Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

It is only the courts that can oblige them to testify under oath, with significant penalties if they either refuse to answer questions.

What penalties are there in the Italian judicial system for someone who refuses to testify because they believe that testimony will incriminate themselves?

Try to follow me now....RG can be dragged into court but he can not be compelled to say a single word.

 

[Rolfe]

It may seem cruel to dare question the father of the victim who writes articles suggesting everyone who thinks the verdict in the trial of the first instance was unsound to shut up, but seeing as both Raffaele and Amanda have their effective lives on the line....

This is remarkably similar to the situation with Sion Jenkins and his wife. The wife apparently believed him guilty of battering their foster daughter to death. Why she believed that is unclear, but it is possible she was looking for a way out of the marriage, and when the police inexplicably homed in on her husband as their suspect, she seized on this.

Jenkins was finally cleared at something like the second retrial. It was ridiculous. He actually couldn't have done it, in the time available, never mind the lack of motive or murderous character. But the police started a name-blackening campaign against him, and there was a very dodgy medical expert involved (the infamous Southall, I believe), and the jury bought it.

All his appeals were accompanied by a running commentary from his (by then ex) wife railing against the temerity of the man, to be messing her life up by trying to clear his own name.

Rolfe.

 

[Draca]

The father of the victim, whose 6 mth old article, 'we' are currently discussing [for reasons that are not immediately apparent to me] bases his opinion of guilt on the evidence put forward and the ruling handed down in this 'first' trial apparently.

Platonov,

He is not saying that they were convicted in the first trial but there are two automatic appeals before that conviction is final. He is instead saying "Yet to my family she is, unequivocally, culpable." He has put trust in the court's first conviction but not the appeal process?

I think Spartacus is right though in leaving this topic alone. He is a grieving father. I disagree with what he has written and even in his writing it. I will leave it at that for now.

 

[LondonJohn]

What penalties are there in the Italian judicial system for someone who refuses to testify because they believe that testimony will incriminate themselves?

Try to follow me now....RG can be dragged into court but he can not be compelled to say a single word.

No, it's time you figured it out properly. I have already said that Guede would get protection against incriminating himself, but that's barely relevant in this scenario. Guede has already been convicted of murder (unless it slipped your notice, the court did not accept his version that he stumbled in on Meredith after someone else had stabbed her), so he's not incriminating himself one iota if he testifies about the conversation that may or may not have taken place with Alessi in the prison yard. How can you not understand that?

Guede can be brought to court, and of course he can indeed choose to either remain mute or answer in gibberish. but if he does either of those things, Hellmann will find him in contempt, and will almost certainly impose an additional prison sentence to add to his current sentence. Get it?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The "why" referred to "why do you think that was the ToD". But you knew that of course.

And your admittance that you don't know what time you think Meredith died merely goes to show that you're not properly equipped to argue cogently about this case. But thanks for stopping by.......

No, it means that, unlike you, I haven't spent thousands of hours obsessing over various conspiracy theories regarding this case.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

TCS, your Googling skills are not up to speed!

If I cared enough, I would have Googled it.

 

[Alt+F4]

Of course some think the motivation behind the articles and the insistence upon their guilt is different, they filed a civil case concurrent with the criminal one and were awarded a large settlement. Oftentimes that is irrelevant, being as most that murderers aren't exactly wealthy, however Raffaele inherited property directly from his mother that purportedly is worth on the order of three million Euros.

Another Internet rumor that has never been proved. Do you have any evidence beyond what "Frank" said?

BTW, "Frank" today posted:

The witnesses from the Viterbo jail, plus Luciano Aviello (who, instead, was together with Raffaele in Terni) have taught a real lesson of humanity, legality and reasoning to all prosecutors.

and....

Mario Alessi, Massimo Castelluccio, Antonio de Cesare, Luciano Aviello, may have done mistakes in the past, I don’t know, I don’t care, but today they have showed to be real men....

Disgusting.

http://perugiashock.com/

 

[Rolfe]

No, it means that, unlike you, I haven't spent thousands of hours obsessing over various conspiracy theories regarding this case.

So, you have no familiarity with the details of the case, would that be correct? You have no idea at what time Meredith may or may not have died, and how that affects the credibility of a guilty verdict?

So, am I correct in assuming that you base your implacable certainty of guilt on the mere fact of the conviction at the first trial?

In that case, how do you view the fact that around 40% (or so we're told) of convictions in first-line Italian trials are reversed at the appeal stage?

You have previously stated that if Knox is acquitted on appeal, that will merely show that courts sometimes get it wrong and let murderers go free. How can you justify that position, if you are entirely ignorant about the facts of the case? Why would you prefer the opinion of a preliminary hearing, to the final verdict of the system?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

If I cared enough, I would have Googled it.

And yet you care enough to come repeatedly to this, and other threads discussing possible miscarriages of justice, and propound your complete certainty that the defendants were guilty in fact.

Why is that, do you suppose?

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

TCS, your Googling skills are not up to speed!

So, Alt+F4, what time do you think Meredith died on November 1st 2007? And why do you think that?

(Here's a general clue: it's rather important to have a point of view on ToD if one is to have a point of view on the guilt or non-guilt of Knox/Sollecito. After all, a belief in a ToD earlier than 10pm means that several key prosecution "witnesses" can be discarded, and it puts the 9.58pm and 10.13pm activity on Meredith's phone into a whole different light. Conversely, an adherence to a belief in the prosecution's (and Massei's court's) 11.40pm ToD does mean that the "earwitnesses" and the mighty Curatolo may have some validity, and means one can also buy into Massei's "reasoning" that Meredith was loafing around pressing random buttons on her phone at around 10pm - but it flies in the face of all known medical research on stomach emptying patterns. Take your pick.)

 

[LondonJohn]

No, it means that, unlike you, I haven't spent thousands of hours obsessing over various conspiracy theories regarding this case.

Oh right. I see.

What else have you been "obsessing about" (your words) in your other 32,400 posts on this forum then......?

 

[Alt+F4]

Guede has already been convicted of murder, so he's not incriminating himself one iota if he testifies about the conversation that may or may not have taken place with Alessi in the prison yard. How can you not understand that?

You guys should really compare notes. We've been told that despite RG's conviction his case can be reopened and his conviction tossed at anytime if new evidence presents itself. So why the heck would he testify that he committed the crime alone?

Guede can be brought to court, and of course he can indeed choose to either remain mute or answer in gibberish. but if he does either of those things, Hellmann will find him in contempt, and will almost certainly impose an additional prison sentence to add to his current sentence. Get it?

Please cite cases where someone in Italy was sentenced to prison for contempt when they refused to give self incriminating testimony.

 

[Alt+F4]

What else have you been "obsessing about" (your words) in your other 32,400 posts on this forum then......?

How many of your almost 3,400 posts aren't about this case?

 

[LondonJohn]

Another Internet rumor that has never been proved. Do you have any evidence beyond what "Frank" said?

BTW, "Frank" today posted:



and....



Disgusting.

http://perugiashock.com/

No, what's more disgusting (in my opinion) is the obnoxious and extremely unpleasant comment made earlier today, concerning a man who is rightfully serving a very long prison sentence for a deeply unpleasant crime:

To (sic) bad he (Alessi) didn't die right there in the court room.

Can you remember who made this vile and hateful comment, Alt+F4?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mignini

No, it means that, unlike you, I haven't spent thousands of hours obsessing over various conspiracy theories regarding this case.

TCS,

No, LondonJohn is correct. My question was in effect, "When do you think Meredith died, and why do you believe that this was the time?" You misinterpreted it. You may claim what you like about others' obsessions, but with 32,000 comments, you've got some splainin' to do . I agree that spending too much time on Mignini's conspiracy theory (Three people got together on a moment's notice to kill someone. One of the three barely knew the other two.) would not be productive. It was, is, and ever will be ridiculous.

 

[Alt+F4]

So, Alt+F4, what time do you think Meredith died on November 1st 2007? And why do you think that?

This is what you don't get John. What you or I think about the time of death or any other aspect of this case doesn't matter one, tiny, single bit.

This is not the Amanda Knox support forum. It's a forum for skepticism and those who propose that they are certain of the pairs innocence without benefit of the trial transcript, all the photographs put into evidence or the actual various scientific reports are not skeptics.

This is what bugs me.

 

[Alt+F4]

Can you remember who made this vile and hateful comment, Alt+F4?

Yes, it was me and I will say it again. It's unfortunate that a man who beat to death a 17-month old baby with a shovel is not dead.

I can't make it any more clear than that.

 

[LondonJohn]

You guys should really compare notes. We've been told that despite RG's conviction his case can be reopened and his conviction tossed at anytime if new evidence presents itself. So why the heck would he testify that he committed the crime alone?



Please cite cases where someone in Italy was sentenced to prison for contempt when they refused to give self incriminating testimony.

Are you seriously this unable to grasp the concept here? Seriously? Or are you just (as you say on your side of the Atlantic) "yanking my chain"?

Look: how can Guede be charged or convicted of any more crimes or cleared of his current conviction if he testifies about his alleged conversation (or non-conversation) with Alessi?

I'll spell it out another way: If (as I pointed out in another post), the courts in Knox's/Sollecito's case somehow came to the conclusion that Guede was not involved in the murder (i.e. either that Knox and/or Sollecito did it by themselves, or that none of the three was involved), Guede would then have grounds to apply for a post-conviction appeal. In that appeal, he could argue that another court found that he was not involved, and his appeal court would have to re-weigh all the factors to determine whether Guede should be acquitted in the light of these new findings of fact or whether the original findings of fact in Guede's trial are still applicable (in which case his conviction would stand).

I'll put it even more simply: there is, in practice, no possible way in which Guede can incriminate himself in Hellmann's court over any matter concerning the murder of Meredith Kercher. he has already been convicted of the murder - it's immaterial for the purposes of the charge and conviction whether he acted alone or as part of a group. Simple enough?

 

[Antony]

To deflect the fact that the defense had a horrible day in court and their super witnesses had contradictory testimony which only weakened the defense's case.

Shovel wielding baby killer starts writing to Amanda in 3,2,....

"Horrible day in court"? You've clearly missed the fact that the judge has now ordered Rudy Guede to give evidence. That's an event that will give the much over-used description "super-witness" new meaning.

How do you think that will pan out for the prosecution and the defence? Only 8 days to go to find out.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is what you don't get John. What you or I think about the time of death or any other aspect of this case doesn't matter one, tiny, single bit.

This is not the Amanda Knox support forum. It's a forum for skepticism and those who propose that they are certain of the pairs innocence without benefit of the trial transcript, all the photographs put into evidence or the actual various scientific reports are not skeptics.

This is what bugs me.

Oh dear. This is an extraordinarily weak argument. There's zero point in reverting to the old "nothing anyone says here matters anyway" argument - we all know that. but we (including you) are mysteriously all here debating it, aren't we? I expect you to leave the discussion and never return, if you don't see any point in it whatsoever. Is that fair?

On the same not, under your definition isn't all discussion (or even media reporting) of politics, sport, current affairs, history or the weather of no value whatsoever, unless those having the discussion are active participants in the matter under discussion? I'm guessing you've never discussed any of these such matters with a friend or partner - since according to you they are all a waste of time and effort to discuss......

By the way, please don't bandy about your own labels of scepticism as it applies to this case. You're not only wrong, you're hijacking the word for your own ends without realising the irony in what you're saying.