Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

I guess I was guilty of looking at this through the lens of the American court system in my post above; I should have said that AK and RS have been convicted of the crime. My apologies.

Just as accurate is convicted pending their automatic appeals process.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Ah, one of the "hang 'em, flog 'em, shoot 'em" brigade eh? I thought that neanderthal viewpoint was only promoted in some of the backwards ex-confederate states....

 

[LondonJohn]

Just as accurate is convicted pending their automatic appeals process.

No, that's not accurate at all. It's wholly inaccurate, and once again reflects an ignorance of what the "appeal" actually means in the Italian criminal justice system (confusing it with what the word "appeal" means in the anglo-saxon system). It should in fact more appropriately be called the "second trial".

For example, every person sentenced to death in the US is granted an automatic appeal. But that "automatic appeal" is not a re-trial or second trial - it's an anglo-saxon definition of an appeal where the defence has to actively persuade the appeal court that the original conviction was not correct.

 

[Alt+F4]

"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.

Judge Hellmann can't order RG to give evidence. He can only order him to appear in court.

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

I don't see how this will play out well for the defense. Do you?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Ah, one of the "hang 'em, flog 'em, shoot 'em" brigade eh? I thought that neanderthal viewpoint was only promoted in some of the backwards ex-confederate states....

I guess some of us are just being too hard on a person who has been convicted of sexual violence against a teenage girl and the murder of a baby!

 

[LondonJohn]

I guess some of us are just being too hard on a person who has been convicted of sexual violence against a teenage girl and the murder of a baby!

He's in prison for a very long time following a full trial process - exactly where he belongs in a civilised criminal justice system.

Do you tend to favour public lynchings?

 

[Rolfe]

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.

While that may be factually true, I fail to see the allure of debating the subject, even in the abstract, without explaining one's personal view of the matter.

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.

While I have seen one or two posters express a conviction of Knox's innocence, that does not seem to be the majority opinion. It's much more true to say that many people question whether the evidence was ever sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Which is of course the standard to which it is supposed to be proved, in order to sustain a conviction. You, on the other hand, are not backward in insisting that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt, except that you don't know what it is. I find this a strange approach.

And yet again, I find it difficult to comprehend your repeated implication that there must be some killer evidence proving guilt hidden somewhere in the evidence that hasn't found its way into the public domain, despite all those who attended the first trial and reported on it. And that somehow the summing up of the judgement omitted it as well.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Judge Hellmann can't order RG to give evidence. He can only order him to appear in court.

For the umpteenth time, Hellmann cannot force Guede to open his mouth, push air over his vocal chords, and form audible words. But if Guede remains silent, Hellmann can (and will) find him in contempt (since this is not an issue of self-incrimination), and will almost certainly add extra years to his prison sentence. Understand?

I don't see how this will play out well for the defense. Do you?

Frankly, I think you see what you want to see. But that's just me....

 

[CoulsdonUK]

No, that's not accurate at all. It's wholly inaccurate, and once again reflects an ignorance of what the "appeal" actually means in the Italian criminal justice system (confusing it with what the word "appeal" means in the anglo-saxon system). It should in fact more appropriately be called the "second trial".

For example, every person sentenced to death in the US is granted an automatic appeal. But that "automatic appeal" is not a re-trial or second trial - it's an anglo-saxon definition of an appeal where the defence has to actively persuade the appeal court that the original conviction was not correct.

No I disagree, they were found guilty and sentenced in their first level trial they are going through their first appeal, therefore to my rather simple ignorant mind the result will be either acquittal or confirmation with possible mitigating circumstances, so their status is one of convicted pending their first appeal which may or may not end in their conviction being confirmed, semantics!

 

[Antony]

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.

That, of course, is the best the prosecution can hope for - even if what you say is true.

If Guede answers questions, he will either tell the truth - which is that Amanda and Raffaele weren't involved - or he will give some kind of version corresponding to the prosecution's claims. If he does the latter, then the defence will take it apart.

Either way, any answers given by Guede will be a disaster for the prosecution. I'm inclined to agree with you here, that the most likely outcome is that Guede will simply refuse to answer questions. Now, how do you think the prosecution's case will hold up when the one alleged eye-witness to Amanda and Raff's "crime" clams up altogether?

 

[snook1]

Judge Hellmann can't order RG to give evidence. He can only order him to appear in court.



I don't see how this will play out well for the defense. Do you?

There are several possible scenarios on what can happen when Guede will testify (IF). Among them, I can easily see more good ones(any answers from Guede will be working in AK and RS's favour) than the bad ones for both Amanda and Raffaele.

I'm not surprised you're not able to think of more than one - bad for Knox and Sollecito. Typical.

Let's move on.

 

[LondonJohn]

While that may be factually true, I fail to see the allure of debating the subject, even in the abstract, without explaining one's personal view of the matter.

It's (in my opinion) an intellectually-bankrupt get-out clause for someone who finds him/herself backed into a corner on a given issue...

While I have seen one or two posters express a conviction of Knox's innocence, that does not seem to be the majority opinion. It's much more true to say that many people question whether the evidence was ever sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Which is of course the standard to which it is supposed to be proved, in order to sustain a conviction.

And yet again, I find it difficult to comprehend your repeated implication that there must be some killer evidence proving guilt hidden somewhere in the evidence that hasn't found its way into the public domain, despite all those who attended the first trial and reported on it. And that somehow the summing up of the judgement omitted it as well.

Rolfe.

Agreed. But again, it suits some people's warped agendas to push an opposition to the innocence argument over an opposition to the far more nuanced (and far harder to argue against) not-guilty argument. You're also totally correct about the second intellectually-bankrupt get-out: the deference to the magic hidden super-evidence which none of the court reporters or the presiding judge himself managed to notice. Yeah, right.....

 

[CoulsdonUK]

He's in prison for a very long time following a full trial process - exactly where he belongs in a civilised criminal justice system.

Do you tend to favour public lynchings?

Lynching an emotive word for sure, in recent history usually associated racist groups such as the KKK summary execution of African Americans, can’t say I see any similarities with Alessi who was arrested for rape sentenced served his time, then released sometime afterwards kidnapped and murder an 18 month baby.

 

[LondonJohn]

No I disagree, they were found guilty and sentenced in their first level trial they are going through their first appeal, therefore to my rather simple ignorant mind the result will be either acquittal or confirmation with possible mitigating circumstances, so their status is one of convicted pending their first appeal which may or may not end in their conviction being confirmed, semantics!

No it's not semantics. I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about here. The first appeal trial involves no element whatsoever of "confirmation" of the verdict from the first trial - it comes to its own totally independent verdict of guilty or not-guilty, which may or may not tally with the verdict from Massei's court.

And you've also alluded to something else which indicates your misapprehension of all this: do you think that Knox and Sollecito are currently serving the prison sentences handed out by Massei's court? Because if you do think that, you're wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

Lynching an emotive word for sure, in recent history usually associated racist groups such as the KKK summary execution of African Americans, can’t say I see any similarities with Alessi who was arrested for rape sentenced served his time, then released sometime afterwards kidnapped and murder an 18 month baby.

So do you think that Alessi should be dealt with by the criminal justice system of Italy, in accordance with Italy's (and Europe's) legislation? If you think that, you should be content that he has been found guilty after a series of trials (but still with the option of appeal if new exculpatory evidence comes to light), and is serving a very long prison sentence in a closed prison.

Or do you, like Alt+F4, wish that he had collapsed and died in the Perugia courtroom yesterday?

 

[Alt+F4]

Or do you, like Alt+F4, wish that he had collapsed and died in the Perugia courtroom yesterday?

I don't believe in the death penalty, but yeah, I wish this guy was dead.

 

[Alt+F4]

Do you tend to favour public lynchings?

Do you know what a lynching is? I don't think so.

 

[Rolfe]

No it's not semantics. I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about here. The first appeal trial involves no element whatsoever of "confirmation" of the verdict from the first trial - it comes to its own totally independent verdict of guilty or not-guilty, which may or may not tally with the verdict from Massei's court.

It's a strange system, but as someone explained, it seems to have arisen from a system where the first trial was only supposed to find whether it was actually possible that the accused might be guilty. A preliminary trial, I suppose.

And you've also alluded to something else which indicates your misapprehension of all this: do you think that Knox and Sollecito are currently serving the prison sentences handed out by Massei's court? Because if you do think that, you're wrong.

That is of course a crucial point. In the various countries where most posters here live, someone found guilty at their first trial would begin the sentence right then. Backdated to when they were first remanded in custody if appropriate. There would be no need to argue a flight risk (or a re-offending risk) to have them incarcerated.

It seems to me that Knox and Sollecito are in effect remanded in custody following a preliminary hearing that confirmed there was a case to answer, by comparison with the jurisdictions we're all more familiar with.

Rolfe.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

My point was that Maresca is participating in an effort to silence those who criticize the prosecution and police or who support the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. The charge reportedly filed against Alessi we heard about at the beginning of the days events would now make him the nineteenth extra person charged by the prosecution. Speaking out in defense of someone is quite simply very much different than attempting to silence someone from doing so in my mind.

At any rate, I am sorry I lost my temper. I owe you an apology for that.



I couldn't help but notice that one story didn't include a break-in at all from the report I read, the other included a staging as well, I don't know what to make of that. I found it interesting the Romanian didn't testify to anything after signing that letter, I wonder if he just wanted a day out of prison!

I dunno what to think about Rudy Guede testifying on the 27th, that's the biggest news of the day in my mind. I have always wondered why he never offered the prosecution a story condemning Raffaele and Amanda, for an 'inveterate liar' it would seem his best bet from the beginning was to try to pin it on the two the cops had caught and invested their reputations on. The defense seems to think it a positive development from the little I read, I've not seen commentary on it from anyone on the prosecution side, which struck me as curious as apparently it was their request.

What did you think of that development?

Kaosium

Really no need for the apology, I am sure you’ll be busting my gonads over some point in the not too distant future .

I think yesterday’s testimonies are a mere distraction and Guede will not say anything new when he takes the stand on the 27th, I still believe the defence strategy was risky especially when applied to Alessi who is pretty much reviled in Italy, as for Aviello, what can one say.

 

[Rolfe]

Lynching an emotive word for sure, in recent history usually associated racist groups such as the KKK summary execution of African Americans, can’t say I see any similarities with Alessi who was arrested for rape sentenced served his time, then released sometime afterwards kidnapped and murder an 18 month baby.

That's a non sequitur. Alessi has subsequently been convicted and sentenced for the second offence. Do you want to go further than the court did in that instance?

Rolfe.