• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antony said:
Careful Machiavelli. The tarriff for making a false accusation in Italy is 3 years in prison.
Click to expand...

I ventured over to the Rabbit hole last night and saw Peter Quennell was threatening calunnia charges again, or at least hoping for them to bestowed on some lucky soul. I can't remember who it was, but anyone thinking someone outside Italy would be anything but honored and amused to receive one over this case is pretty much beyond satire.
 
AmyStrange said:
This says it all (from the above link):
" ...He is threatened with a knife, recognizes Rudy as his aggressor... "

But what's also interesting is this (from the same link):
" ...Tramontano chased the man downstairs as he tried to escape, but the front door was locked. The thief -- who Tramontano identified as Guede -- first used a chair to keep Tramontano at a distance, and then pulled out a switchblade knife... "

And this (same link):
" ...Christian wasn't very hospitable. He even didn't ask him if he needed to use the toilet. He rushed Rudy and yelled at him to go, which was exactly what Rudy was trying to do. At this point, since Christian was insisting, Rudy pulled out a knife and showed it to him.

"Christian just told him not to be stupid because he knew who he was and he could tell the police. Rudy said, 'But if the door is blocked, how can I go away?'"

None of this sounds remotely violent,

Dave
Click to expand...

aha...amazing. I find someone breaking in my home, stealing and then pulling a knife on me very violent , and to realize he was involved in a murder shortly afterward, even more so.

I suppose had he killed or stabbed, then this would be a more clear definition of violent for you...or maybe that would just be a "flesh wound".

According to the Castle law, Rudys act would justify being shot and killed for, in self defense.
>Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle. ”
>

Had he performed such a "non-violent" act in other homes, in states of the Castle law, on Sept 2, 2007, Meredith would probably still be alive after Nov, 2007.
 
Machiavelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, nice double speak.

It's interesting though that (according to you) she's a proven liar, but not proven innocent of murder. Personally, I don't think your legal analysis is even close to accurate or consistent,

Dave
 
AmyStrange said:
-

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
Click to expand...

Also how can it be possible for Amanda to have been 'convicted' of 'transporting' that knife illegally in her bag and not illegal for Rudy Guede to steal one and hide it in the process of his breaking and entering?
 
JREF2010 said:
aha...amazing. I find someone breaking in my home, stealing and then pulling a knife on me very violent , and to realize he was involved in a murder shortly afterward, even more so.

I suppose had he killed or stabbed, then this would be a more clear definition of violent for you...or maybe that would just be a "flesh wound".

According to the Castle law, Rudys act would justify being shot and killed for, in self defense.
>Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle. ”
>

Had he performed such a "non-violent" act in other homes, in states of the Castle law, on Sept 2, 2007, Meredith would probably still be alive after Nov, 2007.
Click to expand...

Not saying you are wrong in what you believe JREF, I just don't see it the same way as you. And even though I have issues with his being guilty of murder, I still (in the back of my mind) think he might be a serial killer... there's just no real evidence of it... yet.

Of course when he gets out of prison, Mach can put him up in one of his spare rooms. Rudy is a saint according to many of the same people who think Amanda isn't.

And wouldn't it be just a bizarre kind of irony if Rudy than killed Mach for being nice to him,

Dave
 
Kaosium said:
Also how can it be possible for Amanda to have been 'convicted' of 'transporting' that knife illegally in her bag and not illegal for Rudy Guede to steal one and hide it in the process of his breaking and entering?
Click to expand...
-

Never even thought of that one. Thank you Kaosium.
 
AmyStrange said:
Like I said earlier, nice double speak.

It's interesting though that (according to you) she's a proven liar, but not proven innocent of murder. Personally, I don't think your legal analysis is even close to accurate or consistent,

Dave
Click to expand...

Legally, her status is not a definitive conclusion on both aspects.
Logically, to me she is a proven liar based on my assessment and not a proven innocent.
Moreover, I am legitimized in calling her proven liar, as much as some other may be legitimate in calling her innocent for murder.
In order to call her (legitimately) proven innocent (proven by a court) you would need a 530.1 motivation report proving her innocence.
By now, the only proven part (as far as we know), which means deemed certain beyond reasonable doubt, is the conviction part. Where she is found guilty of calunnia, which is a malicious crime, it must be voluntary not coerced.

The calling her a liar does not expres my approval of the court's decision or reasoning (which I don't know). But expresses my claim of a legal legitimacy of my judgement. If I call her a liar I am within my duties as a citizen, it is a just thing to point this out if we speak of her as a public figure.
 
Machiavelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I said, the treaty provides that there must be probable cause - as determined by an American court - before the US will extradite. No American court will find that there is, because we have standards over here, and because we don't believe in witches or she-devils anymore. Thus no extradition, and no violation of the treaty. But it won't come to that, because the Italian Supreme Court is not going to overturn the appeal verdict.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes there are laws, but in the school there was no breaking.
He was denounced (charged) for having stolen property and for being inside the school. There is no arrest provided for these crimes.
 
Kaosium said:
Also how can it be possible for Amanda to have been 'convicted' of 'transporting' that knife illegally in her bag and not illegal for Rudy Guede to steal one and hide it in the process of his breaking and entering?
Click to expand...

Good one Kaosium. Mach seems to be ignoring that spot on observation.
 
Machiavelli said:
Legally, her status is not a definitive conclusion on both aspects.
Logically, to me she is a proven liar based on my assessment and not a proven innocent.
Moreover, I am legitimized in calling her proven liar, as much as some other may be legitimate in calling her innocent for murder.
In order to call her (legitimately) proven innocent (proven by a court) you would need a 530.1 motivation report proving her innocence.
By now, the only proven part (as far as we know), which means deemed certain beyond reasonable doubt, is the conviction part. Where she is found guilty of calunnia, which is a malicious crime, it must be voluntary not coerced.

The calling her a liar does not expres my approval of the court's decision or reasoning (which I don't know). But expresses my claim of a legal legitimacy of my judgement. If I call her a liar I am within my duties as a citizen, it is a just thing to point this out if we speak of her as a public figure.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah.

I guess then no one is allowed to appeal the calunnia verdict to the Supreme Court?

What a load of hogwash,

Dave
 
Freddy said:
As I said, the treaty provides that there must be probable cause - as determined by an American court - before the US will extradite. No American court will find that there is, because we have standards, and because we don't believe in witches or she-devils anymore over here. Thus no extradition, and no violation of the treaty. ...
Click to expand...

Neither do I. And this is the whole point. Are you able to believe that I don't believe in she-devils nor witches (and that nobody does in Perugia neither) and that I see simply evidence of involvement in murder?
My whole point is having people understand this simple fact. My idea of justice in this case is to make clear that the issue about Amanda Knox is only about justice. Meredith, and the truth. There is no other value in play in my mind except this, and the right thing to do is show these are the values in play. The claims about whitch hunting, face saving, corruptions, everything of the innocentisti repertioire, are lies. Rationalization for covering a banal suspect of a murder. There is only a simple matter of justice.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the Article VI speaks of "giudicato". Nothing about "only acquittals that are valid". Just an acquittal.

She went through a trial by jury in Italy and was found not guilty. That satisfies the United States standard of "acquittal". Any extradition attempt now would be highly contested and argued as a violation of the United States Double Jeopardy which prohibits someone from being tried for the same crime twice. That's why Mignini appealed to Hellman about the "private jet" waiting for Amanda.

Don't for a second think it's easy to extradite American citizens to Italy. US has already denied several requests despite the treaty.
 
Machiavelli said:
Yes there are laws, but in the school there was no breaking.
He was denounced (charged) for having stolen property and for being inside the school. There is no arrest provided for these crimes.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that I can go to Italy break into businesses and steal money and other things and not be arrested?

In Rudy's case he apparently wasn't charged either.

You really think someone should get jail time for calunnia and not burglary?


Btw, you have never explained what the police chief meant by "knowing what was correct" and questioning her until she buckled. He never sued the paper at the time nor did he make a comment that he was incorrectly quoted.

It would be nice if you would admit that it appears the police agreed with Amanda's spontaneous statement before she made it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom