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

[Supernaut]

Watch her interviews. Listen to her. It's not just how she did or didn't hold up under the interrogation. There is no doubt that the accusation was a result of police suggestion.

I do think of her as a victim but not in the same way as a rape victim.

You're wrong.

Deliberately and gratuitously wrong, as seems to be your wont (you're SO stimulating and provocotive, Grinder).

Amanda Knox has been "raped" in a sense that is way beyond being "physically violated".

WAY BEYOND IT.

It's a wonder she has any sanity left in her.

 

[Supernaut]

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.

It would be a "topic"?

LoL. You should see yourself.

 

[acbytesla]

This would be unlawful. A review of the evidence is mandatory. The evidence is non-existent. I think this is the best reason for not seeking extradition. Note this useful provision in article XI

Well I agree that it would be unlawful, to a point. Yes a review of the evidence as it pertains to the documents is required. They hold an "extradition hearing" not another trial. You know the Italians would introduce the DNA evidence as if it was fact. Amanda's statement during interrogation. How inclined the judge would to hear a rebuttal and the argument that the evidence is contaminated and is suspect is the question.

Overall I agree with you that a US judge would reject the request. The evidence in this case is beyond weak.

It wouldn't surprise me that the Italians know that and wouldn't even request extradition. Sounds strange..but considering that Rudy will be out of prison by then and not wanting to potentially expose their judicial system to further ridicule they will let it go.

The real problem from my perspective for the Italians in the hearing is both the Hellman motivation and the Conti Vechiotti report. These are Italian documents exonerating Amanda. They would be reviewed. Even if the Italian Supreme Court gave a myriad of Italian legal reasons why they should be ignored, a US judge is not bound by their system.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Expert in what exactly, do you believe everyone who works for the FBI is an expert in crime scene forensics, I believe he was a helicopter pilot and a sharp shooter, nothing to do with forensics though, but FBI does sound good.

The cultists on PMF find a glib rationale to denigrate everyone who poses a threat to their crackpot beliefs. But the fact is that Amanda's supporters include a slew of people with solid training and experience in criminal investigations, and Steve Moore is one of them. A court or panel would recognize his expert standing, even if the cultists don't.

One could add to the list Saul Kassin, an expert on false confessions, and John Douglas, whose expertise is documented in numerous books, including the Crime Classifcation Manual, a bedrock text for police departments throughout the world.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The cultists on PMF find a glib rationale to denigrate everyone who poses a threat to their crackpot beliefs. But the fact is that Amanda's supporters include a slew of people with solid training and experience in criminal investigations, and Steve Moore is one of them. A court or panel would recognize his expert standing, even if the cultists don't.

One could add to the list Saul Kassin, an expert on false confessions, and John Douglas, whose expertise is documented in numerous books, including the Crime Classifcation Manual, a bedrock text for police departments throughout the world.

Excuse me, but 'the cultist on PMF' what is that suppose to mean? Why call them cultists, seems to me both sides on this issue are fairly equal, if there's cultist then so are you. I read both boards and truthfully, people on this board are 100 times mean and nastier than the ones over there. I like to rear here for the few very interesting and intelligent poster here, like Halides1 and yourself as well, there are a few others, but here, there are so many that just want to insult and argue, I don't see any of that over there.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Excuse me, but 'the cultist on PMF' what is that suppose to mean? Why call them cultists, seems to me both sides on this issue are fairly equal, if there's cultist then so are you. I read both boards and truthfully, people on this board are 100 times mean and nastier than the ones over there. I like to rear here for the few very interesting and intelligent poster here, like Halides1 and yourself as well, there are a few others, but here, there are so many that just want to insult and argue, I don't see any of that over there.

You should talk to Doug Preston, Steve Moore, Candace Dempsey, or the family of Amanda Knox if you want a rundown on PMF mean and nasty.

But that is beside the point. It's a cult site because people who doubt the prosecution's case are quickly banned, just as people who doubt the existence of Bigfoot are banned from the BFRO and BFF sites. Like the Bigfoot enthusiasts, the PMF crowd has free rein to pitch their wild ideas with no reality check, and that is what they do, day in and day out.

And that is still beside the point of my original post, which is that Steve Moore and a number of other high-profile supporters of Amanda are recognized as experts in their fields.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You should talk to Doug Preston, Steve Moore, Candace Dempsey, or the family of Amanda Knox if you want a rundown on PMF mean and nasty.

But that is beside the point. It's a cult site because people who doubt the prosecution's case are quickly banned, just as people who doubt the existence of Bigfoot are banned from the BFRO and BFF sites. Like the Bigfoot enthusiasts, the PMF crowd has free rein to pitch their wild ideas with no reality check, and that is what they do, day in and day out.

PMF is not a site to debate or argue this case on, it's a site devoted to Meredith Kercher comprised of guilters (as you would call them). I post there and I don't think Amanda killed anyone, I don't argue that when I'm there because that is not what that site is for, I've been a member for years.

 

[Bill Williams]

The cultists on PMF find a glib rationale to denigrate everyone who poses a threat to their crackpot beliefs. But the fact is that Amanda's supporters include a slew of people with solid training and experience in criminal investigations, and Steve Moore is one of them. A court or panel would recognize his expert standing, even if the cultists don't.

One could add to the list Saul Kassin, an expert on false confessions, and John Douglas, whose expertise is documented in numerous books, including the Crime Classifcation Manual, a bedrock text for police departments throughout the world.

Excuse me, but 'the cultist on PMF' what is that suppose to mean? Why call them cultists, seems to me both sides on this issue are fairly equal, if there's cultist then so are you. I read both boards and truthfully, people on this board are 100 times mean and nastier than the ones over there. I like to rear here for the few very interesting and intelligent poster here, like Halides1 and yourself as well, there are a few others, but here, there are so many that just want to insult and argue, I don't see any of that over there.

I somewhat agree with Sherlock Holmes here, knowing that I have used that kind of talk too.

But the hallmarks of what "cults" do are displayed at the hate sites. One of the ways that cults operate is the claim to be speaking from authority, where they never reveal what the authority actually is. It then is up the the leader of the cult (in this case the webmasters) to 'filter' these anonymous experts' opinions.

It's more than simply a rhetorical trick. It is a hallmark of what real cults in the real world do.

Peter Quennell's "100s of lawyers" default position is case in point. Peggy Ganong's, "I got all my information straight from the courtroom," without revealing who it was in the courtroom is case in point.

As an aside, I know of another person who was court the whole time, too. The judge. All 8 of them. Do I need to review the 8 findings of fact even in the Massei court that tend to exonerate Sollecito and Knox?

Because that is another definition of a cult. They cannot provide a comprehensive timeline of this crime; they stick to the "received wisdom", which comes to them by an unknown vehicle, and source unknowable except to them - so that they can control the info.

Anyway, that's how I see it. The thing that literally drove me to the innocence side is that most innocenters actually do provide cites; and show their sources. As I have done by quoting Massei on at least 7 items in his motivations which tend to acquit the two.

And with some dew exceptions, I get name-called instead of having Massei dealt with on those points.

I have also had private PM's with many people from that side of the fence. Even in PM people don't reveal their sources, yet still claim authority. That's one sign of a cult - they have special knowledge inaccessible to others.

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry if this is a rerun of something already posted: http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=26795

Common bars to extradition include:

1. Failure to fulfill dual criminality (generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested parties);(.....)

Nicola Canestrini, Italian Criminal Lawyer

 

[Grinder]

Sorry if this is a rerun of something already posted: http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=26795

The actual treaty says that the crime need not be a crime in the country being requested.

By enacting laws or concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they may entertain or deny extradition requests. Common bars to extradition include:

1. Failure to fulfill dual criminality (generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested parties);

But not in the case of the treaty with the US and Italy.

 

[acbytesla]

PMF is not a site to debate or argue this case on, it's a site devoted to Meredith Kercher comprised of guilters (as you would call them). I post there and I don't think Amanda killed anyone, I don't argue that when I'm there because that is not what that site is for, I've been a member for years.

I know that PMF says it is devoted to Meredith Kercher, but I have to ask. What have they or you done for Meredith Kercher or her family? Anything at all?

PMF is definitely a community but one that doesn't allow any challenge to the authority of the Webmaster/Webmistress or the idea that Amanda or Raffaele had nothing to do with Meredith's murder. As long as the members goose step without question to that premise they are welcome. Otherwise they are banned.

 

[Kaosium]

PMF is not a site to debate or argue this case on, it's a site devoted to Meredith Kercher comprised of guilters (as you would call them). I post there and I don't think Amanda killed anyone, I don't argue that when I'm there because that is not what that site is for, I've been a member for years.

That makes PMF/TJMK nothing but a propaganda outlet that gives the impression that there's those who know something about the case or the subjects related who believe the premise that there's valid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and/or they're guilty of something. Like (some of) the bigfoot sites or alien siting pages they must ban anyone not accepting that premise as an actual discussion of the facts and evidence would reveal they're on the wrong side of all of that, and actually don't know much of anything about the subjects related to that. Or if they do they're...ummm...'differently motivated.'

Anyone can come here or to IIP and post whatever they want regarding the facts and evidence in this case, the ones who're fanatically dedicated to the premise Amanda and Raffaele are guilty of something (generally) do not because that sort of discussion reveals their arguments cannot survive scrutiny. Much like the bigfoot and other sites who must do the same to project the illusion that they've some scientific or other knowledge-based backing for their beliefs.

I came across something recently that disturbed me. I was looking for some information and found this forum of which I link one of the posts and reproduce it below:

You know that is ********. You know that loons who defend Amanda all have Google Alerts set up and they show up instantly in the comment section of any story. It is always the same people. In a recent Atlantic article there was ~1200 comments -- about ~400 were that nutcase Katy/Kady/Karen/whatever her name who tried to join 2P2. It is the same people always although I do see that Chris Halkides is missing in action lately -- I guess if I was about to lose my job for being a racist nutcase on the internet that might make me slow down as well.

Denying that there is a propaganda campaign is impossible. We've documented how the nutcases have managed to take over Wiki so that what the Wikipedia page on this subject contains is full of lies and where key evidence is completely omitted.

The funny thing is that while the PR effort was effective in the early days now it is actually Knox's second worst enemy. As such I'm quite happy that you guys keep this going.

Some of that is true, I for one did have google alerts set to Amanda Knox and posted throughout the ether on the case, as did many others. However the fact that it was never necessary to ensure that those that thought them guilty couldn't post like they do at PMF or TJMK shows that the contentions of those who think them innocent do not have to be protected from scrutiny like the guilt sites do--and this post suggests they've tried to do in that forum as well. Apparently Katy-Did tried to join that forum and that message implies she was unable to, perhaps because they 'exposed' her as a member of the 'PR campaign.'

That Curt Knox hired David Marriott's organization way back in 2007 to help him and his family organize their appearances on TV and the such is a fact, however that doesn't inherently discredit the idea that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, nor does it mean that those like Katy-Did and myself were affiliated in any way with that, and I know for a fact that's not the case. I found the puzzle of determining what had happened in this case and the etherwide debate absolutely fascinating and much more diverting than anything I've ever posted to the internet on, which is why I spent my online time doing that instead of posting about TV shows, politics or football.

Another thing revealed by that post (and others in that thread) is that some (or one) of them think Chris Halkides is going to be fired because of his posting on this case, which has been a contention of a (former) poster in this thread and a prolific poster at PMF for years now. I would hope that the one claiming that in the post above is either that same poster or one who reads PMF frequently and has been wrong about that for years, because the implication that Chris Halkides is a racist is not only untrue it's despicably defamatory and if anyone is working to the end of getting him fired they should be ashamed of themselves and that kind of behavior reveals the kind of nuts and dolts that post on a site protected from having their inane theories and contentions challenged by those who they defame and lie about.

Reading through the thread I see there's a number of fools who've been played in that thread and do not realize that the conclusions in the Massei Report are not facts, they are (mostly) the representations of the prosecution testimony which Massei needed to rely on to support a guilt narrative as that was the verdict. In the Italian system that's what happens at the Trial of the First Instance, then the appeals court looks at the finished Motivations Report and weighs whether those conclusions can withstand scrutiny. Since they're pretty much outlandish conjecture, irrelevancies and contrary to valid science and logic that mobilized a number of people in a variety of fields who had nothing whatsoever to do with David Marriott or any 'PR campaign' who protested the pseudo-sciences and sophistry produced by a corrupt and incompetent prosecution and police that convicted Amanda and Raffaele in the Trial of the First Instance.

That's why all those FBI agents, scientists, forensic specialists, lawyers and others like me who came across it and figured it out spent time going on TV or just posting about it on the internet, and why the appeals judges threw out the conviction and referred to most of what was assembled as evidence as 'garbage.' Anyone who read the Massei Report and didn't realize that Giancarlo Massei was required to present the defense and prosecution arguments and write a motivations report compatible with the verdict but that the conclusions are not the most probable has revealed they know little or nothing about those subjects.

The ones who did, or who were willing to learn, freaked, and the appeals court acquitted--which is a normal part of the process in Italy. That's what the Motivations document is for, if the convicting judge(s) cannot produce a document in which the prosecution arguments are most compatible with the facts, evidence, science and logic that gets revealed when he has to present the defense arguments and prosecution arguments and choose the weakest argument (almost) every time.

One last thing, looks like there's some poker players over there that got played in that thread. That's fine with me, this world needs more chumps playing poker as far as I'm concerned.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well I agree that it would be unlawful, to a point. Yes a review of the evidence as it pertains to the documents is required. They hold an "extradition hearing" not another trial. You know the Italians would introduce the DNA evidence as if it was fact. Amanda's statement during interrogation. How inclined the judge would to hear a rebuttal and the argument that the evidence is contaminated and is suspect is the question.

Overall I agree with you that a US judge would reject the request. The evidence in this case is beyond weak.

It wouldn't surprise me that the Italians know that and wouldn't even request extradition. Sounds strange..but considering that Rudy will be out of prison by then and not wanting to potentially expose their judicial system to further ridicule they will let it go.

The real problem from my perspective for the Italians in the hearing is both the Hellman motivation and the Conti Vechiotti report. These are Italian documents exonerating Amanda. They would be reviewed. Even if the Italian Supreme Court gave a myriad of Italian legal reasons why they should be ignored, a US judge is not bound by their system.

[/QUOTE]

I did not say a request would be rejected. I suggested some of the difficulties it would encounter. The more I think about them the more profound they appear but how a US court (or the executive) would apply the relevant test I really don't know. We have to look at the jurisprudence. However, I should have thought the absence of any jot of reliable evidence and the heavy reliance on fraud and lies ought to carry some weight

 

[Dan O.]

The actual treaty says that the crime need not be a crime in the country being requested.
...

But not in the case of the treaty with the US and Italy.

That's Not what I got from reading the treaty that you provided the link to.

ARTICLE II
Extraditable Offenses 1. An offense, however denominated, shall be an extraditable offense only if it is punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year or by a more severe penalty. When the request for extradition relates to a person who has been sentenced, extradition shall be granted only if the duration of the penalty still to be served amounts to at least six months.
2. An offense shall also be an extraditable offense if it consists of an attempt to commit, or participation in the commission of, an offense described in paragraph 1 of this Article. Any type of association to commit offenses described in paragraph 1 of this Article, as provided by the laws of Italy, and conspiracy to commit an offense described in paragraph [*9] 1 of this Article, as provided by the laws of the United States, shall also be extraditable offenses.
3. When extradition has been granted for an extraditable offense, it shall also be granted for any other offense specified in the request even if the latter offense is punishable by less than one year's deprivation of liberty, provided that all other requirements for extradition are met.
4. The provisions of this Article apply whether or not the offense is one for which United States federal law requires proof of an element, such as interstate transportation, the use of the facilities of interstate commerce, or the effects upon such commerce, since such an element is required for the sole purpose of establishing the jurisdiction of United States federal courts.​

 

[anglolawyer]

Strange coincidence. The poster that called Chris a racist and the one who recently implied another pro-innocence poster was a paedophile have something in common. They are anonymous. My own personal shadow, Jackie, also hides his obsession behind a cloak of anonymity. All dedicated to the memory of Meredith Kercher? No. An outlet for bilious cowards. That's more like it.

ETA to speak of 'cults' in this context may be a typing error.

 

[Diocletus]

PMF is not a site to debate or argue this case on, it's a site devoted to Meredith Kercher comprised of guilters (as you would call them).

Mean people suck.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I know that PMF says it is devoted to Meredith Kercher, but I have to ask. What have they or you done for Meredith Kercher or her family? Anything at all?

PMF is definitely a community but one that doesn't allow any challenge to the authority of the Webmaster/Webmistress or the idea that Amanda or Raffaele had nothing to do with Meredith's murder. As long as the members goose step without question to that premise they are welcome. Otherwise they are banned.

Exactly, it's not a site for discussion of this murder, it's a site for those who think Amanda is guilty and want justice done in the name of Meredith Kercher, what is wrong with that?
Are you saying this site is better because you believe you can discuss this murder here, well guess what, you probably have no idea, but try to discuss the murder here without glorifying Amanda Knox and you will have 20 posters down your back, most of which are rude and obnoxious. They can't ban you here like PMF so they just make posting here almost meaningless.
The reason 'Guilters' do not post here has nothing to do with you guys always proving yourselves right, quite the opposite, there is just no talking sense to most of you. Honestly, before the 1st appeal, I actually had a piece of paper I would write down the names of posters here I would not reply to because they were rude and obnoxious, I thought this was over after Amanda was set free and returned home, I got rid of that paper and stopped posting. I may have to make another.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Mean people suck.

Yes they do. Thankfully, for every mean person, there are at least 10 nice ones, some days, more.

 

[Grinder]

That's Not what I got from reading the treaty that you provided the link to.

ARTICLE II
Extraditable Offenses 1. An offense, however denominated, shall be an extraditable offense only if it is punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year or by a more severe penalty. When the request for extradition relates to a person who has been sentenced, extradition shall be granted only if the duration of the penalty still to be served amounts to at least six months.


Article 2 also follows the practice of recent United States extradition treaties in indicating
that the dual criminality standard should be interpreted liberally in order to effectuate the intent of the Parties that fugitives be brought to justice. Article 2 further provides that, if extradition is granted for an extraditable offense, it may also be granted for offenses which
are punishable by less than a year's imprisonment.​

 

[anglolawyer]

Exactly, it's not a site for discussion of this murder, it's a site for those who think Amanda is guilty and want justice done in the name of Meredith Kercher, what is wrong with that?

Where does it say that? At dot org we read nothing in the forum rules about Amanda's and Raffaele's (you forgot about him). Here is rule 15:

This is a private forum that has a hopefully limited set of rules and maximum latitude to express opinions and present facts. Be sure that you clearly indicate when you are speculating as opposed to “factating.” When you present something as a fact, be prepared to back it up or rectify the error. If you don’t like the subject matter or the tone of discussion in this forum, then find another one or create your own. However, do understand that this is a 'private' forum and as such, freedom of speech is an aspiration rather then a 'right'. This basically means that moderators and admins have the final say on what the limits to free speech are.

That's all well and good but I can't see where it says that guilt is a fundamental axiom. So, what I am saying is: it purports to be something it is not. The rules as a whole suggest the purpose of the forum is 'discussion'. What else could it be? But discussion of what? At dot net, one sees the same thing. The place purports to be a forum for discussion of the case and I cannot find where it says only those who subscribe to a particular view are welcome. You can discuss the case from both sides here or at Injustice Anywhere. Sure there is a pro-innocence balance of opinion in both places but so what? I do not agree that pro-guilt folks get abuse here. They get disagreement and they tend to deal with either by leaving or by avoiding the difficult parts of the discussion.

And suppose for a second you are right and the PGP sites are in fact officially closed to any other POV? Isn't that cultlike? From the urban dictionary:

The common use of the term implies a blind spot where you cannot see an opposing point of view because of some control or conditioning. Contradictory facts cannot be processed (mental scotomization), or are warped to fit into a form that no longer contradicts (cognitive dissonance).

Now, what could possibly be less appropriate than a murder case to form a cult around? Being open-minded and willing to be proved wrong should be pre-conditions of entry into this discussion. There are two reasons why PGPs don't like posting here: one is they are invariably shown to be wrong and the second is they aren't allowed to fall back on vitriolic and personal abuse when that happens.