Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

an outrage

Pay attention, Meredith and the truth. The truth is also about Rudy Guede.
Rudy Guede had no criminal history. He was picked by the police sleeping in a private place in Milan with stolen objects, a week before, this is his criminal history. Not very long.

Again, instead I don't take anything for granted about what will happen to Amanda, unless someone very powerful interceded for her.

Machiavelli,

Rudy was picked up in a school, and he had a knife in his possession (in his backpack, IIRC) at the time. If I were a parent of a child at that school, i would be outraged that a person found under those circumstances were not arrested.

 

[AmyStrange]

Why do you keep repeating a rant that you can't prove? What do you gain by that?
Do you think my and others' intents will change?
Do you think you make Amanda become safer by showting in capital letters?

-

Maybe for the same reason you keep repeating a rant that you can't prove. What do you gain by that?

Dave

 

[Poppy1016]

Machiavelli,
Exactly what are yours and others intents with regards to the safety of Ak ?

 

[Machiavelli]

...
You seem to think that it is the prosecution which is totally within its right to dole out information when it sees fit. How do you know that the defense would not benefit from knowing that the determination of the amount of DNA was not done with real-time PCR? How do you know how the defense would have examined and argued about the negative control runs (if they exist)?

But these are not arguments for innocence. Whether the prosecution violated a procedure or not, is not a definitive determinant factor. Whether the defense would have benefited more by an earlier release of data, is not a relevat facto either. The procedure has its options which are provided, for the defense to access the forensic tests data. They were invited to assist to the process. Do you know that, when they received the call to asisst to the tests, they had an option to object, they could have asked to not test the knife nder that legal option, and the preliminary judge would have appointed a different kind of test, under his control instead of the prosecutions'.
They have to use the options that are provided, not those principles that you see in the OJ Simpsons' trial.
If they wanted to benefit from knowing the quantification in advance, they should have taken part to the laboratory tests. If they did not benefit because they didn't know about the quantification in the preliminary hearing, they can discuss it in the trial. Here, they have complete documentation to discuss it.
This is the topic. You are talking about procedures.
But these are not arguments for claiming there is no DNA.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

Maybe for the same reason you keep repeating a rant that you can't prove. What do you gain by that?

Dave

I can prove.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Rudy was picked up in a school, and he had a knife in his possession (in his backpack, IIRC) at the time. If I were a parent of a child at that school, i would be outraged that a person found under those circumstances were not arrested.

You can be outraged but there is no law to arrest him. There isn't a crime like being in a school at night with a knife in the backpack.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,
Are you insinuating that Amanda is not safe ?
Very interesting and disturbing.

She is under trial for murder.

 

[Freddy]

Why do you keep repeating a rant that you can't prove? What do you gain by that?
Do you think my and others' intents will change?
Do you think you make Amanda become safer by showting in capital letters?

Well, you keep insinuating that it is possible she will be re-convicted of the murder and extradited. It is not possible even in the extremely unlikely event that the Italian Supreme court overturns the appeal verdict, because, according to the extradition agreement, there must be probable cause that she committed the crime. Despite what you think, any American court would conclude that there isn't even that much credible evidence against her, because by American standards (America has standards for this sort of thing, apparently unlike Italy) you couldn't get a search warrant with the evidence that is left after the experts eviscerated the prosecution's case.

 

[Mary_H]

You can be outraged but there is no law to arrest him. There isn't a crime like being in a school at night with a knife in the backpack.

We call it trespassing.

 

[AmyStrange]

I can prove.

I guess that explains why Amanda is still in Italy serving her 26 year sentence (Raffaele too)... NOT!!!

 

[Ammonitida]

-

Pay attention, Amanda AIN'T GOING BACK TO PERUGIA.

Amanda was acquitted of murder charges by a jury trial.

The Italian/United States treaty regarding extradition of American citizens has this to say,

"Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed by the requested party for the same acts for which extradition is requested"

Amanda's trial and subsequent acquittal satisfies the above IMO. It does not state "only acquittals confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court".

 

[Ammonitida]

She is under trial for murder.

Only in your country. Not here.

 

[Poppy1016]

Mach, I really would like to know what you meant by your and others intents

 

[Poppy1016]

Mach, I hope you aren't insinuating that harm may come to AK. Is that the intent you speak of ?

 

[AmyStrange]

You can be outraged but there is no law to arrest him. There isn't a crime like being in a school at night with a knife in the backpack.

We call it trespassing.

-

Mary,

it's interesting that it's against the law to stage a break-in, but not against the law to "actually" break in to a place (school). How's that for consistency?

Dave

 

[Grinder]

You can be outraged but there is no law to arrest him. There isn't a crime like being in a school at night with a knife in the backpack.

There is no law against breaking into a business, stealing a knife and money, and sleeping in the office?

Also there is no law against having stolen property?

 

[AmyStrange]

Amanda was acquitted of murder charges by a jury trial.

The Italian/United States treaty regarding extradition of American citizens has this to say,

"Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed by the requested party for the same acts for which extradition is requested"

Amanda's trial and subsequent acquittal satisfies the above IMO. It does not state "only acquittals confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court".

Thank you Ammo

 

[Machiavelli]

Amanda was acquitted of murder charges by a jury trial.

The Italian/United States treaty regarding extradition of American citizens has this to say,

"Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed by the requested party for the same acts for which extradition is requested"

Amanda's trial and subsequent acquittal satisfies the above IMO. It does not state "only acquittals confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court".

An acquittal or a conviction becomes valid in this sense in Italy only when gains the status of "giudicato". Until then the person is under trial, as acknowledged internationally, by all countries the US State department included. There is no sentence of acquittal of this kind on Amanda Knox, nor on Raffaele Sollecito. An extradition treaty cannot protect Amanda if she's convicted, because it's a treaty, based on mutual acknowledgment of legal effects.

 

[Poppy1016]

There is no law against breaking into a business, stealing a knife and money, and sleeping in the office?

Also there is no law against having stolen property?

According to Mach the law is only what the prosecutor and police say it is

 

[Mary_H]

You seem to believe much to your own judgement that I have an authoritarian culture; and you seem to believe the idea that I wil believe autority whatever it says.
But I never had these ideas. I will decide if and how to respect the court's decision only after I read the motivation report, and anyway the decision is not definitive. It does not change Knox's legal status by now: until the Cassazione, Knox is still under trial for murder.
But aside of this, my conclusions are not based on trust in authority nor on trust in judges' conclusion. My conclusions are based on my assessment of the evidence. I've seen the evidence, I see evidence of their implication beyond doubt. In fact, I've seen a load of information pointing towards their guilt.
I also have some confidence in my assessments on the law, and by now I see some of Hellmann's procedure choices as profoundly flawed. I also have some kind of information about Vechiotti and Hellmann and other people. But before having an opinion on Hellmann's verdict, I have to read it.

I tend to get that impression when you make arguments like this:

"My statement, Knox was lying, is aligned with a sentence established in a court of Law, therefore entirely legitimate from any point of view."