• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you really think that the average Italian cares what an American city names a park?

I don't think the average Italian or even 1% of Italians care what happens to AK or RS at all. I do think the people of Perugia were shocked when the experienced blowback. People in Italy were assured that the FOA didn't speak for Seattle and that an overwhelming majority supported the Umbrian justice system. They now discover they were lied to. This is a real honest to god international incident, though so far not a very serious one.

And I think the media and the politicians were pretty clear on that level of surprise, I take Mayor Boccali at his word. I think they have been caught off guard and I think Rocco Girlanda has a lot more credibility than he had a few months ago in arguing this is a big deal.

And frankly it is going to stay a big deal. As long as Amanda Knox is in prison Italy loses its ability to argue for any notion of international standards of justice. What right does Italy have to complain about Ceseare Battisti if every country can treat criminal justice as just naked power?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how you extrapolate that from what I said. I'm certain that police and forensic technicians all over the world could be guilty of incidental contamination (if the term "incidental contamination" means to you what it means to me).

You seem to be making up my beliefs as it suits you so you can argue against them. I don't know why.

Originally Posted by billyryan
the police collected a knife from Raffaele house took it to the police station,took it out of whatever container it was in rubbed the blade on something belonging to Meredith and the handle on something belonging to Amanda then repackaged it and sent it to Stefanoni to test,

You replied: I'm afraid I don't believe that for a moment.

My extrapolation was that the word 'that' highlighted in you reply [given above] referred to 'took it out of whatever container it was in rubbed the blade on something belonging to Meredith and the handle on something belonging to Amanda then repackaged it and sent it to Stefanoni to test'. I thought you were implying that none of the police would ever deliberately contaminate evidence.

My appologies for thinking that you were skeptical that the police would ever 'plant' evidence.
 
I do think the people of Perugia were shocked when the experienced blowback.

What blowback? A few people wrote a few books and made some money. There are a couple of movies coming out and blogs, and Internet forums discussing the case. How has any of this changed anything that has happened in the court room the past 3+ years?

As long as Amanda Knox is in prison Italy loses its ability to argue for any notion of international standards of justice. What right does Italy have to complain about Ceseare Battisti if every country can treat criminal justice as just naked power?

Just how does Italy "loose this ability"?
 
Danceme,

No reference prints were taken from Laura or Filomena, so they might have a similar foot size to Amanda, for all we know.

This is said over and over on this forum with no proof that it is at all true. In Darkness Descending it says footprints and fingerprints were taken from all roommates and the investigators. Who is correct?

The bloodstains show that she was still wearing the bra when the mortal wound was inflicted, but the bloodstains also show that it was removed or at least pushed above her breasts while blood was still spraying from the wound in her throat. Removing the bra, even after she had ceased to struggle, would not have been as simple as unhooking it, because he never completely removed the two shirts she was wearing. To get the bra completely off without removing the shirts, he had to sever the shoulder straps, as indeed he did, and the photos show that these were torn rather than cut with a knife.

I thought only one shoulder strap was cut. Were both straps cut? Also, were Meredith's arms still inside the pushed up t-shirt or were they out of the armholes? If her arms were still inside, the bra cannot be removed unless he cuts both straps, unless, from behind, he yanks very hard at the strap but the clasp doesn't give way so he cuts it at this area. Then he has to cut one shoulder strap and pull the bra off her body by pulling it through the other armhole.

Okay .. I think I found it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tH-klo4nGQ

If that is really Meredith and Guede that is frightening and damning.

I always found it curious "Rudy" is walking from within the parking garage.

Does anyone know where the entry point is for him to be able to access this garage and walk through it to arrive at the gate opposite the cottage?

I think it is pretty simple Matthew Best,the police collected a knife from Raffaele house took it to the police station,took it out of whatever container it was in rubbed the blade on something belonging to Meredith and the handle on something belonging to Amanda then repackaged it and sent it to Stefanoni to test,the blood that would have soaked into the handle if it was involved in a murder,if the outburst of Camodi and the Kerchers lawyer was not just an act,was not taken care of at the time and has not been possible since

Words fail!

Was there really an objection with any kind of merit or did the prosecution just object that retesting the knife would be a waste of the courts time? I'm worried that they already know what the results are going to be and the objection was just for show. The prosecution has had that knife in their possession for 3 years and we already know that certain police officers are willing to open sealed evidence bags containing knives for no justifiable reason.

Dan, we do not know a "sealed evidence bag" was opened. IIRC, we know that the knife was taken from an envelope and placed in a box for shipment to Rome. It says nothing about it also being removed from it's "sealed evidence bag", which it was supposedly in before putting it in the envelope, and then the box.

Must admit that I'm not quite convinced on this one. The strap at the back is the strongest part of a bra, where all the support comes from - I think it would be very difficult to tear it. Those things are feats of engineering. If someone tried to tear it (even more difficult if it was being worn at the time) it would most likely just stretch, not tear. It may have been cut, then torn off completely perhaps.

The bra clasp is clearly cut from the strap. As katy-did noted, this is a very strong area of a bra. It's constantly under tension, and it won't just rip without a lot of force which would also shred the fabric, not make a clean line as shown in the pdf of Hendry's report. The clasp area is not added to a bra, it is an integral part of the material. The backstrap material is inside the clasp area with reinforcing fabric sewn over it to make it strong and to hold the hooks, also sewn in.

The way the metal hook is bent out of shape looks to me like it was pulled with great force. Or stepped on. Or both.

Stepping on it won't bend it out of shape, especially with a sneaker. Pulled with great force seems the most likely.

Look at the photos here:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Meredith_Kercher_murder_reconstruction_graphic_-_Ron_Hendry.pdf

You can zoom in because the resolution embedded in the pdf is almost as good as the original photos.

Zooming in is what convinced me Hendry is completely and utterly wrong on the clasp being torn and not cut. How can he possibly say he believes it was torn! Look at the picture yourself and compare it to a bra's actual construction. That nice straight line is a cut mark. These things are near if not impossible to tear.

For the record I also think he's wrong on the boots under the bed as I posted before.

What is his motivation for making these conclusions which clearly defy all logic? Is it incompetence perhaps? After all, lots of other experts have been accused of such.


The point I am trying to make, but losing, is how easily everyone on here believes this Ron Hendry guy because he is spouting what you guys (and girls) wants to hear. To say how inept the investigators in Perugia were concerning the bra strap because 'Ron Hendry' say's something different, just isn't right because he was not there, he did not have a chance to hold or look at it under a microscope or test it any way he may have wanted to, instead he looked at pictures like the ones we can all see. His view should be worth about the same as any of ours, but sadly, it is not so.

Ron Hendry is not correct on several things I've already noted. I agree, his view is worth no more than one of ours. I see several things very differently than he does and in my opinion it is Ron Hendry who is wrong.
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to get a bad feeling about Hellman. Why on Earth would he not want these scientists to find out the truth?

All that glitters is not gold. Is this going to be like the 'instant replay' in football where the replay has to be conclusive in order to over-turn the original verdict?
 
That may be. I don't think we can say for sure, though, that Senator Cantwell has not met with Secretary Clinton about this. We don't know what's going on behind closed doors. And we don't know what kind of negotiations go on between countries. Maybe the U.S. State Department made the Perugian legal system an offer it couldn't refuse. ;)

Perhaps, but I can't see how United States interference in this case would in anyway benefit the United States. We have good relations with Italy, we need Italy as an ally and there is no legal grounds in the United States or internationally in which to justify interference in the legal system of another democracy.

Even if Secretary Clinton did get involved, what would be her argument? Was Amanda Knox framed? Yes! Well maybe, I don't know. Is the conviction based on incompetence? Yes! Well maybe, I don't know. It's kinda hard to get politicians on your side if your not sure what you're really arguing.
 
Alt-F4 I'm not sure whether you are deliberately misquoting me or just forgetting your own arguments. I think you should reread your own context.

The question is regarding what happens to a transfer from Italy. There is no law for transferring prisoners from Italy directly. The executive can do whatever they want. If she comes Italy -> UK -> USA there is a treaty and then again the Federal government can do whatever they want.

In terms of pardons. Of course the president can't directly pardon someone in an Italian court. Nor can he pardon someone in a state court, he can only pardon people in the courts over which he exercises jurisdiction. No one has ever argued that they can. You were arguing before that Presidents didn't pardon people of US crimes / US prison based on US Senator's making a request "nowhere in the western world" and I gave a clear counter example. That was your argument, that was the counter. Stop trying to misrepresent the point in dispute.
 
And frankly it is going to stay a big deal. As long as Amanda Knox is in prison Italy loses its ability to argue for any notion of international standards of justice. What right does Italy have to complain about Ceseare Battisti if every country can treat criminal justice as just naked power?

Just how does Italy "loose this ability"?

Assume they do nothing. Knox stays in prison over US objections. Italy has now indicated that they feel free to ignore other what other countries request of them when it comes to international norms of justice. That's very much like US policy or Iran's policy so it is not unreasonable.

For example I believe there is an Italian on death row in CA and they want a voice. What's their argument going to be? Well we get to screw over any American we get our hands on and ignore you, but when one of ours is in your courts... They simply have no argument anymore.

Italy has been a leader in the protest against things like torture undermining international justice. Well they no longer stand for international standards of justice. They had a clear opportunity when they were on the other side to take a stand and ultimately they said, "nah, we'd rather keep the American in a cage".

Conversely if they release her. Making a claim that "we will not hold a citizen of the United states over the objections of the United States, even though we believe her to be guilty of murder" that says a lot. It would open up a dialogue at the very least with the State of Washington regarding implementing many of the changes that Italy has been working for in US law for more than a generation.
 
What blowback? A few people wrote a few books and made some money. There are a couple of movies coming out and blogs, and Internet forums discussing the case. How has any of this changed anything that has happened in the court room the past 3+ years?

The DNA 'evidence' is going to be reviewed, and the 'witness' who broke their alibi for the murder is being challenged by evidence that conflicts with his account. The prosecution may very well have to present a case without any trace whatsoever of the defendants at the murder site, no murder weapon, no witnesses to them being anywhere near the scene with a potentially embarrassing revelation of at least one and possibly three 'superwitnesses,' and try to come up with a motive that is better that something bizarre, nonexistent or amounts to little more that what many roommates and some married couples would have.

The footprint on the bathmat will have to be compared to Rudy Guede's foot as well as Raffaele's, there will be no confusion as to if the bare footprints tested negative for blood. Not to mention the possibility of recovered computer data showing activity all through the night.

As a result of all this, reporters will be looking at the court with more skepticism than last time, which I think can be summed up by an article I saw where the celebrity-seeking twit testified and was refuted by three sources yet it was accepted by the court and the headline read something to the effect of 'witness refutes Knox testimony!' This time it might be more along the lines of: 'Prosecution witness discredited on stand!'

All of this got past the last court, and might well have gotten past this one had there been no uproar or outrage.
 
Last edited:
That is what Mignini will argue. We could see this setup long ago when certain aspects of the case were brought up in Guede's trial that had no barring on Guede's guilt and would not be argued against by any of the lawyers present.

If this court is to serve justice it will not accept the findings argued in other courts where the defendants were not represented.
Dan O my point is can the defence argue against the ruling of the highest court in Italy ruling? It goes without saying that the prosecution will use any evidence that has been accepted in Guede's trial and appeals.
 
And I'm not saying "magic" senate powers. Just standard senate powers: making holds, filing a filibuster, denying unanimous consent, objecting to motions to procede. The sort of stuff Senators do to exercise tremendous power everyday on hundreds of issues. This doesn't require magic powers. That's the point, this is not even challenging for a Senator. ... AIG funding, so that payments aren't made on claims of Italian banks until AK is freed.

Cantwell and the other 99 senators would let AK rot in prison for life before they tried anything like this.

So now we aren't talking about magical powers anymore but the kinds of riders Senators can do. So we before we move on from "can she" to "will she" I just want to point out this shift. She doesn't need magic powers, all she needs to do is the sort of stuff Senators do all the time about things they care about like the interests of donors or corporations in their district.

Now I happen to agree that its unlikely that Cantwell actually cares about AK. But she might. Senators can and quite often have pet causes. The Bridge to Nowhere is a perfect example, Stevens didn't like having to take the ferry to Ketchikan.

You seem to believe that she
a) Is grandstanding
b) Is ignorant
c) Doesn't mean what she says
d) Would never carry through on a threat

My read on Senator Cantwell from her time in office is
a) She is soft spoken
b) She is generally well informed
c) She means what she says
d) Would evaluate appropriate actions based on her beliefs of what was in interests of the people of Washington.

So far the people of Washington have considered this trial a farce and have request mild pressure be applied. Once it becomes clear that the options for the US are

-- leave AK to rot in an Italian jail for decades
-- up the pressure

My point is if I'm the Italians I'd want to find out now given that we now both agree Cantwell can if she chooses up the pressure a lot.
 
Dan O my point is can the defence argue against the ruling of the highest court in Italy ruling? It goes without saying that the prosecution will use any evidence that has been accepted in Guede's trial and appeals.

What 'evidence?' Did Rudy testify against Raffaele and Amanda in his trial?
 
Dan O my point is can the defence argue against the ruling of the highest court in Italy ruling? It goes without saying that the prosecution will use any evidence that has been accepted in Guede's trial and appeals.

They can't. There's a legal jargon word for this which i can't recall right now but basically each trial has to stand on its own merits and the results or evidence in one person's trial can't be used in another, hence the ludicrous result with the two different times of death in Micheli and Massei.
 
The question is regarding what happens to a transfer from Italy. There is no law for transferring prisoners from Italy directly. The executive can do whatever they want. If she comes Italy -> UK -> USA there is a treaty and then again the Federal government can do whatever they want.

While there is no direct prisoner transfer treaty between the United States and Italy the federal government can't "do whatever they want" even if a prisoner transfer is done through a third country.

The U.S. Department of Justice has strict regulations regarding eligibility, arrangements and how the prisoner's sentence is administered. You can read about it here:

http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/treaty/treaty_1989.html

In terms of pardons. Of course the president can't directly pardon someone in an Italian court. Nor can he pardon someone in a state court, he can only pardon people in the courts over which he exercises jurisdiction. No one has ever argued that they can. You were arguing before that Presidents didn't pardon people of US crimes / US prison based on US Senator's making a request "nowhere in the western world" and I gave a clear counter example. That was your argument, that was the counter. Stop trying to misrepresent the point in dispute.

Read your own posts! In post 2072 you said that if Amanda was in a federal prison in the U.S. the President could pardon her. Wrong.

In regard to what is done "no where in the western world" was in reference to your suggestion that:

If I were Giorgio Napolitano I would have pardoned Knox as a matter of curtsy once Cantwell raised a public objection.

No where in that post did I say anything about Americans being pardoned for crimes in America.
 
Last edited:
They can't. There's a legal jargon word for this which i can't recall right now but basically each trial has to stand on its own merits and the results or evidence in one person's trial can't be used in another, hence the ludicrous result with the two different times of death in Micheli and Massei.

What I don't understand is how can RG's conviction of murder with other persons can stand if AK and RS are found not guilty in the appeal. Did RG's conviction say that he committed the murder with other persons or was AK and RS mentioned specifically?
 
What I don't understand is how can RG's conviction of murder with other persons can stand if AK and RS are found not guilty in the appeal. Did RG's conviction say that he committed the murder with other persons or was AK and RS mentioned specifically?

How can AK and RS have been convicted in the first place since Judge Micheli and superwitness Curatolo give them a rock solid alibi for Micheli's time of death which is 10:30 pm?
 
How can AK and RS have been convicted in the first place since Judge Micheli and superwitness Curatolo give them a rock solid alibi for Micheli's time of death which is 10:30 pm?

How does the Italian system work? Can defendents in separate trials be convicted on contrary evidence?
 
What 'evidence?' Did Rudy testify against Raffaele and Amanda in his trial?
I don't know about any evidence, none of us know as the report for Guede final appeal has not ben published, although I believe Judge Micheli report of Guede short term trial concluded that Guede along with others wwas responsible for Meredith murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom