Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

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

Alt, the reports on that have been posted numerous times in this thread and previous, last time including an Italian article that Fine posted, if I recall correctly. Raffaele's father was relatively wealthy, not just from being a doctor, and he married a wealthy woman, it is not exactly a dubious inference that Raffaele might have had money left in his own name regardless. Being as also the available information, including that of one of the principal people involved has said so, I tend to believe it. You can continue to demand his bank statement be notarized and posted if you want, or whatever evidence you demanded, I care not.

I'm not going to bother further about it because I don't actually think it was the reason why, I suspect it was something else. I think Maresca took advantage of him, unlike others I think he should have completely considered the interests of the family, not simply ensuring and protecting the conviction of his hugging buddy, Mignini. I'll note he would have appreciated your tactics here regarding Alessi, but will also acknowledge I have far more respect for you than I do for him.

 

[jhunter1163]

If Guede answers questions, he will either tell the truth - which I believe is that Amanda and Raffaele weren't involved - or he will give some kind of version corresponding to the prosecution's claims.

My addition in bold. You don't know that; there are only four people who know with certainty whether AK and RS were involved, and one of them is dead.

 

[Antony]

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?

Please see my previous reply. Maybe you'd like to explain how it can play any way that does not favour the defence?

If Guede refuses to answer questions (as you, possibly correctly, seem to be predicting) than that will be bad for the prosecution and good for the defence. If he lies about the events of Nov 1, then it will be easy for the defence to show that he was lying.

The only way his appearance can favour the prosecution is if he gives a coherent account of the murder that implicates Amanda and Raffaele - something that neither you nor any of the other faith-based guilter crowd have been able to do.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oh right. I see.

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

Skepticism.



Ouch.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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?

Alessi confessed to Tommaso Onofri’s murder and is serving time for it. Murdering a baby, an innocent is a heinous crime in my ignorant humble cave dwelling opinion maybe you think otherwise?

Alessi is alive which is more than he gave Tommaso.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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

Ouch: The Sequel

 

[spartacus]

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!

I don't know why you are stuck on this but you are wrong. Look at the Massei report - they are referred to as "imputato" which means "accused" not "condannato" which means condemned. Their status is accused and not convicted and therefore proven guilty in Italian law until they have completed the first two levels and the findings are help up by the Superior Court. I think it would be easier to not use the word "appeal" as this implies appeal of the finding of guilt.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

What is a non sequitur? I merely list the crimes Alessi has been convicted and served or is serving time for, do you dispute this?

 

[Alt+F4]

Maybe you'd like to explain how it can play any way that does not favour the defence?

RG testifies that he was in the prison yard with someone who served time with RS who told him that he (RS) confessed to the murder (with Amanda's involvement of course).

Next we will have one of AK's cellmates saying that she either confessed to the murder or not (depends if she is testifying for the defense or prosecution)

See how easy playing prison snitch is?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

"If only they could see the truth" - JFK conspiracy theorists

"If only they could see the truth" - 9/11 Truthers

"If only they could see the truth" - Obama Birthers

"If only they could see the truth" - Knoxties

Anyone see a pattern?

 

[LondonJohn]

Skepticism.

Wow - me too! What a coincidence!

Ouch.

Oh dear. Adult?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I don't know why you are stuck on this but you are wrong. Look at the Massei report - they are referred to as "imputato" which means "accused" not "condannato" which means condemned. Their status is accused and not convicted and therefore proven guilty in Italian law until they have completed the first two levels and the findings are help up by the Superior Court. I think it would be easier to not use the word "appeal" as this implies appeal of the finding of guilt.

Conviction as in they were sentenced to 25 (Raffaele) and 26 (Amanda) years pending the appeal process they are currently going through, for the sake of discussion if they lost this appeal what is the next step, release?

 

[Antony]

My addition in bold. You don't know that; there are only four people who know with certainty whether AK and RS were involved, and one of them is dead.

There are those here who make the opposite statement with just as much certainty, and far less justification.

 

[Rolfe]

Skepticism.

Evidence? ^TM
Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

"If only they could see the truth" - JFK conspiracy theorists

"If only they could see the truth" - 9/11 Truthers

"If only they could see the truth" - Obama Birthers

"If only they could see the truth" - Knoxties

Anyone see a pattern?

"If only they could see the truth" - campaigners for Barry George's acquittal

"If only they could see the truth" - campaigners for the Birmingham Six's acquittals

"If only they could see the truth" - campaigners for the Guildford Four's acquittals

"If only they could see the truth" - campaigners for Sion Jenkins' acquittal

"If only they could see the truth" - campaigners for the Bridgewater Four's acquittals

Anyone see a pattern?


Can you see how your little game can involve cherry-picking to falsely seem to support a certain point of view? Because that's exactly what you did just there in your post. Now, about this "scepticism" that you claim to be exercising: I think you might need a pretty extensive refresher course, I'm afraid.

 

[LondonJohn]

Conviction as in they were sentenced to 25 (Raffaele) and 26 (Amanda) years pending the appeal process they are currently going through, for the sake of discussion if they lost this appeal what is the next step, release?

Yes.

And they are not serving those prison sentences at the moment. I thought I'd made that very clear by now...

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

It's funny how the CTers keep insisting that the "pro-guilt" side has to "prove" their case. Amanda Knox is a convicted murderer. We don't have to prove anything.

And before you ask, we also don't have to prove that we landed on the Moon.

 

[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.

What is a non sequitur? I merely list the crimes Alessi has been convicted and served or is serving time for, do you dispute this?

What you posted is what I quoted, both above and in my post.

Rolfe.

 

[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.

Really call it whatever you like I have no problem with how you or indeed others choose to describe Raffaele and Amanda current legal status, I am a mere cave dweller with little or no grasp of the legal nuances of Italian legal system. Tell me, if they lost this appeal (second or should that be 2nd trial) what would be the next step?

 

[Antony]

RG testifies that he was in the prison yard with someone who served time with RS who told him that he (RS) confessed to the murder (with Amanda's involvement of course).

Next we will have one of AK's cellmates saying that she either confessed to the murder or not (depends if she is testifying for the defense or prosecution)

See how easy playing prison snitch is?

Ingenious. Let's return to this after June 27.