anglolawyer
Banned
Brilliant retort. Thanks for your contribution. Really.
-
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
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
- Status
Brilliant retort. Thanks for your contribution. Really.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
theconversationatomizer said:
Well, there were three people on trial, one was on a fast track (Itaian style) and was convicted and is serving an all too short sentence. Another was arrested and released when the cops realized they'd closed the case way, way, too soon - causing all sorts of other wrong evidence to get set in concrete and they couldn't back away from it.
The last two were convicted - on no evidence, but on 39 probablies. Then they were acquitted, and then the acquittals were thrown out because the Italian Supreme Court thought (without ANY hearings in front of the Supreme Court where sides were represented) that motive #2 of the 4 Mr. Mignini brought into court, abandoning three of them, was the correct one to take a closer look at.
All this has also been in all the papers.... even the Daily Mail in the UK who is now seemingly of the editorial opinion that neither Raffaele nor Amanda should have even made it to trial, much less been originally convicted.
I was going to say that the Daily Mail's new opinion was in all the papers, but since the Daily Mail IS a paper... it was only in one.
With Massei, "probably" was a standard of proof. With theconversationatomizer it has now been reduced to being in the papers. Soon the standard of proof will be if a prosecutor can theorize about it.
Ooooops.... that's already been done. In Perugia. If the prosecutor can theorize about it, there does not need to be evidence.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
He's got a good point.
What happens with real perps, is that when the flee the jurisdiction, the cops or the relevant court seeks their return.
This is precisely what happened to Rudy Guede back in 2007.
It would seem that the Italians are taking a bit of a different approach with Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito. It perhaps is not so clear cut their legal status, because so far Italy has not tried to force either of them into the courtroom.
To me, that would seem to indicate that the State of Italy is quite uncommital right now as to their guilt or innocence. Shouldn't we be taking our lead from what the Italian courts think, rather than newspapers which turned this into a tabloid frenzy?
You mean you miss the tabloid frenzy where you get to say slutty things about young women?
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,099
Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh, stop feeding the troll, the lot of you.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Would an innocent person return after already serving 4 years in jail?
Rolfe
Adult human female
Jings, I don't know why I bother.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Rolfe,
His point has value in that it will be interpreted widely as he has posted here. It is incomprehensible to me that the defense would use up any media with an announcement that Amanda won't be appearing.
If the system requires advance notice, then that is a different story.
Why they wouldn't say she hadn't made up her mind, but was concentrating on whether the court would allow explanations of: the DNA including the C&V report, Curatolo including his videos, the chief statements TDA, the disgraced cops (Napoleoni caper) actions on the 6th and 7th, of how Patrick's TM was erased
p), an explanation of why Patrick's house wasn't searched and sealed, where the recordings of all the interviews and interrogations are, and other aspects of the case, is a big mistake.
I'm dumbfounded as to why they would announce her absence as it will become apparent in 34 days.
Unless she will actually show, in which case, they will have pulled off a potentially brilliant move until she is arrested.
She should make videos for YouTube every day of the trial, pointing out the flaws. But, she does such a poor job it will have to be someone else, hopefully not Anne B.
His point has value in that it will be interpreted widely as he has posted here. It is incomprehensible to me that the defense would use up any media with an announcement that Amanda won't be appearing.
If the system requires advance notice, then that is a different story.
Why they wouldn't say she hadn't made up her mind, but was concentrating on whether the court would allow explanations of: the DNA including the C&V report, Curatolo including his videos, the chief statements TDA, the disgraced cops (Napoleoni caper) actions on the 6th and 7th, of how Patrick's TM was erased
p), an explanation of why Patrick's house wasn't searched and sealed, where the recordings of all the interviews and interrogations are, and other aspects of the case, is a big mistake.I'm dumbfounded as to why they would announce her absence as it will become apparent in 34 days.
Unless she will actually show, in which case, they will have pulled off a potentially brilliant move until she is arrested.
She should make videos for YouTube every day of the trial, pointing out the flaws. But, she does such a poor job it will have to be someone else, hopefully not Anne B.
RandyN
Banned
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,877
No only statistics from the ECOHR web site which shows that Italy has more violations than anyone else except for perhaps Turkey. One of the most often repeated violations that Italians courts have been found guilty of is failure to provide a fair trial. Id call that extremely relevant in light of the curious circumstances surrounding this whole case since about 3 November 2007.
The relevance is that Italy has the longest list of violations...and many of those violations relate to this case...including failure to provide or even allow lawyers, translators, recorded interrogations, calls to foreign embassies, calls to parents for chris sakes. Failure to provide a fair trial and failure to provide a speedy trial are important protections that Italy most often ignores. Or so says ECOHR.
Again this case happened in Italy...please try to stay on topic. The USA courts are not being examined at the moment.
RandyN
Banned
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,877
Bill,
He didnt get to 43,400 posts by thinking too much about anything he writes.
In fact he only posts troll like sound bites in any thread he happens to haunt on any particular day...try putting Scrut on ignore. Most here do.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Last edited:
codyjuneau
Muse
.
He has more than 43,000 JREF posts. You have to appreciate his dedication to fishing with only a net, the Internet, that is..
Rolfe
Adult human female
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Whenever someone, anyone, makes a comment like that it gives a wonderful opportunity to correct the record.
For instance... and I don't think this is too much of a wandering from his point.... there has been talk lately about the bra-clasp-hook with a single Y-Haplotype on it.... I mean, if that's the way of putting it. "DNA" stuff makes me want to stick a fork in my eye mostly....
But it drove me to John Follain's account of Patrizia Stefonani's testimony at the Massei, 1st instance trail. It's right there, circa page 306-7 in "A Death in Italy," under cross examination by Raffaele's lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, Stefanoni admits under oath that she does not know if her own "handling" of the cra-clasp caused examination.
Under Oath. She does not know. The issue is contamination. At the time of collection. And Stefanoni? She does not know.
And this is not some fire-breathing FOA author reporting this. This is John Follain, who is in the hip pocket of the prosecution. My Lord, when Curt Knox and Edda Mellas were charged with defamation because of a piece John Follain wrote, Follain wasn't even charged! Just Curt and Edda. How's that for being fireproof!?
Anyway, these random comments give a chance to correct the record.
Last edited:
RandyN
Banned
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,877
Rolfe,
His point has value in that it will be interpreted widely as he has posted here. It is incomprehensible to me that the defense would use up any media with an announcement that Amanda won't be appearing.
If the system requires advance notice, then that is a different story.
Why they wouldn't say she hadn't made up her mind, but was concentrating on whether the court would allow explanations of: the DNA including the C&V report, Curatolo including his videos, the chief statements TDA, the disgraced cops (Napoleoni caper) actions on the 6th and 7th, of how Patrick's TM was erased
I'm dumbfounded as to why they would announce her absence as it will become apparent in 34 days.
Unless she will actually show, in which case, they will have pulled off a potentially brilliant move until she is arrested.
She should make videos for YouTube every day of the trial, pointing out the flaws. But, she does such a poor job it will have to be someone else, hopefully not Anne B.
Perhaps you should step up to the plate Grinder.
I do fully agree the release of this statement if it was actually a true release of the defense is just another sign that they have learned nothing and are continuing the poorly or totally unplanned defense which is just as stupid and weak and unprofessional as it has been since day one.
Its one thing to to have to fight a illogical corrupt judicial system but with these defense lawyers its like fighting with both hands and legs tied plus a rag stuffed into their mouths and then sealed with duct tape for extra measure.
Of all the things they could have released to the press they choose this irrelevant BS. Brilliant Boneheads.
Im serious Grinder...they need someone to guide them...or to at least point out possible defensive paths to take. For now they are being represented by Dumb and Dumber. And no one is dumber than the guy from Perugia...must be something in the water....
RandyN
Banned
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,877
Ahhh Bill did you run this thru Google translate a few times? Too much NyQuil? Or maybe its just me who has had too much NyQuil. This is as clear as mud...plus the Rolfe quote was addressed to Grinder and not me.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
So that her not appearing will be 'old news' thus her not appearing won't lead the news cycle with a 'fresh look' at whether it means she's guilty of anything.
Interesting note on the CNN article Scrut linked: did you notice Rudy Guede wasn't even named? The fact they actually got the guy who did it, prosecuted him with rock solid evidence and convicted him ought to be included in every serious piece on the issue, but somehow it escaped this author's notice!
It reminds me of when Lionking reported after his travel to Italy that he ran into a guy there who was adamant that Amanda was guilty but had conflated Guede and Lumumba and thought Guede was a total innocent still in prison because of Amanda's 'accusation.'
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,838
Okay I understand no actual examples then. Never mind, Rose Montague and I found a couple. When you get a chance pursue this article from the BBC
RWVBWL
Master Poster
Court was in session, Sfarzo covered the court sessions...
Hi Dan O.,
But the post I linked to is not from the early days.
FS wrote the story in an article dated and titled called:
Thursday, April 23, 2009
DISTURBING PRESENCES
Those Mysterious Fingerprints in the House
Link is above.
An interesting article discussing the fingerprints found in the gals flat.
Court was in session for trial against Amanda + Raffaele,
so I believe that Mr. Sfarzo learned of the information in his posting by attending trial that particular day, so the evidence had been presented to the court.
Does anyone know whose those fingerprints were found on Meredith's cell phones that FS writes of?
Hi Dan O.,
But the post I linked to is not from the early days.
FS wrote the story in an article dated and titled called:
Thursday, April 23, 2009
DISTURBING PRESENCES
Those Mysterious Fingerprints in the House
Link is above.
An interesting article discussing the fingerprints found in the gals flat.
Court was in session for trial against Amanda + Raffaele,
so I believe that Mr. Sfarzo learned of the information in his posting by attending trial that particular day, so the evidence had been presented to the court.
Does anyone know whose those fingerprints were found on Meredith's cell phones that FS writes of?
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
I will bet a yacht that it will be featured in the stories of the first week and will be mentioned throughout the trial and not just by the PGP.
I remember someone telling me that a certain culture never turns down an invitation because they don't want to disappoint twice. They know that they will disappoint when they don't show, so why disappoint when invited.
There is only so much coverage they will get and this "news" seems a waste.
- Status