Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

Alt+F4,

I agree, but my point was more generally that there are sometimes legitimate reasons for the family of the accused to go public with information.

True, but there was no legitimate reason in this case which makes the Sollecitos a bunch of sick, disgusting exploiters.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

An article from the UK Independent which in the past has supported Amanda and Raffaele, with the usual mixture of for and against posts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/setback-for-knox-appeal-2226091.html#disqus_thread

 

[Chris_Halkides]

check your premises

True, but there was no legitimate reason in this case which makes the Sollecitos a bunch of sick, disgusting exploiters.

Alt+F4,

Your premise is faulty, and therefore your conclusion is hopelessly wrong.

 

[el buscador]

Frank Sfarzo says in the comments section of his most current article:

"I think people who follow this case are giving too much importance to this Supreme Court sentence.

First of all I want to remind what I had already noticed, when I called the SC the sentence factory. The SC rules on 7/8 cases a day, so we understand that, more or less, every judge of the panel takes one case and writes the motivations by himself, maybe with the part-time collaboration of another one, no more. That's why we find mistakes in SC motivations, like we noticed already in the first SC intervention about Amanda and Raffaele, the one of April 2008.

The SC doesn't have to treat the case in itself, its work is just checking the REASONING of the previous judgement. And when the case is not important they do it quite quickly.

In this case they needed to judge the ruling about Rudi and they judged the ruling about Rudi. They certainly won't add work to themselves, they don't go into the business of Amanda and Raffaele. They don't even know who they are.

I understand that you guys think this is the case of the century, but I can guarantee you that in Italy it's not at all like this. It's just a killed girl like thousand of others. Especially for the SC judges, who are busy with important stuff, like how many photocopy machines to send in a little court of a little town.

The case of a politician who stops with a transvestite or who pays a girl is much more important. For that the SC would work for a month...

Trust me that everyone of you guys knows the case better than the SC judge who wrote the document, for not to speak about the others in the panel, who don't know anything about that...

Then I remind again that in Italy judges have in high regard the SC rulings, but they are NOT OBLIGATED to follow them. The SC rulings are not law."

 

[Dan O.]

Then I remind again that in Italy judges have in high regard the SC rulings, but they are NOT OBLIGATED to follow them. The SC rulings are not law."

That's a good reminder. It seems that many are interpreting that because the Court of Cassation is called a supreme court that it's function is somehow the same as the Supreme Courts of the US or UK.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

That's a good reminder. It seems that many are interpreting that because the Court of Cassation is called a supreme court that it's function is somehow the same as the Supreme Courts of the US or UK.

I would agree that Supreme Court judge’s ruling on final appeals is to ensure that the Criminal Penal Codes and protocols have been followed correctly in the trial and first appeal. However, their ruling is the highest ruling in Italy, therefore, once they have made a ruling that is the end of the Italian judicial process. For example Guede cannot appeal against the Supreme Court decison.

 

[LondonJohn]

I do not believe it has been a good 10 days or so for the defence, whatever way people want to write this up the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling is a setback for Amanda and Raffaele, simply because it ruled that Guede and others were responsible for Meredith murder. According to Vogt’s article stated
Whilst Dempsey states
Pay your money take your choice, the fact stills remains the highest court in Italy has ruled that Guede and others murdered Meredith.

But the critically important judicial point is that the rulings concerning Guede should have absolutely ZERO effect upon the rulings for Knox and Sollecito. This is in effect what the Supreme Court was explicitly saying in its ruling.

It's immaterial to any judgement of Knox and Sollecito that the rulings in Guede's trials found that he participated as one of a group. Just as it's immaterial that the rulings in Guede's trials found that the time of death was before 10.30pm - in total contradiction to the findings of the first court in Knox's/Sollecito's trial.

So you, and Vogt, are wrong in your reasoning that the Supreme Court's rulings have any potential negative ramifications for Knox's and Sollecito's appeals. Frankly, I hoped for better quality of journalism from someone like Vogt, but I guess a hack is a hack is a hack (especially when one is self-employed and paid per article)...

 

[CoulsdonUK]

But the critically important judicial point is that the rulings concerning Guede should have absolutely ZERO effect upon the rulings for Knox and Sollecito. This is in effect what the Supreme Court was explicitly saying in its ruling.

It's immaterial to any judgement of Knox and Sollecito that the rulings in Guede's trials found that he participated as one of a group. Just as it's immaterial that the rulings in Guede's trials found that the time of death was before 10.30pm - in total contradiction to the findings of the first court in Knox's/Sollecito's trial.

So you, and Vogt, are wrong in your reasoning that the Supreme Court's rulings have any potential negative ramifications for Knox's and Sollecito's appeals. Frankly, I hoped for better quality of journalism from someone like Vogt, but I guess a hack is a hack is a hack (especially when one is self-employed and paid per article)...

It is a setback because the defence can no longer state that Guede was the sole perpetrator, it is a setback because no else has been arrested and sent to trial for Meredith’s murder apart from Amanda, Guede and Raffaele, this isn’t my personal opinion or interpretation these are facts that are supported by a number of independent reliable sources other than Vogt.

Now if you and others want to state that Amanda and Raffaele fate will be decided in the current appeal, then yes I would agree.

 

[Dan O.]

I would agree that Supreme Court judge’s ruling on final appeals is to ensure that the Criminal Penal Codes and protocols have been followed correctly in the trial and first appeal. However, their ruling is the highest ruling in Italy, therefore, once they have made a ruling that is the end of the Italian judicial process. For example Guede cannot appeal against the Supreme Court decison.

It is a setback because the defence can no longer state that Guede was the sole perpetrator, it is a setback because no else has been arrested and sent to trial for Meredith’s murder apart from Amanda, Guede and Raffaele, this isn’t my personal opinion or interpretation these are facts that are supported by a number of independent reliable sources other than Vogt.

This is weird. It's like there are two different users of that account. In one post he is agreeing that the rulings of the Italian Supreme Court apply only to the case being ruled on and in the next he reverts to applying the ruling to other cases.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

This is weird. It's like there are two different users of that account. In one post he is agreeing that the rulings of the Italian Supreme Court apply only to the case being ruled on and in the next he reverts to applying the ruling to other cases.

Ding ding seconds away round 2!

The first comment I am referring to the legal ruling of the Supreme Court, in the second I provide two examples of “why” Amanda and Raffaele's defence teams would view the ruling as a setback.

One covers what I believe is the legal scope of the Supreme Court the other covers the defence in Amanda and Raffaele current appeal.

 

[Dan O.]

Ding ding seconds away round 2!

The first comment I am referring to the legal ruling of the Supreme Court, in the second I provide two examples of “why” Amanda and Raffaele's defence teams would view the ruling as a setback.

One covers what I believe is the legal scope of the Supreme Court the other covers the defence in Amanda and Raffaele current appeal.

Your argument fell apart before you even posted it. The cases are tried separately. The supreme court rulings are not rulings on the facts of the case. The rulings in one case have no bearing on the other cases except as they pertain to legal procedures such as the ruling that Amanda's 1:45 statement could not be used for any purpose because it was a violation of the rights of the suspect.

 

[Katody Matrass]

It is a setback because the defence can no longer state that Guede was the sole perpetrator

Hmmm.. are you sure? I don't think the defence had a chance to present their view while the Supreme Court was weighing this issue, am I mistaken?

 

[Justinian2]

True, but there was no legitimate reason in this case which makes the Sollecitos a bunch of sick, disgusting exploiters.

This is an example of baiting.

I don't like the term 'baiting' because it can be used to justify moderation against anyone intice a reply. So let's just say you were trying to get a reply.

However, I've noticed that an argument that pits one theory against another theory or a bunch of theories against a fact can go on without end.

In general, I find it disgusting to attack a citizen while defending part of government [the police and courts]. The typical stance in that argument is that government is right because they are the authorities and the authorities say that they are right.

God bless the Sollecitos and the Knoxes and with no forgiveness for their enemies.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is a setback because the defence can no longer state that Guede was the sole perpetrator, it is a setback because no else has been arrested and sent to trial for Meredith’s murder apart from Amanda, Guede and Raffaele, this isn’t my personal opinion or interpretation these are facts that are supported by a number of independent reliable sources other than Vogt.

Now if you and others want to state that Amanda and Raffaele fate will be decided in the current appeal, then yes I would agree.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Knox's and Sollecito's defence lawyers can still mount a successful defence based on Guede being the sole perpetrator. I don't think you understand the law. If what you said were right, for example, the judges in Knox's/Sollecito's trials would have to accept the Guede trial decision on time of death - a ToD which would put a large dent in the prosecution case against Knox and Sollecito. After all, Meredith only died once, didn't she?

How then do you reconcile two courts making separate and conflicting decisions on the same ToD? The reason they can do so is the same reason why Knox's and Sollecito's courts are perfectly entitled to rule that this was either the work of a sole killer (Guede), or perhaps a joint enterprise with people as yet undiscovered.

 

[Justinian2]

I'm afraid you're wrong. Knox's and Sollecito's defence lawyers can still mount a successful defence based on Guede being the sole perpetrator. I don't think you understand the law. If what you said were right, for example, the judges in Knox's/Sollecito's trials would have to accept the Guede trial decision on time of death - a ToD which would put a large dent in the prosecution case against Knox and Sollecito. After all, Meredith only died once, didn't she?

How then do you reconcile two courts making separate and conflicting decisions on the same ToD? The reason they can do so is the same reason why Knox's and Sollecito's courts are perfectly entitled to rule that this was either the work of a sole killer (Guede), or perhaps a joint enterprise with people as yet undiscovered.

I'm not convinced that Amanda and Raffaele are any more likely to be Guede's accomplices in the murder of Meredith that night than anybody else in Perugia.

The appearance of RS's DNA was a miracle. So was the appearance of Amanda's DNA. It's a double miracle!

I know the church will not make saints of those that found the miracle DNA.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Your argument fell apart before you even posted it. The cases are tried separately. The supreme court rulings are not rulings on the facts of the case. The rulings in one case have no bearing on the other cases except as they pertain to legal procedures such as the ruling that Amanda's 1:45 statement could not be used for any purpose because it was a violation of the rights of the suspect.

Your argument fell apart before you even posted it. The cases are tried separately. The supreme court rulings are not rulings on the facts of the case.

Please point out where I have said the Supreme Court can or have ruled on Amanda and Raffaele appeal?

The rulings in one case have no bearing on the other cases except as they pertain to legal procedures such as the ruling that Amanda's 1:45 statement could not be used for any purpose because it was a violation of the rights of the suspect.

Again please show and I emphasise, where I stated the Supreme Court have ruled against Amanda and Raffaele?

What I have said is that the ruling in Guede final appeal removes the “lone wolf theory” that Guede acted alone and that the only people arrested and tried for Meredith's murder are Raffaele, Amanda and Guede, is this disputed? Now the proof of whether I am right or wrong is quite simply whether either defence teams continue with the theory in the appeal. Of course you may choose to disagree but you are not in a position state I am “wrong” until the appeal has run its course or either defence team persist with the said theory.

I also provided an soure from a UK newspaper that has been supportive if Amanda and Raffaele in the past where their conclusion is that the decision as reported in the Guede appeal is a setback.

 

[RoseMontague]

The simple fact is that every court until the supreme court has ruled that Guede, Knox, and Raffaele were involved with the murder. The big difference is the ruling of the Supreme court which said Guede was involved and others took part but it was not necessarily Knox
and Raffaele.

This is a big win for the defense team and a setback for the prosecution, in my opinion.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I'm afraid you're wrong. Knox's and Sollecito's defence lawyers can still mount a successful defence based on Guede being the sole perpetrator. I don't think you understand the law. If what you said were right, for example, the judges in Knox's/Sollecito's trials would have to accept the Guede trial decision on time of death - a ToD which would put a large dent in the prosecution case against Knox and Sollecito. After all, Meredith only died once, didn't she?

As I have said elsewhere you are not in a position to state categorically that I am wrong until either defence teams continues with the lone wolf theory, simply this has not happened, by all means disagree, but let’s wait and see who is wrong!

How then do you reconcile two courts making separate and conflicting decisions on the same ToD?

The Supreme Court can disagree with either lower courts, an example being Amanda’s “I was there” statement, that allegedly appears in Guede’s final appeal.

The reason they can do so is the same reason why Knox's and Sollecito's courts are perfectly entitled to rule that this was either the work of a sole killer (Guede), or perhaps a joint enterprise with people as yet undiscovered.

It is important to bear in mind that all the evidence from Guede’s trial, first appeal and final appeal can now be used as evidence by either defence or prosecution, so in that context how would you propose either defence team could argue that Guede did it on his own or that other undiscovered individuals are responsible, when the higher court has ruled that he did not act alone and no one else has been arrested and tried for Meredith murder other than Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[RoseMontague]

It is important to bear in mind that all the evidence from Guede’s trial, first appeal and final appeal can now be used as evidence by either defence or prosecution, so in that context how would you propose either defence team could argue that Guede did it on his own or that other undiscovered individuals are responsible, when the higher court has ruled that he did not act alone and no one else has been arrested and tried for Meredith murder other than Amanda and Raffaele.

It is also important to note that by saying it was not necessarily Sollecito and Knox that were involved the Supreme court has in effect, told the lower court that they have not yet proven the case against these two, regardless of who else the "real" accomplices may have been. If it gets to the supreme court with this still unproven then they are likely to dismiss the case.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Hmmm.. are you sure? I don't think the defence had a chance to present their view while the Supreme Court was weighing this issue, am I mistaken?

My point and yes I could be wrong. However, my point is that all the evidence from Guede’s trial, first and final appeal can be used as evidence in Amanda and Raffaele’s appeal. Judge Micheli dismissed the lone wolf theory in Guede’s trial and gave reasons in his motivations which are now evidence in Amanda and Raffaele’s appeal simply the first and final appeals have not dismissed this theory in their rulings. Amanda and Raffaele defence could not address either Guede’s first or final appeal.