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

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
The majority of the British public thought that the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Bridgewater Four and Barry George were guilty - not only during their appeals process, but also long after they were acquitted (and probably many still believe them to be guilty but to have "got away with it" to this day).

Fortunately (if belatedly) the English criminal justice system didn't kowtow to the clamour of misinformed and unintelligent "public opinion". And if it did, then not only would all those people probably still be rotting in jail, but we'd also likely have public hangings, no prosecution of motoring speeding offences, and convictions based on reasoning like "it sounds like he did it".

I trust - currently - that the Italian criminal justice system (and if not them, then the European justice system) will look intelligently and dispassionately at the facts in this case. I also - currently - trust that the appeal judges and lay jurors are collectively sufficiently objective and intelligent to be able to weigh the evidence (and lack of evidence) properly.

I don't care less what the "man in the street" in Italy thinks about this case, as regards its influence on the outcome.
Click to expand...

It's hard to trust in the Italian judiciary, though. They got the wrong result 2 out of 3 times, with the most recent and highest-level decision being the more ridiculous IMO. Both of the wrong courts have simply made up facts to make the defendants look guilty.

I don't view the Italian judiciary as a competent, independent body, like I do the UK or US judiciaries (which make mistakes, of course, but generally not on a systemic level).
 
LondonJohn said:
The majority of the British public thought that the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Bridgewater Four and Barry George were guilty - not only during their appeals process, but also long after they were acquitted (and probably many still believe them to be guilty but to have "got away with it" to this day).

Fortunately (if belatedly) the English criminal justice system didn't kowtow to the clamour of misinformed and unintelligent "public opinion". And if it did, then not only would all those people probably still be rotting in jail, but we'd also likely have public hangings, no prosecution of motoring speeding offences, and convictions based on reasoning like "it sounds like he did it".

I trust - currently - that the Italian criminal justice system (and if not them, then the European justice system) will look intelligently and dispassionately at the facts in this case. I also - currently - trust that the appeal judges and lay jurors are collectively sufficiently objective and intelligent to be able to weigh the evidence (and lack of evidence) properly.

I don't care less what the "man in the street" in Italy thinks about this case, as regards its influence on the outcome.
Click to expand...

Did I say that the Italian "man in the street" was correct in his opinion?

Do you deny that Italian public opinion is a powerful influence in how this case pans out?
 
By the way, I note with interest that certain pro-guilt commentators are still putting it about that Knox was being questioned purely as a "witness" on the night of the 5th/6th November.

This, of course, is a canard and logical impossibility - even if the police might have engineered it to be a technical fact - and the police and PM themselves prove this to be the case: by their account, they brought Knox in to be interviewed interrogated only once they'd got Sollecito to admit - confusedly - that Knox might not had spent the whole night of the murder in his apartment. In addition, they'd been bugging Knox's and Sollecito's mobile phones in the days before this interrogation.

Oh, and then we have Perugia Police Chief de Felice's stunning statement from the presser the following morning that "initially" Knox gave them a version of events that they (the police) "knew to be untrue", but that she then "buckled" and confirmed the version of events that they (the police) "knew to be correct".

All of the above points to one conclusion and one conclusion alone: at the time the Knox walked into the interview room in the police HQ at around 10.45pm on the 5th November 2007, the police had strong suspicions that a) she was directly involved in the murder, and b) she had lied to them up to that point in time.

It's beyond a shadow of a doubt (in my opinion) that Knox should immediately have been arrested as a suspect before she ever started being questioned, and should have therefore been afforded all of the rights due to a suspect under caution. The fact that the police kept treating her as a "witness" is nothing more than a blatant abuse of process, designed to deny suspects their rights and protections in an effort to obtain more information than they should lawfully be entitled to.

I've posted before about this, but it bears repeating that the European Criminal Bar Association has explicitly referred to this police malpractice in its assessment of the Italian criminal justice process. Here's what the ECBA has to say about this unlawful process (my highlighting):


The suspect has a right to immediate legal assistance. If the police, however, do not want the suspect to be assisted, they simply do not allow him to call his lawyer or they question him as a witness, since witnesses do not have the right to have legal assistance during questioning.
Click to expand...

http://www.ecba-eaw.org/cms/index.ph...=981&Itemid=31


In my opinion, it's entirely certain that this is what happened to Knox on the night of the 5th/6th. The police most definitely considered her a suspect rather than a witness, but chose to keep classifying her as a "witness" as an unlawful device to prevent her getting access to counsel or understanding her rights and protections.


ETA: The ECBA website appears to be redirecting to a European Arrest Warrant page for some reason at the moment. However, the link used to work fine, and the quote is accurate.
 
Diocletus said:
It's hard to trust in the Italian judiciary, though. They got the wrong result 2 out of 3 times, with the most recent and highest-level decision being the more ridiculous IMO. Both of the wrong courts have simply made up facts to make the defendants look guilty.

I don't view the Italian judiciary as a competent, independent body, like I do the UK or US judiciaries (which make mistakes, of course, but generally not on a systemic level).
Click to expand...


I don't agree. I think there are many systemic problems with the Italian criminal justice system (as well as some good aspects), and that these can often delay - or even in some cases - deny the correct application of justice.

But I do still currently believe that, given enough chances, the right result will ultimately occur. And I believe that whether I'm right or not in this regard, Italian public opinion will ultimately have little or no impact upon any judicial decisions.

Plus, as I said (and have said many times before), there is also strong grounds for recourse to the European courts if the Italian courts do not right their wrongs. In fact, as things currently stand, I believe Knox has cast-iron grounds for appeal to the ECHR on the criminal slander conviction: I believe the fact that the criminal slander case was heard alongside the murder case was a fundamental breach of her right to a fair trial, and I also believe that it's impossible for the courts to have come to the conclusion - based on the evidence - that Knox knowingly accused an innocent man of the murder, in the absence of coercion. Obviously Knox and her lawyers won't be wanting to pick up the baton on this (if they even do at all) until the rest of the judicial process is concluded. I believe that if convictions for murder ensue for Knox and Sollecito, there will be similar grounds of appeal to the ECHR.

But putting all talk of European recourse aside, my current belief is that the Nencini appeal court will come to the correct decision - acquittals for Knox and Sollecito. We'll see..........
 
Machiavelli said:
I don't have the negative controls; but the question about whether negative controls were deposited into the case file on October 8th is secondary, in my opinion, as I explained, with respect to the evidence that Vecchiotti and Conti did not do any attempt to verify them.
As for the files being "documented as deposited", I still don't have the whole transcript of the 8. (maybe I can find it) but I have excerpts, and there is the judge's (Judge Micheli's) declaration that they will be deposited, and there is Comodi's statement, and there is also a quote of these transcripts by Comodi in another hearing.
Click to expand...

I can see that you now have your doubts about whether these controls were in fact deposited as Stefenoni and Comodi claimed. Rightly so.

Stefanoni in 2009 brought to court something that she claimed were the negative controls and said that she was going to deposit them with the court. Now it appears that Micheli even ordered her to deposit the negative controls in the court file.

Fast forward to 2011: Stefanoni claims that the negative controls have been filed. But, no one can find them including the prosecution. Acknowledging that the controls are not to be found in the record, Stefanoni has again personally brought them with her to court. But, the purported controls bear the wrong code numbers, which means that Stefanoni was misrepresenting these controls in 2011 and probably also in 2009.

In other words, the controls are a fraud and they were never filed with the court.

Stefanoni is hiding the real controls, and the only reason that she would do that is because they undermine her work.
 
LondonJohn said:
Huh?

It appears that court officials themselves - under instruction from Hellmann - tried to locate the control data after Comodi claimed it had been deposited in the court files. It appears that they could find no such file from the court records at the time Comodi claimed they had been lodged (or from any other time either, it appears).
(...)
Click to expand...

It "appears"? To my knowledge there is no information like that recorded in any paper of the trial case.
 
acbytesla said:
The sad part of this Bill is all Mach is doing is engaging in defamation because there is NO CASE.

(...)
Click to expand...

The truth is, the only reason why I detailed the contextual elements that suggest a sexual encounter between Knox and Guede, is because other posters falsely reported me putting forward a theory in which Knox is a prositute and Guede is a pimp.
 
kwill said:
(...)
The italicized part is false. Erroneous. Fictitious. Fraudulent. Incorrect. That parrot is dead, sir. She was earning credit toward a legitimate degree at an accredited university in the USA, in a program that was arranged with her advisors at that university.
Click to expand...

My information about her plans, is that her original plan was to go to work at the Bundestag in Berlin. She changed her minde and decided to go to Perugia from one day to another.

(...) By the way, it's difficult to get into the University of Washington. Only honor students (i.e., those with very good grades) and high entrance exam scores are really considered, and even then many of them don't make it. The "party girl" did
Click to expand...
.

Now, it seems like you are saying that she was a honour student at hight school, the Seattle Prep, not at the University of Washington. It's correct?

By the way, I ask those who are making this claim: anyone has evidence she was a honour student at the University of Washington? Like a certificate, a picture with some official garments etc.? It has no importance on the case but I wonder if you have evidence since you make this claim, as for your credibility, I'm just curious.
 
Machiavelli said:
My information about her plans, is that her original plan was to go to work at the Bundestag in Berlin. She changed her minde and decided to go to Perugia from one day to another.
Click to expand...

It's not true. Can you share your source of this? I'd love to know who is the liar feeding you false information constantly.
 
Machiavelli said:
By the way, I ask those who are making this claim: anyone has evidence she was a honour student at the University of Washington? Like a certificate, a picture with some official garments etc.? It has no importance on the case but I wonder if you have evidence since you make this claim, as for your credibility, I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

Funny, I am still waiting on that big pile of evidence that Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith and that Hellmann was bribed by some big names in the media with the help of Masons. Just curious since you made these claims, as to your credibility.
 
Machiavelli said:
The truth is, the only reason why I detailed the contextual elements that suggest a sexual encounter between Knox and Guede, is because other posters falsely reported me putting forward a theory in which Knox is a prositute and Guede is a pimp.
Click to expand...

Bull, you can't con a con man. You do it to keep suggesting that Amanda is a pervert and that "she could have had a sexual encounter with Rudy,

Something Amanda denies and Rudy denies and no one has any knowledge of whatsoever. In fact, no one has knowledge of Amanda and Raffale talking with each other for more than 5 minutes at a party about a month before Meredith's death..There are no witness that saw them together outside of this one time, and there are no calls or texts between each other. It's all bull.

Without question you suggested that Rudy may or could have been Amanda's pimp. The problem is that you are clever, you use innuendo...you suggest it, but never outright say it.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Did I say that the Italian "man in the street" was correct in his opinion?

Do you deny that Italian public opinion is a powerful influence in how this case pans out?
Click to expand...

Well, if the Italian justice system is fair and just, public opinion would not influence their decision. You and I know that this case is not only about public opinion in Italy, it is about politics and national pride. Also sad but true. We will see if these appeal judges have the courage to base their decision strictly on the evidence in the case.
 
Machiavelli said:
The truth is, the only reason why I detailed the contextual elements that suggest a sexual encounter between Knox and Guede, is because other posters falsely reported me putting forward a theory in which Knox is a prositute and Guede is a pimp.
Click to expand...

Suggest to whom? From what I've seen so far you're the only one susceptible.
It's neither on topic not interesting to know what 'contextual elements' induce you to think about sex. Derailing the discussion with sex fantasies is frankly bizarre and repulsive.
 
Machiavelli said:
Now, it seems like you are saying that she was a honour student at hight school, the Seattle Prep, not at the University of Washington. It's correct?

By the way, I ask those who are making this claim: anyone has evidence she was a honour student at the University of Washington? Like a certificate, a picture with some official garments etc.? It has no importance on the case but I wonder if you have evidence since you make this claim, as for your credibility, I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli does have a point. I have never seen a photo of Knox in her honors garments.

Also, no one ever refers to Kercher as an honors student, so it's only fair that no one should refer to Knox as an honors student. And, Kercher was successful in getting Erasmus to give her $1000 toward her studies, whereas, Knox had to pay for her full ride all by herself.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Suggest to whom? From what I've seen so far you're the only one susceptible.
It's neither on topic not interesting to know what 'contextual elements' induce you to think about sex. Derailing the discussion with sex fantasies is frankly bizarre and repulsive.
Click to expand...

Well put. And, prosecuting someone on the basis of sex fantasies is sick.
 
lionking said:
Did I say that the Italian "man in the street" was correct in his opinion?

Do you deny that Italian public opinion is a powerful influence in how this case pans out?
Click to expand...

I don't deny it, but you might want to. As tesla and Rose have already pointed out, the verdict is supposed to be decided by the judges, based on the evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom