Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
This case never ceases to amaze me. Hellman certainly knew that RG could not be forced to answer questions. So why on earth did he order him to appear in court. It is ridiculous to me that he can't be cross examined by the defense after being allowed to basically testify for the prosecution.
It is also a shame that he can't be asked to take a polygraph.
I am also very disappointed in the entire defense team.Not knowing about the letter is unexcusable. I feel her defense team is inadequate and botched the first trial, and are doing poorly in the appeal. I hope justice prevails and AK and RS are freed, but with weak defense and a corrupt judicial system, I am not holding my breath.
No one here can be 100 per cent certain of guilt or innocence, but how can any logical person not agree that there is reasonable doubt.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
So I guess she's sitting in prison on vacation, not because she killed anyone, for example?
Click to expand...


It's obvious that you don't know why she (and Sollecito - you keep forgetting about him) is in prison at the moment.

They (Knox and Sollecito) are currently in prison on remand. They are not serving a sentence for the murder of Meredith Kercher. They have not yet even been convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. They are still considered completely innocent in law.

A judge has ruled that they must be remanded in custody during the trial process because of one or many of the following three factors: the seriousness of the charges against them; the risk of reoffending before the final verdict; the risk of flight before the final verdict.

Guess that one backfired on you a little bit, huh?
 
LondonJohn said:
A judge has ruled that they must be remanded in custody during the trial process because of one or many of the following three factors: the seriousness of the charges against them; the risk of reoffending before the final verdict; the risk of flight before the final verdict.
Click to expand...
What does reoffending mean? Does it mean offending again? I want to be clear. Is it possible to reoffend if you have not offended for a first time?
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
Mary_H, thanks for this quote from Fine. And thanks also Fine.



That is very revealing.

1.) Mignini is a criminal.
2.) Guede is illiterate.
3.) Judge Hellmann may be THE ONE.
Click to expand...

Draca said:
I like this. :)
Click to expand...

I like the part where it says that it is acknowledged that Guede repeatedly sticks his pen up his nose.

I believe that Guede took a test for something similar to a high school certification just before this hearing. I wonder how he did?
 
pilot padron said:
1) Your statement that the highest Court in the land can perform the Constitutional function demanded of it *without* being aware of *all* findings of fact about the case:
a) requires a HUGE suspension of disbelief.
b) In fact calls *your* understanding of the highest Court in the land, the Italian Court of Cessation's function into question.
c) Suggests a founded by Google only, a feeble familiarity with realities of Italian legal procedures as well as common sense actualities

2) Would any person capable of rudimentary common sense join you in accepting/arguing that if the highest Court in the land absolutely knew and unequivocally accepted that the defendant *had to be innocent* because of a fact of evidence that they were obviously aware of (see above 1)...they still would just quietly affirm the lower Court and send an innocent person to prison, possibly for the rest of their living days ???:eek: Really ??:eek:

3) Of course everything about the case always comes back to your favorite fetish 'argument' about ToD

4) Oh Dear yes, you state the Italian Court of Cessation is per haps something other than the "highest Court in the land" ?:cool:
Oh Dear yes, lets *divert ourselves and everyone's attention* from this argument and concentrate another 50,000 to now argue that terribly crucial terminology ad nauseam:cool:

ETA: Surely you have noticed with all the jubilation here over what Rolling Stone says, that these authors also (shame, shame) refer to "the highest Court in the land" that you pontificate as "nonsense"
Click to expand...


Well.......

First of all, it's hard to take seriously someone who doesn't know the difference between the word "cassation" and the word "cessation". I'm sure someone at the Court of Cassation in Rome will be able to educate you though :)

Second, I do indeed know the role and powers of the Supreme Court in Italy. And that role and power does not extend to investigating findings of fact. It is limited to ensuring that the lower courts have applied the law properly. This includes checking that the findings of fact of the lower courts are lawful in respect to the evidence, testimony and arguments put before those courts. But it does not include examining the findings of fact in and of themselves, let alone ruling on them as facts.

Third, you seem to be implying that I don't view the Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) as the highest court in Italy. This is a misrepresentation. Of course it's the highest court in Italy. But it does not perform the same judicial function as the lower courts. And it's this part that you don't seem to be able to grasp.

Fourth, I notice that you less-than-artfully sidestepped my direct question which holes your "argument" below the waterline. As a recap, my question is this: Since the Supreme Court also endorsed the part of the verdict against Guede that judged the ToD to be pre-10.30pm, do you think that this ToD should now be unarguable in Knox's/Sollecito's trials too?

I look forward to receiving a straightforward answer to this question from you ("yes" or "no" would be sufficient). And I also look forward to you finally realising that you're completely wrong on this issue. :)
 
RoseMontague said:
I like the part where it says that it is acknowledged that Guede repeatedly sticks his pen up his nose.

I believe that Guede took a test for something similar to a high school certification just before this hearing. I wonder how he did?
Click to expand...


That made me think of "Ruprecht" from the film "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels"



:D
 
Lothian said:
What does reoffending mean? Does it mean offending again? I want to be clear. Is it possible to reoffend if you have not offended for a first time?
Click to expand...

No, you're being semantic. And I'm guessing (well, hoping - since the alternative is stupidity) that you know that.

There was enough prima facie evidence to arrest and charge them with the crime of sexually-aggravated murder. But this is nowhere near the standard of proof required to convict them of the crime.

However, the justice system has many responsibilities, one of which is to protect the public. It's long been ruled across the democratic world that in the case of people charged with serious crimes, the prima facie evidence itself is sufficient to justify detention in custody of the suspect(s): the possibility of the suspect being acquitted is outweighed by the potential risk to the public if the suspect is ultimately convicted, but is allowed to roam free pending the trial process. And it's also long been ruled that if a suspect who faces a potential lengthy prison sentence (if convicted) is a flight risk, the argument for that person's liberty until/unless convicted is outweighed by the risk of flight.

So, to directly address your point, the phrase "risk of reoffending" is shorthand for "risk of the suspect being guilty of the crimes with which they are charged, and reoffending before their conviction on the original charges". Does that work a little better for you? :rolleyes:
 
Dole

DrDave said:
Here is the answer I gave

- perhaps offtopic. Is there a reason to your titles? e.g. Coal in the last one and shoal before. Sometimes I get them. Last two, not so much
Click to expand...
DrDave,

You missed comments 13709 and 13710. Your question about Amanda is a non sequitur; I don’t believe that she and Sollecito killed anyone. Reading the Massei report convinced RoseMontague that the two were innocent. The discussion of the TOD in it is a lesson in how to obscure an issue with baloney. Arguments for guilt founder on the Shoals of the TOD, IMO. “Coal” came to mind because of John Prine’s song “Paradise,” to which I recently listened. Dole is the name of a company selling pineapples.
 
LondonJohn said:
So, to directly address your point, the phrase "risk of reoffending" is shorthand for "risk of the suspect being guilty of the crimes with which they are charged, and reoffending before their conviction on the original charges". Does that work a little better for you? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think we are in any disagreement. It is not worth the risk of letting them out in case they reoffend. I am happy with that.
 
Lothian said:
I honestly don't think we are in any disagreement. It is not worth the risk of letting them out in case they reoffend. I am happy with that.
Click to expand...


I am assuming that you're still trying to be witty. Or should I go with "option B"?
 
LondonJohn said:
Well.......

First of all, it's hard to take seriously someone who doesn't know the difference between the word "cassation" and the word "cessation". I'm sure someone at the Court of Cassation in Rome will be able to educate you though :)

Second, I do indeed know the role and powers of the Supreme Court in Italy. And that role and power does not extend to investigating findings of fact. It is limited to ensuring that the lower courts have applied the law properly. This includes checking that the findings of fact of the lower courts are lawful in respect to the evidence, testimony and arguments put before those courts. But it does not include examining the findings of fact in and of themselves, let alone ruling on them as facts.

Third, you seem to be implying that I don't view the Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) as the highest court in Italy. This is a misrepresentation. Of course it's the highest court in Italy. But it does not perform the same judicial function as the lower courts. And it's this part that you don't seem to be able to grasp.

Fourth, I notice that you less-than-artfully sidestepped my direct question which holes your "argument" below the waterline. As a recap, my question is this: Since the Supreme Court also endorsed the part of the verdict against Guede that judged the ToD to be pre-10.30pm, do you think that this ToD should now be unarguable in Knox's/Sollecito's trials too?

I look forward to receiving a straightforward answer to this question from you ("yes" or "no" would be sufficient). And I also look forward to you finally realising that you're completely wrong on this issue. :)
Click to expand...
Have I got this right; Guede’s trial/appeal process is distinct from Raffaele and Amanda’s in the context of Italian judicial process, his confirmation by the Supreme Court were they concluded that Meredith was murdered by Guede and unnamed others has absolutely nothing to do with Amanda and Raffaele current appeal? Does this apply to evidence from these distinct trials/appeals?
 
LondonJohn said:
It's obvious that you don't know why she (and Sollecito - you keep forgetting about him) is in prison at the moment.

They (Knox and Sollecito) are currently in prison on remand. They are not serving a sentence for the murder of Meredith Kercher. They have not yet even been convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. They are still considered completely innocent in law.
Click to expand...

I'm completely innocent in law, and yet I'm not sitting in prison, am I Wendy?

Guess that one backfired on you a little bit, huh?
 
Hi linking, yes I am well aware these tests are not admissible in court. Would just be interesting to see the results if RG,AK,RS, the police, etc. all took the test or who would agree to take it. Just wishful thinking on my part.
 
Justinian2 said:
Mary_H, thanks for this quote from Fine. And thanks also Fine.



That is very revealing.

1.) Mignini is a criminal.
2.) Guede is illiterate.
3.) Judge Hellmann may be THE ONE.
Click to expand...

I have watched several times (well, really more listened to) the video of Rudy's appearance in court but haven't been able to adequately identify all the voices, persons and conversation during the letter introduction and subsequent reading by Mignini.

The above starts sometime around 9:00 minutes or so and ends around 20:00 minutes or so with Mignini reading the letter. I believe I hear the voices of Rudy, Mignini, a female attorney (Rudy's?), Judge Hellmann(?), Rudy being shown the letter and identifying it (?) and is the woman(?) stepping down to peruse said letter Bongiorno?

There is much conversation/procedural arguments which appear to be riveting, however, there is some conversation I cannot understand during the 10 minute or so time frame and some identification of who is addressing the court.

http://www.umbria24.it/meredith-rudy-accusa-amanda-e-raffaele-ecco-il-video-integrale/47972.html
 
Poppy1016 said:
This case never ceases to amaze me. Hellman certainly knew that RG could not be forced to answer questions. So why on earth did he order him to appear in court. It is ridiculous to me that he can't be cross examined by the defense after being allowed to basically testify for the prosecution.
It is also a shame that he can't be asked to take a polygraph.
I am also very disappointed in the entire defense team.Not knowing about the letter is unexcusable. I feel her defense team is inadequate and botched the first trial, and are doing poorly in the appeal. I hope justice prevails and AK and RS are freed, but with weak defense and a corrupt judicial system, I am not holding my breath.
No one here can be 100 per cent certain of guilt or innocence, but how can any logical person not agree that there is reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

This is a good post. I agree with you 100 percent.
 
Hi and thank you PD. I know I was rambling, but I am so frustrated with everything about this case.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Have I got this right; Guede’s trial/appeal process is distinct from Raffaele and Amanda’s in the context of Italian judicial process, his confirmation by the Supreme Court were they concluded that Meredith was murdered by Guede and unnamed others has absolutely nothing to do with Amanda and Raffaele current appeal? Does this apply to evidence from these distinct trials/appeals?
Click to expand...


You're correct. All the evidence and testimony from Guede's two trials can be introduced into Knox's/Sollecito's trials. But the verdicts and sentencing reports cannot. And therefore none of the findings of fact from Guede's trial process set any sort of "precedent" in Knox's/Sollecito's trial process.

The rules of modern jurisprudence dictate that the courts in Knox's/Sollecito's trial process can only base their verdicts - and their findings of fact - upon arguments made before those courts. This is a vital cornerstone of justice, since the defendants need to have the right to argue their case, and to hear & respond to the arguments of the prosecution (and of the court itself).

I'll bring up a very easy-to-follow example again: as many people have already pointed out, the verdict of the two lower courts in Guede's case - a verdict which was afirmed by the Supreme Court - has, as a finding of fact, the ToD to be some time shortly before 10.30pm. But the first court in Knox's/Sollecito's case found the ToD to be 11.40pm. And the appeal court in Knox's/Sollecito's case is at liberty to find the ToD to be any time at all (provided that the appeal court's finding is lawful in relation to all the ToD evidence, testimony and argument placed before it).

So the fact that the Supreme Court has already affirmed a verdict in which the ToD was found to be 10.30pm has absolutely no bearing on the appeal court in the Knox/Sollecito case. The lawyers (defence, prosecution, and the court) can all argue for any ToD, based on the evidence and testimony available to the appeal trial, and the court can ultimately find for ToD completely independent of the prior ruling of the Supreme Court in the Guede case.

And, just as with ToD, the appeal court in the Knox/Sollecito case is absolutely not beholden to somehow "accept" a 3-assailant scenario, merely because the Supreme Court has affirmed a verdict in which that was the finding of fact. People who have been shouting (often very loudly and aggressively) that this is the case are just plain wrong.

(Incidentally, if two court processes relating to the same crime have differing findings of fact, this is completely lawful and proper - as discussed above. But if the different findings of fact have a material effect upon any of those convicted, that may constitute grounds for appeal. This is unlikely to happen in this particular instance though. The only way it could conceivably happen would be if Knox's/Sollecito's trial somehow found that Guede was not involved in the crime - if that happened (which of course it won't), then Guede would have grounds for appeal against his own conviction, based on the different finding of fact in the Knox/Sollecito trial)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom