Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rhea]

So now we've gone from cuffed, to a possbile concussion to "recognition that she had a concussion". Amazing...it's this type of spin that makes me sure that in August, September, October or maybe in early 2012 AK and RS will have their convictions upheld. There is no way to see so many lies tossed about if folks really believed they were innocent and there was no evidence against them at all, as I'm constantly being told.

I'll be back to this thread when the convictions are upheld, not to gloat but to see if most of these same posters will continue their vain effort to follow AK and RS through their (at least) 18 month journey through the Italian Supreme Court, in which they will also lose.

I don't think she had a concussion, not for a minute I believe that …

But you know the "lies" / inaccurate statements, exaggerations or whatever; you definitely find those on both sides, Rolfe made that argument a while ago, if there are people arguing some false things on one side it doesn't discredit the side in general, inaccurate reasoning / false statements, it really happens on both sides and both can't be wrong …

 

[Dan O.]

Er, what?

I've discovered proof that the Luminol footprint photos were all edited in Photoshop in the days after December 18. Maybe pilot is also aware of this.

 

[Rhea]

Example of inaccurate reasoning on the guilt-side;

2. She was trying to protect Rudy Guede, "the black guy", to a certain extent (they did leave all his physical evidence) because he was one of her partners in crime. If she squealed on him, it is likely that he would tell her part in the crime.

Does that make any sense? She left all his physical evidence to frame him, but protected him at the same time because he could tell about her involvement.

We can't have it both ways; either she was afraid he would tell about her involvement and protected him or she tried to pin the murder on him …

Illogical reasoning happens on both sides, it doesn't prove the side says is wrong generally …

 

[Rolfe]

So now we've gone from cuffed, to a possbile concussion to "recognition that she had a concussion". Amazing...it's this type of spin that makes me sure that in August, September, October or maybe in early 2012 AK and RS will have their convictions upheld. There is no way to see so many lies tossed about if folks really believed they were innocent and there was no evidence against them at all, as I'm constantly being told.

I'll be back to this thread when the convictions are upheld, not to gloat but to see if most of these same posters will continue their vain effort to follow AK and RS through their (at least) 18 month journey through the Italian Supreme Court, in which they will also lose.

So, speculation has become spin, and then within a sentence this is lies....

It's a strange take on it. Alt+F4, when you were asked if you had any doubt at all about Amanda and Raffaele's guilt, you said it didn't matter what you thought. But now, instead of making any observation on the evidence, you take a piece of speculation by someone still uncertain about how Amanda, who wasn't at the house at the time Meredith was killed according to the physical evidence, came to say that she was - and you decide that this speculation is "lies", and because someone who believes Amanda is innocent is telling "lies", Amanda must be guilty.

I have to say, this is not logic as we know it, Jim.

Rolfe.

 

[Rhea]

So now we've gone from cuffed, to a possbile concussion to "recognition that she had a concussion". Amazing...it's this type of spin that makes me sure that in August, September, October or maybe in early 2012 AK and RS will have their convictions upheld. There is no way to see so many lies tossed about if folks really believed they were innocent and there was no evidence against them at all, as I'm constantly being told.

I'll be back to this thread when the convictions are upheld, not to gloat but to see if most of these same posters will continue their vain effort to follow AK and RS through their (at least) 18 month journey through the Italian Supreme Court, in which they will also lose.

I realize now it is Fine who made that statement, Fine believes in guilt anyway, so the deduction is even more wrong, or have I misunderstood something here, Fine does believes in guilt, or has he/she changed his/her mind?

 

[zeb]

How long does it take to get to Perugia from Rome?




All I know is that if I were a consulate officer and a young American woman college student with no history of crime had been arrested for a rape/murder, my curiosity would certainly be piqued, especially if I were familiar with the culture of the local legal system.




Innocence is a given. The prosecution claimed guilt, but failed to prove it, in the midst of a whole lot of monkey business. The appeals are rapidly revealing the weaknesses of the case.

I would not expect Amanda or her family to have the report taken by the consulate officer. I find it interesting that whatever the officer found out is not part of the public record.

Perugia is 118 miles from rome, not knowing the speed limit in Italy, I would say 1 1/2 hours on the slowest travel time.

 

[lane99]

Well, thank you, that was nice. Though I have to say, PhantomWolf had a very similar post nominated last...

Not at all. Thank *you* for the interesting comments. And, ah, I probably didn't see PhantomWolf's post. But good on him/her, too.

...I have to tell you that anyone on the forum reading the above with my name on it, would never guess in a million years that I had posted it in relation to the Knox/Sollecito case. It is precisely the objection I have made many times about the same mindless approach to the Megrahi case...

Oh, ok, I didn't know that. But, then, even more, that's the beauty of your comments. They provide a framework of thought that can usefully applied to the discussion surrounding any of these controversial cases.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

friend of the court brief

I am not sure whether or not the Italian legal system has something equivalent to a friend of the court brief. However, I wish that someone, possibly the State Department, would have filed one with the Supreme Court in 2008. I am of the opinion that precautionary detention (which was used to hold Amanda and Raffaele) was on shaky ground. based on Benjamin Sayagh's manuscript.

 

[zeb]

I am not sure whether or not the Italian legal system has something equivalent to a friend of the court brief. However, I wish that someone, possibly the State Department, would have filed one with the Supreme Court in 2008. I am of the opinion that precautionary detention (which was used to hold Amanda and Raffaele) was on shaky ground. based on Benjamin Sayagh's manuscript.

I am with you on that one, 100%, there was no reason at all in keeping Amanda in jail, the police had her passport.
No passport no fly.

 

[Amazer]

I am with you on that one, 100%, there was no reason at all in keeping Amanda in jail, the police had her passport.
No passport no fly.

It's of course inconceivable that an American Embassy would have issued her another passport in one of the other EU Schengen countries.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hallowe'en

Mignini denied this [Hallowe'en] theory in his CNN talk and a poster on the side of guilt recently denied any connection to Mignini and such theories relating to the Kercher case. I did notice however that this poster mentioned Mignini never said the word "satanic". Mendacious weaselworming apparently. A "Masonic" theory?

RoseMontague,

That is interesting. I sometimes wonder whether Mignini told the forensic police to use luminol on December 18. Luminol is used to detect occult blood, after all.

 

[Poppy1016]

Halides1, do you think that early leg a l representation would have prevented the 3 yr precautionary detention?

 

[Chris C]

It's of course inconceivable that an American Embassy would have issued her another passport in one of the other EU Schengen countries.

Seriously? Even if she fled, and the embassy workers forgot to read the newspaper or watch tv, she would have been extradited back to Italy for trial.

 

[Mary_H]

Perugia is 118 miles from rome, not knowing the speed limit in Italy, I would say 1 1/2 hours on the slowest travel time.

Thank you, zeb. I noticed there is an American consulate in Florence, too.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

house arrest

Halides1, do you think that early leg a l representation would have prevented the 3 yr precautionary detention?

Poppy1016,

I am not sure, but I have my doubts. The reports an discussions I have read concerning the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling suggest that the court used arguments about Amanda's personality and supposed promiscuity to reach its decision. However, it is conceivable that a well-reasoned legal argument based on international law could have had an impact. I still cannot understand why neither Amanda nor Raffaele were given house arrest. Raffaele cannot be reasonably classified as a flight risk.

 

[Poppy1016]

I agree halides1. With the evidence against them deteriorating rapist, I can't understand why they still can't be granted house arrest. It is criminal to have been locked up all this time while the legal process moves at such a painfully slow rate.

 

[Poppy1016]

Should have read deteriorating rapidly. Darn auto complete.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

supreme court

Poppy,

Did you know that you can edit your own comments up to two hours after you make them? Just hit the little red edit button at the bottom of you message. It is the leftmost button.

Katy_did had some good comments with respect to the arguments before the supreme court, and those are worth looking up. She discussed Raffaele's argument with respect to evidence that the court may have had placing Amanda at the scene.

 

[LondonJohn]

Poppy1016,

I am not sure, but I have my doubts. The reports an discussions I have read concerning the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling suggest that the court used arguments about Amanda's personality and supposed promiscuity to reach its decision. However, it is conceivable that a well-reasoned legal argument based on international law could have had an impact. I still cannot understand why neither Amanda nor Raffaele were given house arrest. Raffaele cannot be reasonably classified as a flight risk.

But my reading of bail/remand decisions in Italy in the case of serious crimes such as murder (and especially murder with special circumstances such as a sex crime) is that the defendants are usually remanded into custody from the moment of arrest. The release of suspects on house arrest or any form of bail seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

My problem is not that Knox and Sollecito were remanded (and that they remain on remand). I think that if the judges were persuaded that there was a strong prima facie case against them for murder with sexual elements, they probably had very little wiggle room in the matter, and were probably correct to remand them into custody. My problem is at a higher level than that: that Knox/Sollecito very possibly should not have been arrested and detained for these crimes in the first place. The "evidence" presented to the judges who decided upon their continued custody and charges - especially Judge Matteini - was contentious at best and plain lies at worst.

I feel that if those early judges had been told the truthful picture as it existed at that time, there's a decent likelihood that they would have concluded that there was no immediate case for Knox or Sollecito to answer that required keeping them in custody. The judges may have concluded either that Knox/Sollecito might have played some minor role in protecting the perpetrator(s), or that they might have been more heavily and directly involved but that the police/prosecutor had insufficient evidence at that point. Either of these conclusions would almost certainly have resulted in their release from custody pending further investigations.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's of course inconceivable that an American Embassy would have issued her another passport in one of the other EU Schengen countries.

The US would have cooperated with the Italian authorities. If Knox had been released on bail with the condition that she did not leave Italy, I would imagine that the US State Dept would have contacted its embassies and consulates across Europe to notify them accordingly. If Knox had approached any US Embassy or Consulate in Europe requesting a replacement passport, I feel certain that this would have flagged a high alert on the systems, and that the particular US Embassy or Consulate being contacted would have been instructed to notify both the Italian authorities and the local authorities, with arrangements to arrest Knox as and when she turned up at the embassy/consulate.

And if by any miracle Knox made it back to the US (or was believed to have returned there), a federal arrest warrant would have been issued pursuant to the EU/US extradition treaty signed in 2003.