Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[spartacus]

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?

They received a 25 - 26 year sentence which if you read LondonJohn's comments (he is correct about the legal aspects) they are currently not serving. They are being held as flight risk/danger to society/whatever while they go through second level trial. If they lost this appeal they can go to the Supreme Court, following which they will be convicted under Italian law, but will nontheless be able to go to the EU. They would then get credit for time served.

Fruit loops Mignini, however, is also trying to appeal the first level trial, to go their sentence increased, no less. Go Guliano.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Yes.

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

Did I say they were? Don't think ol chap.

 

[spartacus]

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.

Why don't you read some of the past two pages of posts about the difference between accused and convicted in the Italian court system and what their status is before you go on.

 

[Rolfe]

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.

You haven't really been paying attention, have you? Amanda Knox is in the middle of a judicial process which is different from those we are accustomed to. The prosecution hasn't finished, it still has to prove its case.

So, if it should so happen that the eventual outcome of this ongoing judicial process were to be a decision that Knox had nothing at all to do with the murder, will you accord that verdict the respect you accord other verdicts?

Seeing as you actually have no familiarity at all with the specifics of the evidence?

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

They would be acquitted and released from their remand status. It would then be up to the prosecutors to decide whether they felt they had a case to take to the Supreme Court regarding a misapplication of the law (they could no longer file any dispute on findings of fact). It would be highly unusual for prosecutors to file such a case in the Supreme Court - I imagine it would only ever happen in cases where there was a very strong public perception that the court erred in its acquittal (think OJ Simpson as an example).

 

[CoulsdonUK]

They received a 25 - 26 year sentence which if you read LondonJohn's comments (he is correct about the legal aspects) they are currently not serving. They are being held as flight risk/danger to society/whatever while they go through second level trial. If they lost this appeal they can go to the Supreme Court, following which they will be convicted under Italian law, but will nontheless be able to go to the EU. They would then get credit for time served.

Fruit loops Mignini, however, is also trying to appeal the first level trial, to go their sentence increased, no less. Go Guliano.

It’s not a question (well not for Raffaele and Amanda I would think), they would appeal their second level, no sorry 2nd level trial which would then be heard by the Italian Supreme Court(SC); if the SC confirmed their conviction yes they could appeal to ECHR for example but they would have probably have been released on good behaviour by the time ECHR made a decision. However, at no time would they have been released in this particular hypothetical situation.

 

[Rolfe]

LJ, I think you have misread Coulsdon's post.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

My suspicion was Aviello was simply to show the prosecution, in their 'quest for the truth' in the inquisitorial system didn't due do diligence in the last trial. In other words simply to raise the possibility of reasonable doubt. I still wonder why someone didn't just go and look to see if the keys and knife were there, though it might be he wouldn't say exactly where they were until he got his day in court. I recall something to that effect but never spent much time on the story, maybe someone will go look now. It is an interesting coincidence he was living four houses down at the time of the murder though, as per Nick Pisa's article (I think) in the Telegraph.

It is not just Alessi though, two others said the same thing, and as I outlined in a post earlier, they're bringing in the guy who chatted with Rudy over the Skype and two policeman from the questura as well next week. I haven't seen confirmation but I would guess they'd be the guys who instigated that part of the investigation. Now they may well have to confirm that Rudy said Amanda wasn't involved and was contradictory about he said about Raffaele, and then say they didn't believe him, but still that would make for six people admitting they heard Amanda wasn't involved and more or less the same about Raffaele. I think that may be important.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

They would be acquitted and released from their remand status. It would then be up to the prosecutors to decide whether they felt they had a case to take to the Supreme Court regarding a misapplication of the law (they could no longer file any dispute on findings of fact). It would be highly unusual for prosecutors to file such a case in the Supreme Court - I imagine it would only ever happen in cases where there was a very strong public perception that the court erred in its acquittal (think OJ Simpson as an example).

Hang on are you saying that if they lost their 1st appeal or first appeal or is that second appeal no it’s 2nd trial they would be released, really how would that work? Please do keep your response simple as though you are talking to an epsilon semi moron.

 

[Alt+F4]

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.

I could point you towards all those who have reported (with certainity) that they have seen a UFO or Bigfoot. I'm a skeptic and a critical thinker, that's why I post on this forum. Just show me the actual evidence/verbatim testimony, not what others say the evidence and testimony is. Why is this so difficult? You would expect nothing less if it was a claim of a UFO or Bigfoot.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

huggy bear

If anyone still wishes to dispute that Mr. Maresca has a cozy relationship with the prosecution, I offer this information. An observer of the first trial told me that Mr. Maresca had information on the quantity of DNA and told the court that a witness had given a wrong figure. Bonjiorno and dalla Vedova were initially shocked that he had this information but they did not, and it provided them with the impetus to move that more information (such as the “too low” notes with respect to DNA quantitation) be released and to ask for a mistrial. Ms. Nadeau’s report on this subject is not entirely accurate.

 

[platonov]

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.

The part of my post you snipped.............

Now he may be a complete ignoramus relative to the many well informed posters here (as we have been told) but there you have it.

You and others may also wish to compare him (and his motives) unfavorably with 'the baby killer' & co - we are all entitled to our opinions.

.......... seems to anticipate and adequately deal with your response and indeed many of the subsequent posts.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

My suspicion was Aviello was simply to show the prosecution, in their 'quest for the truth' in the inquisitorial system didn't due do diligence in the last trial. In other words simply to raise the possibility of reasonable doubt. I still wonder why someone didn't just go and look to see if the keys and knife were there, though it might be he wouldn't say exactly where they were until he got his day in court. I recall something to that effect but never spent much time on the story, maybe someone will go look now. It is an interesting coincidence he was living four houses down at the time of the murder though, as per Nick Pisa's article (I think) in the Telegraph.

It is not just Alessi though, two others said the same thing, and as I outlined in a post earlier, they're bringing in the guy who chatted with Rudy over the Skype and two policeman from the questura as well next week. I haven't seen confirmation but I would guess they'd be the guys who instigated that part of the investigation. Now they may well have to confirm that Rudy said Amanda wasn't involved and was contradictory about he said about Raffaele, and then say they didn't believe him, but still that would make for six people admitting they heard Amanda wasn't involved and more or less the same about Raffaele. I think that may be important.

Well for me yesterday and the 27th are just distractions I believe the pivotal part of this appeal (second trial or 2nd trial) will be the court appointed experts findings and subsequent legal arguments thereafter, until then.

 

[platonov]

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.

I fail to see the remarkable similarity unless you are suggesting Kercher Snr and AK had a previous 'intimate relationship' and are now estranged and can also show he has been giving a a running commentary.

I posted this ~ 6 mths ago

Kercher Snr and family have said almost nothing publicly in 3 yrs AFAIK, bar satisfaction with the verdict & this latest response to the slew of AK hagiography. Contrast this with the outpourings of the Foakers & family - Now he [whose daughters body was found naked in a pool of her own blood ] finally replies and He is the bad guy. Go figure.

ETA 1st & probably last post on this issue because if the point needs making then ......

Since then there have been 2 articles AFAIK, one on the anniversary of her death [which is a rehash of the one referenced above] and one a few months later concentrating on his daughter life.

This is a running commentary ??

What I find more interesting is the vitriol aimed at K. Snr and his motives and the contrast with the 'the baby killer' & co who's motives are apparently as pure as the driven snow and have absolutely no connection with the defence lawyers. Whether the 'court' sees it that way is a different matter.

YMMV. Apparently it does.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I fail to see the remarkable similarity unless you are suggesting Kercher Snr and AK had a previous 'intimate relationship' and are now estranged and can also show he has been giving a a running commentary.

I posted this ~ 6 mths ago




Since then there have been 2 articles AFAIK one on the anniversary of her death [which is a rehash of the one referenced above] and one a few months later concentrating on his daughter life.

This is a running commentary ??

What I find more interesting is the vitriol aimed at K. Snr and his motives and the contrast with the 'the baby killer' & co who's motives are apparently as pure as the driven snow and have absolutely no connection with the defence lawyers. Whether the 'court' sees it that way is a different matter.

YMMV. Apparently it does.

Completely agree.

 

[Antony]

I could point you towards all those who have reported (with certainity) that they have seen a UFO or Bigfoot. I'm a skeptic and a critical thinker, that's why I post on this forum. Just show me the actual evidence/verbatim testimony, not what others say the evidence and testimony is. Why is this so difficult? You would expect nothing less if it was a claim of a UFO or Bigfoot.

That's crap. We've already seen more than enough evidence to show that the first trial did not meet civilised standards, and that by any rational reading of the known facts, Amanda and Raff were at his flat the entire night of 1-2 Nov. We don't need to see the entire court transcripts to reach these conclusions.

In any case, the burden of proof is on those claiming guilt, whether that is in the court of law or on this forum. It's often claimed that the forum is not a court of law, so "burden of proof" does not apply, but that misses the point: since the pro-guilt side cannot explain how there was any proof of guilt in the Massei court, then we can already be confident that the Massei verdict was a wrongful one.

 

[billyryan]

My suspicion was Aviello was simply to show the prosecution, in their 'quest for the truth' in the inquisitorial system didn't due do diligence in the last trial. In other words simply to raise the possibility of reasonable doubt. I still wonder why someone didn't just go and look to see if the keys and knife were there, though it might be he wouldn't say exactly where they were until he got his day in court. I recall something to that effect but never spent much time on the story, maybe someone will go look now. It is an interesting coincidence he was living four houses down at the time of the murder though, as per Nick Pisa's article (I think) in the Telegraph.

It is not just Alessi though, two others said the same thing, and as I outlined in a post earlier, they're bringing in the guy who chatted with Rudy over the Skype and two policeman from the questura as well next week. I haven't seen confirmation but I would guess they'd be the guys who instigated that part of the investigation. Now they may well have to confirm that Rudy said Amanda wasn't involved and was contradictory about he said about Raffaele, and then say they didn't believe him, but still that would make for six people admitting they heard Amanda wasn't involved and more or less the same about Raffaele. I think that may be important.

Does anybody know why Monica Napoleoni is being recalled as a witness next Monday week,to do a little more lying as Frank Sfarzo thinks,she was a reluctant witness when the absurdity of Curatolo as a witness to anything was revealed for all to see,in one of Franks last posts before it became necessary for Frank to change the address where he spends the night regularly for his own safety,he slated Monica for her part in bringing about this miscarriage of justice,according to Frank Mignini's blind faith in Monica is the reason why so many innocent lives have being irreparably damaged,it would be nice indeed if she was being set up as a scape goat

 

[platonov]

Completely agree.

Thanks Coulsdon but I can hardly be credited with any great insight.

It's as obvious as [If I may make a simple analogy] noting that gatherings of guys with sheets on their heads or certain tattoos aren't overly fond of our darker skinned brothers and sisters.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ, I think you have misread Coulsdon's post.

Rolfe.

So I did! I was multi-multi-tasking: watching McIlroy take the field apart in the US Open golf, and also rewatching the very moving and educational Terry Pratchett documentary on assisted dying that was shown on BBC2 last week. I thoroughly recommend it as an outstanding example of documentary television, to those who can view the content in their region:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0120dxp/hd/Terry_Pratchett_Choosing_to_Die/

 

[Rolfe]

I fail to see the remarkable similarity unless you are suggesting Kercher Snr and AK had a previous 'intimate relationship' and are now estranged and can also show he has been giving a a running commentary.

It's similar in that someone extremely close to the murder victim (in one case a father, in the other a foster-mother) believes that the person found guilty of their loved one's murder should have no right to the legal process of appeal, because they find this upsetting.

Never mind how well-founded the grounds of appeal are, it shouldn't be allowed.

What I find more interesting is the vitriol aimed at K. Snr and his motives and the contrast with the 'the baby killer' & co who's motives are apparently as pure as the driven snow and have absolutely no connection with the defence lawyers. Whether the 'court' sees it that way is a different matter.

YMMV. Apparently it does.

What I find interesting (though not quite interesting enough to use a coloured font) is your infinite inventiveness in coming up with ways to discuss the process, rather than the evidence.

What time do you think Meredith died, and on what do you base that opinion?

Rolfe.