• 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.
Amnesty International Reports; Raffaele's interrogation

Kaosium said:
One thing I never got to the bottom of is what can actually be done about a case of police misconduct in Italy? There must be some recourse, right?
Click to expand...

kaosium,

Some time ago I may have provided links to Amnesty International reports on Italy circa 2007-2008. I am not sure if this is the same link I previously gave or not, but the 2007 report said:

"There was no independent police complaints and accountability body. Policing operations were not in line with the European Code of Police Ethics, for example in the requirement for officers to display prominently some form of identification, such as a service number, to ensure they could be held accountable."

The 2008 report said, "Italy continued to lack an effective police accountability mechanism. There were irregularities in legal processes against law enforcement officials accused of human rights violations."

nopoirot,

All one has is indirect evidence about Raffaele's interrogation. He claims to have asked about a lawyer and also asked to stop the interrogation so that he could speak to his father. We also know that Dr. Giobbi wanted to bring them both in. My question is why.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
You are saying that the local definition of "guilter" is anyone who hasn't made up their mind about the case, and this definition would thus exclude anyone who is convinced of guilt. This is ludicrous on its face. :eek:
Click to expand...


No, I didn't. If that is what you think you read then we are not sharing a common language.

I did say that the local definition of "guilter" often (usually?) seems to be anyone who offers statements suggesting she may not be innocent. If the difference escapes you we can try and work on your comprehension.

The only sensible meaning that "guilter" can possibly have is "people who think that Knox & Sollecito are guilty".
Click to expand...


Whether or not there is actually a "sensible" definition of "guilter" is a question all its own. Somehow I doubt that it would even be possible to arrive at a consensus about that within this thread. There certainly hasn't been one which has been employed here.

The term is normally, if not exclusively used by Knox advocates, and when used by self-described "innocentisti" (How's that, LJ :D) it is almost always used as a description of someone who has not wholeheartedly committed themselves to a fundamental belief in Knox's innocence. Generally as an derogatory one.

Sorry, dude. That's just the way it is. It's silly to try and claim otherwise. Any dispassionate observer of these threads is going to come to the same conclusion.

I don't even understand why you are so defensive about it.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Hi all...trying to catch up here. Has the appeals court made a determination on the Naruto claim and the statments of Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello? Thanks.
Click to expand...

No, that has been reserved for later. The first order of business is the DNA re-tests, which includes a review of the methods used to obtain them. Also new witnesses will be introduced to refute Curatolo's claim that he saw Raffaele and Amanda on the night of November first.

It has been speculated that if the DNA evidence is thrown out, and Curatolo discredited, that there simply isn't reason to go on, being as there will be no trace of them at the site whatsoever, and nothing to break their alibi.

At the same time Maresca was saying that the final conviction of Rudy Guede will doom Amanda and Raffaele as he was convicted under the assumption that he had accomplices. Others say that the motivations report on that trial must be issued first to see what determinations of that nature were actually considered by the Supreme Court.



http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/12/dna-study-admitted-for-knox-and.html

Until the last point. Pratillo Hellmann admitted the review of the DNA on knife and bra clasp, and appointed Professors Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, who are both form the University of Rome. The exception was founded.

And everybody --Amanda, Raffaele and their families-- broke into tears. They probably never suspected that one day, for them, happiness would be found in a DNA review. Survivors’ joy, we may call it...
Who knows what Vecchiotti & Conti are going to say, they may even confirm everything. But it’s important that the impressive series of No, distributed at every stage of this twisted judicial story, was finally interrupted. Hellmann really looks a man who wants to make things clear...
See how easy it was, Giancarlo? Science never hurt anyone. What could be the problem in having a new, qualified, independent opinion?

Pratillo Hellmann also admitted the discotheque witnesses, who will come to testify that on November 1st their clubs were closed, so to support the defense hypothesis that the bum Curatolo was wrong in seeing Amanda and Raffaele while the buses were leaving for the clubs; it must have been another day.
Curatolo had already stumbled into other murky details, and his testimony made no sense at all. But still they believed him. They believed him because they wanted to believe him.
This time, discotheque buses or not, a man who wants to make things clear (the judge), will hopefully get rid of this poor lunatic, who has been making fun of the whole court. And at least now, this institution will be respected.

The judge reserved the right to decide --after the results of the DNA study-- about the stain on the pillow, the jail witnesses, the audiometric test and other requests. DNA comes first. As Maori pointed out: Now the trial starts. A long trial, with the lovebirds still attending it from jail.
Click to expand...
 
a suggestion on terminology

To all,

I suggest "pro-guilt" for those who believe that Knox and Sollecito are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and "pro-innocence" for those that do not. Pro-innocence would then refer to legal innocence and would imply that the convictions were unsafe (if I understand this term correctly). Just at the moment, I cannot think of a separate term to denote factual innocence, but "innocentisti" is OK with me. I object to FOAKer on several grounds, not the least of which is that it does not include Mr. Sollecito.
 
Raffaele Sollecito

Onofarar said:
With regard to your last point (#8) - there have been many unflattering comments about Raffaelle and how his actions were naive, stupid, drug induced etc. But one thing you have to admire him for is his support of what AK did and where she was as he knew it before Nov 5th and to which he returned shortly after Nov 6th.
Had he just thrown Amanda to the "wolves" and agreed with the police she had left the cottage that night he would be a free man today and would be firmly esconed in the parthenon of "superwitnesses" with Toto, Mr. Q and Nara C.
Click to expand...

Onofarar,

Good point. I had not thought of that.
 
quadraginta said:
No, I didn't. If that is what you think you read then we are not sharing a common language.
Click to expand...

I can't be held responsible for your incapacity to understand the very words you posted. You said that the local definition of a "guilter" is "Anyone who is not utterly convinced of Knox and Sollecito's total innocence or complicity". In other words, anyone who hasn't made up their mind whether they are guilty or innocent. I know it's stupid, but it's what you said. It's hardly fair to blame me for it. :D
 
The guilter song

On the Twelfth day of Christmas,
My true prosecutor gave to me:
Twelve policemen drumming
Eleven rags a piping
Ten drunks a-leaping
Nine reporters dancing
Eight lawyers a-milking
Seven sites a-swimming
Six detectives a-laying
Five false theories
Four calling parents
Three conspiring villains
Two murder knives
And a body in the apart-ment.
 
halides1 said:
To all,

I suggest "pro-guilt" for those who believe that Knox and Sollecito are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and "pro-innocence" for those that do not. Pro-innocence would then refer to legal innocence and would imply that the convictions were unsafe (if I understand this term correctly). Just at the moment, I cannot think of a separate term to denote factual innocence, but "innocentisti" is OK with me. I object to FOAKer on several grounds, not the least of which is that it does not include Mr. Sollecito.
Click to expand...


Good luck with compliance.

Whatcha got for people who haven't found it needful to "believe" anything either way?
 
Matthew Best said:
I can't be held responsible for your incapacity to understand the very words you posted. You said that the local definition of a "guilter" is "Anyone who is not utterly convinced of Knox and Sollecito's total innocence or complicity". In other words, anyone who hasn't made up their mind whether they are guilty or innocent. I know it's stupid, but it's what you said. It's hardly fair to blame me for it. :D
Click to expand...


Whoops. Typo.

"total innocence or of complicity"

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

ETA: Too late to correct the original. Your diligence will cover that, though.
 
Last edited:
I am a six sigma innocentisti.
The PMF are six sigma guilters.

"total innocence of complicity"

Finally caught that eh?
 
Last edited:
Kaosium said:
No, that has been reserved for later. The first order of business is the DNA re-tests, which includes a review of the methods used to obtain them. Also new witnesses will be introduced to refute Curatolo's claim that he saw Raffaele and Amanda on the night of November first.

It has been speculated that if the DNA evidence is thrown out, and Curatolo discredited, that there simply isn't reason to go on, being as there will be no trace of them at the site whatsoever, and nothing to break their alibi.

At the same time Maresca was saying that the final conviction of Rudy Guede will doom Amanda and Raffaele as he was convicted under the assumption that he had accomplices. Others say that the motivations report on that trial must be issued first to see what determinations of that nature were actually considered by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Ah, thank you for the information. Hopefully the review of the DNA evidence won't drag on for months and months.
 
Dan O. said:
One of the PMF posters was in court in the day that the interpreter Anna Donnino testified. Stewart reported that Anna testified that Amanda was shown the text of Patricks message and asked: "did you see this sms? did you respond?"

This is evidence that ILE had Patrick's side of the message. Of course, someone may be in error or even lying, you don't have to believe it but now you are aware of it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. It could have happened, I suppose. I'll add it to my general confusion about every damn detail of the case.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Why is any term needed at all?
Click to expand...

Actually I thought we already had some agreement on terms for both sides

innocentisti = the verdicts should be overturned
colpevolisti = the verdicts should stand

Those are the plural nouns - change the ending "i" to "a" for singular.
 
Chris C said:
Plus Rudy could walk if its not his.
Click to expand...
Is this likely? For months people have argued how incredible it is that Amanda and Raffaele could have been involved and left so little forensic evidence, yet you are happy to believe that the semen could belong to the real killer?
 
shuttlt said:
Doesn't this depend completely on the owner of the aleged semen?
Click to expand...

Yes. If it's Sollecito's semen, Sollecito (and almost certainly Knox too) will stand rightfully convicted. If it's Guede's semen, then this mitigates very badly against Guede's current version of his story, and - if anything - supports the theory that he was the lone attacker. If it's an as-yet-unidentified man's semen, the whole case gets thrown into disarray, and even Guede's guilt comes under the microscope. If it's Silenzi's semen, or if it's not semen at all, then nothing changes.

What seems totally and utterly obvious is that the stain should be tested, and that it should have been tested before the first trial. There is simply no god reason not to test it - at worst it will not add any new significant information, but at best it could be very important.

PS My personal suspicion is that it's either Guede's semen or Meredith's saliva, with Guede's semen being the more likely.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
Ah, thank you for the information. Hopefully the review of the DNA evidence won't drag on for months and months.
Click to expand...

It was originally scheduled for January 15th, but the unavailability of one of the reviewers pushed that back to January 22nd, which will be the next court date.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom