• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bummer, sounds interesting.

Thanks for the heads up


Don't count yourself out yet. I'll add new researchers if they've proven themself or have references. What I'm looking for is simply honesty and willingness to do the grunt work. The majority of what's in the wiki is quotes, news clips, documents and index lists. There's no need for heavy analysis or flowery prose, there are plenty of blog sites for that.
 
You are spot on with respect to the average person confusing Rudy and Patrick. It is a horse race whether Rudy is the forgotten man here, or Raffaele. Sometimes I wish Amanda would answer, "You know [name of interviewer here]*, I am not the only person whose liberty may be in jeopardy from all of this cartwheel-nonsense. Raffaele could be convicted again, and no one even accused him of crying or not crying at an inappropriate time."
*or she could just say "you stupid twit." I favor the latter.

Yes or mention the same prosecutor did this bullying tactic to Doug Preston and others. for some reason the Guilters love to hate Amanda in particular.
 
Yes or mention the same prosecutor did this bullying tactic to Doug Preston and others. for some reason the Guilters love to hate Amanda in particular.

You don't think it's possible to think Amanda guilty without hating her?
 
She is on a book selling tour. She writes about those very aspects. That's the heart of the book, what should they be asking about?
The heart of the book is that she is innocent and that something terrible happened to her. Imagine, if you will, an interviewer who reads the book, believes the heart of it, and comes into the interview to talk to Amanda about how it felt to be wrongly accused, etc., without naming a single pejorative against her -- just assuming she is as much a victim as the kidnapped women and interviewing her from that point of view.

She doesn't know what happened as well as some people here. She sat in jail for 4 years reading novels. I doubt even people here would like to read and hear only about her jail and court experiences.
She seems to have done the research. Of course, everybody wants to know the details of the interrogation and the arrest, but I believe it can be done without covertly blaming Amanda for it. By the way, I thought the parts about being in prison were the most interesting of the book. I wish she could write a whole book about just that alone.

By asking the questions she gets a chance to clear things up. If she weren't asked it would seem like a cover-up.
My whole point is that she doesn't have to clear things up. These interviews have been too much about getting her to defend the accusations against her, and that should not be her job. She has written her book, so there is no cover-up.

Neither she nor Raf argue that their behavior wasn't odd. She goes on about how immature she was and that she regrets most that she let them manipulate her.
Amanda and Raffaele are saying their behavior was odd because there has been so much pressure on them to say it. They feel partially to blame because that is how victims feel. Amanda did not let the police manipulate her any more than she made them arrest Patrick; she is blaming herself because that's what victims do.

They aren't there and they aren't selling a book. I would love to see Mignini write a book and go on a tour of interviews outside of Italy and England.

The ILE should be taken to task regardless.

Once again this a book tour and I'm sure that HC wants these questions asked. If Amanda didn't want this kind of interviews, she could have self published or taken a much lower advance. I in no way begrudge her the money she is getting and I wouldn't even if she and family hadn't run up all their expenses.

Amanda while a victim isn't a victim in same way as a rape victim. She made self-admitted mistakes that contributed to her ordeal.
Sorry, but I see that as a completely false statement.

Part of the purpose of the book is to let people know that they must be aware and take care of themselves.
It still can be done without further exposing Amanda to emotional trauma.
 
I am not sure that Knox is quite as pure and chaste a person as she is portraying herself to be, but IMHO the evidence against her is not very strong, and that the Italian Justice System is still pursuing her just proves how corrupt and messed up the Italian Justice System is. Anybody who has studies the Italian Justice system remarkable lenenicy with organized crime figures will see that.
What Knox is trying to do is build up public support in the US to make her extradition a political hot potato. The US prohibition on Double Jeopardy will give the Justice Department a nice shield for refusing extradition.

It's not double jeopardy no more than it is in the US when a superior court sends a case back for a retrial.
 
I don't want to divert from your ongoing discussion, but I got into a spat with this guy earlier today about something completely different, and then remembered he had written a very anti-Knox article some years ago. I went to check if he'd ever reconsidered, but it looks as if he hasn't. Does anyone have any comment?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/12/the_white_charg/
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/10/meredith-kercher-case/

Rolfe.

It's difficult to go on reading when someone says this" "...the more I researched the more I came to the conclusion that locking up Amanda Knox is rather sensible."

And then they say this: "She gave a series of lies to the police about where she was at the time of the murder,..."

What research?
 
Mmmm, yes. The guy has form. I crossed swords with him in relation to a recent blog post claiming electoral fraud by the Labour party in South Shields, where he was punting a completely preposterous scenario involving Labour fabricating over 7000 fake postal votes and getting them into the count without anyone suspecting. Which implies that well over a quarter of all votes cast were fake, and the "real" turnout was about 27%. But he has a "mole" in the count who knew....

Then I remembered the Knox blog post, and wondered if anyone here could put him in context. He seems to come up in a few interesting topics, like Julian Assange and the death of David Kelly. Was this just an isolated foray into guilterism, or does he appear elsewhere?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
It's not double jeopardy no more than it is in the US when a superior court sends a case back for a retrial.

Sorry - you need to read up on what double jeopardy is.... it means that if someone is acquitted in the USA, that stops the judicial process. Upon acquittal there IS NO superior court involved.

It is NOT that someone cannot be tried twice. It is that once acquitted they cannot be tried again.

I'm not sure you understand the concept in the US of A.
 
Sorry - you need to read up on what double jeopardy is.... it means that if someone is acquitted in the USA, that stops the judicial process. Upon acquittal there IS NO superior court involved.

It is NOT that someone cannot be tried twice. It is that once acquitted they cannot be tried again.

I'm not sure you understand the concept in the US of A.


Hardly matters then, this case wasn't tried in the US of A. Amanda herself realizes she could be sent back, and I'm pretty sure she has brought this topic up with her lawyers.
 
Hardly matters then, this case wasn't tried in the US of A. Amanda herself realizes she could be sent back, and I'm pretty sure she has brought this topic up with her lawyers.

I'm wondering why Follain would tell us in his book that Mignini had talked to "officials" about extraditing Amanda, and had concluded America would not send her back to Italy. Is Mignini wrong?
 
Sorry - you need to read up on what double jeopardy is.... it means that if someone is acquitted in the USA, that stops the judicial process. Upon acquittal there IS NO superior court involved.

It is NOT that someone cannot be tried twice. It is that once acquitted they cannot be tried again.

I'm not sure you understand the concept in the US of A.

Bill superior court is where people are usually found guilty or innocent. Here, if found innocent in superior court the case is over because the prosecutor may not appeal.

You are thinking of the supreme court of a state or the USA.
 
I'm wondering why Follain would tell us in his book that Mignini had talked to "officials" about extraditing Amanda, and had concluded America would not send her back to Italy. Is Mignini wrong?

Probably a ploy to get the Italian court system not to allow her to leave Italy.
 
Bill superior court is where people are usually found guilty or innocent. Here, if found innocent in superior court the case is over because the prosecutor may not appeal.

You are thinking of the supreme court of a state or the USA.

I can truly stand only half corrected here. If this so look up thread to see tsig's example. Tsig has the "superior court" sending something back to somewhere. Where?
 
I can truly stand only half corrected here. If this so look up thread to see tsig's example. Tsig has the "superior court" sending something back to somewhere. Where?

Back to the court of the first instance. I said superior court because there are state and federal systems.

Point is that Amanda's case is winding it's way thru the Italian system and in that system she was found guilty then had the verdict reversed by a superior court and then had that reversal reversed by a still higher court. There is no double jeopardy.
 
Back to the court of the first instance. I said superior court because there are state and federal systems.

Point is that Amanda's case is winding it's way thru the Italian system and in that system she was found guilty then had the verdict reversed by a superior court and then had that reversal reversed by a still higher court. There is no double jeopardy.

You are correct on the latter ( as per Italian law, not necessarily on what the USA would do in relation to it...) and this would effect Raffaele directly, and the "jury's out" on Amanda because she's a US citizen presently in the USA. You should read Steve Moore's piece on this.

But you were mistaken about double jeopardy in the USA... an acquittal stops the process... there is now sending it back down if there is an acquittal.
 
Back to the court of the first instance. I said superior court because there are state and federal systems.

Point is that Amanda's case is winding it's way thru the Italian system and in that system she was found guilty then had the verdict reversed by a superior court and then had that reversal reversed by a still higher court. There is no double jeopardy.

No. In the US system, once a person has been found innocent of a crime, they are immune from further prosecution of that specific crime. Not the supreme court - federal or state - nor any other court, whatsoever, can order a person prosecuted again.

This excludes civil cases, as in the example of OJ Simpson. But, guilters' comparisons to Mr. Simpson notwithstanding, Amanda Knox would be perceived immune to further prosecution by protection of unambiguous language in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, as well as subsequent US Supreme Court decisions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom