect, and to videotape any interrogations thereafter.
Click to expand...
Is this a case of anything gathered otherwise is illegally collected and breaks some law... in which case what consequences are supposed to follow from this illegal behaviour, or is it just inadmissable? It would help my understanding of your position if you could make this clear.

Mary_H said:
It was illegal and unethical for them to accept anything from her when she did not have a lawyer. They can't claim a lawyer had been summoned and was on the way, unless he lived so far away that it took him three or four days to get to the questura.
Click to expand...
Was it illegal to accept the gift the next day? Also, do you mean illegal in the sense of having broken the law rather than that any such evidence would be inadmissable?
 
treehorn said:
PMF is a wonderful resource for case information, but I'm also interested in what the 'brighter lights' of the 'innocentisti' have to say. I want to see what their arguments are made of, so to speak.
Click to expand...
They are a good resource for an alternative perspective as you say. Of course, it is also partisan and many posters are invested in their viewpoint in the discussion part of the site. The great success of PMF is that it managed to separate of the evidence collection activity from people spouting their points of view.

What happened to the translation of Massei report that the pro-Knox camp were working on?
 
It's a puzzle. Why have Amanda and Raffaele not ever acknowledged that Rudi was the lone killer. Or just the killer. When Raffaele uttered the single word Justice, why didn't he say: The killer is already convicted. It was Rudi, we had nothing to do with it. Strange, that.
 
capealadin said:
It's a puzzle. Why have Amanda and Raffaele not ever acknowledged that Rudi was the lone killer. Or just the killer. When Raffaele uttered the single word Justice, why didn't he say: The killer is already convicted. It was Rudi, we had nothing to do with it. Strange, that.
Click to expand...
Why would they, what would it achieve?

There was a lot of argument once that Amanda couldn't say that what she had told the police about Patrick killing Amanda was false, because not having been there she couldn't know that what she had said was false... (doubtless others will remember this differently). By the same token they can't know that Rudy did it without having been there.
 
shuttlt said:
Is this a case of anything gathered otherwise is illegally collected and breaks some law... in which case what consequences are supposed to follow from this illegal behaviour, or is it just inadmissable? It would help my understanding of your position if you could make this clear.

Was it illegal to accept the gift the next day? Also, do you mean illegal in the sense of having broken the law rather than that any such evidence would be inadmissable?
Click to expand...


My position is that it was illegal; I don't know what the Supreme Court's position was. They ruled it inadmissible on the grounds Amanda didn't have a lawyer, as required by law. There don't seem to be any consequences for the police or the prosecutor for having broken the law.
 
capealadin said:
It's a puzzle. Why have Amanda and Raffaele not ever acknowledged that Rudi was the lone killer. Or just the killer. When Raffaele uttered the single word Justice, why didn't he say: The killer is already convicted. It was Rudi, we had nothing to do with it. Strange, that.
Click to expand...


How do Amanda and Raffaele know who the killer is? They weren't there; they know nothing about Rudy's activities that night.
 
Mary_H said:
My position is that it was illegal
Click to expand...
Based on what, this surely isn't an arbitrary judgement based on what you thing should be illegal? Are you going on somebody else's claim that this is the case, if so whose?
 
shuttlt said:
Based on what, this surely isn't an arbitrary judgement based on what you thing should be illegal? Are you going on somebody else's claim that this is the case, if so whose?
Click to expand...


I'm basing my deduction on what the two Italian lawyers I cited last night said about the law. If the law wasn't broken, then why were the statements ruled inadmissible? I'm not trying to make a claim here; I don't know for a fact that the prosecutor or police were charged with breaking the law. It just seems like they should have been.
 
Last edited:
capealadin said:
But now they know he was convicted. They didn't have to be there.
Click to expand...


I believe their appeal makes the case that Rudy committed the crime. Other than that, it isn't really Amanda and Raffaele's concern, is it? Especially if what we have heard is true -- that Italian culture frowns upon blaming other people for something one is accused of.
 
Mary_H said:
I'm basing my deduction on what the two Italian lawyers I cited last night said about the law. If the law wasn't broken, then why were the statements ruled inadmissible? I'm not trying to make a claim here; I don't know for a fact that the prosecutor or police were charged with breaking the law. It just seems like they should have been.
Click to expand...
So for you, when ever evidence is ruled inadmissible, it is because the law has been broken?
 
capealadin said:
Rudi, after all, accused Amanda and Raffaele of killing Meredith.
Click to expand...


I'm just guessing, but it might not have been as frowned upon, because he didn't exclude himself at the same time, which is what Amanda and Raffaele have to do to accuse Rudy.
 
Mary, I'm sure you know this. There are three main reasons of inadmissibility. 1) Authenticity. 2) relevancy) 3) competancy
 
Last edited:
WHY have they not said anything about Rudi accusing them? Rudi said he was in the bathroom at the time of the murder. Rudi has been convicted. They would surely be entitled to say the killer has been convicted. But, not a peep.
 
capealadin said:
Mary, I'm sure you know this. There are three main reasons of inadmissibility. 1) Authenticity. 2) relevancy) 3) competancy
Click to expand...
Is evidence being prejudicial included in there? I'm sure that came up in Perry Mason a few times.
 
capealadin said:
Mary, I'm sure you know this. There are three main reasons of inadmissibility. 1) Authenticity. 2) relevancy) 30 competancy
Click to expand...


No, I didn't know that, so thanks. I believe in this case, the reason Amanda's statements were ruled inadmissible is because they were obtained from a suspect who had not been read her rights or provided with a lawyer.
 
capealadin said:
WHY have they not said anything about Rudi accusing them? Rudi said he was in the bathroom at the time of the murder. Rudi has been convicted. They would surely be entitled to say the killer has been convicted. But, not a peep.
Click to expand...


I guess you'll have to look at the appeals to see how the arguments about Rudy are presented.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom