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

Status
Not open for further replies.
halides1 said:
I would have brought this up in my closing remarks. A good deal of evidence has emerged in the past few years that they walked into the station as suspects. The interrogations exemplify the GIGO principle. MOO.
Click to expand...

If the police had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why were Amanda and Raffaele not presented with any hard evidence they were involved in Meredith's murder and asked to explain the evidence? Amanda and Raffaele were not presented with any forensice evidence and the dubious forensic evidence used against them was not collected until after their interrogations. Amanda and Raffaele were not presented with any evidence of suspicious behaviour during their interrogations. If the behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele was so supicious in the period between the discovery of Meredith's body and the interrogations , why did the police not make an issue of their behaviour during the interrogations?
 
Grinder said:
I'd settle for a promoted YouTube video. I've advocated for them to do a series covering all the major evidence on YT to reach everyone.

Funny that the same nameless PGP tweeters think doing a video is a joke but think their pestering the media is a great strategy.
Click to expand...

You know Grinder, you and I disagree on a lot, but not on this point.

I have long advocated a series of YouTube video shorts debunking the myths and attacking the evidence. The climb, the glass, Rudy's Skype , the DNA, multiple attackers. False confessions etc. And they should be done in English and Italian. And then as you roll out the youtube videos you issue press releases for each one. That way the public has the time to digest each one.
 
Cinema Paradiso

Grinder said:
Damn, do you have me on ignore again :p
Click to expand...
I have always strongly agreed about the idea of YouTube videos, if that is what you mean. But I also like projecting them on outdoor screens.
ETA
Roger Ebert wrote, "Yet anyone who loves movies is likely to love "Cinema Paradiso," and there is one scene where the projectionist finds that he can reflect the movie out of the window in his booth and out across the town square so that the images can float on a wall, there in the night above the heads of the people."
 
Last edited:
HR's posts could even show up from, say, PQ's place and I'm pretty sure they could still prove the accusation of the who's HR is and where he comes from and who he works for. That's all I'll say on that. Try to go after Doug all you want. It would only end up getting really embarrassing for the people who went after him. Put your money where your mouth is, though, really. Also, what Sr. did was pretty huge. Accusing someone of being a criminal is basically the equivalent. I think the intent from other people who believe in the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele is for him (HR)only to stop with the hate. Doug has some pretty good reasons to pretty mad. Although, we could have pretty good reasons too, now that I think of it (getting fired and all), but we'd have to go against a lot of people (especially reputation damage, we'd have a HUGE case on that one, trust me I know for sure). But ya know what, we just don't care...but we do not think that hate, from ANYONE is OK. I understand why there is hate. Some people are crazy, and then that whole "imprinting business", which the family suffered from (or rather has been the victim of).... look at what John Douglas says in his book "Law and Disorder". Steve wrote an article on this same subject, too, and I thought it was very gracious. Could he have left out the actual name John Jr.? I dunno, but I think that HR needs to come clean, otherwise he's making the family look bad. And THAT is not cool. The info came out for all to see, but how Steve dealt with that info, well I for one, I thought it was pretty cool and forgiving. He blogged about families and victims in addressing this. I don't know if you're allowed to post links here. It's on his blog. He ain't a dumb guy and wouldn't even insinuate unless he had good reason to right? The answer to that is "yes".
 
-

michellesings said:
Didn't Raffaele having a phone call coming in as well as a text? :/ I wonder what people think when they know that all 3 computers were fried? Not one, not two, but all three????
Click to expand...

3 fried hard drives. Oooops!

It's stuff like that, that the PGP camp conveniently forgets about or minimizes. It's part of the overall incompetence of the PLE and no one from the PGP camp wants to even really talk about it.

No, no, no it's the overall sexuality of Amanda that's the real big picture. I find it harder and harder everyday to keep believing that they are doing this in Meredith's memory.

All they have to do is to just look at everything from the other side. I've looked at it from the PGP side and most of it started from crap and now the only thing that's changed is the smell which changes with every new revelation that comes out about the ILE system.

They're pissed off because Amanda got off,

d

-
 
Last edited:
-

michellesings said:
HR's posts could even show up from, say, PQ's place and I'm pretty sure they could still prove the accusation of the who's HR is and where he comes from and who he works for. That's all I'll say on that. Try to go after Doug all you want. It would only end up getting really embarrassing for the people who went after him. Put your money where your mouth is, though, really. Also, what Sr. did was pretty huge. Accusing someone of being a criminal is basically the equivalent. I think the intent from other people who believe in the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele is for him (HR)only to stop with the hate. Doug has some pretty good reasons to pretty mad. Although, we could have pretty good reasons too, now that I think of it (getting fired and all), but we'd have to go against a lot of people (especially reputation damage, we'd have a HUGE case on that one, trust me I know for sure). But ya know what, we just don't care...but we do not think that hate, from ANYONE is OK. I understand why there is hate. Some people are crazy, and then that whole "imprinting business", which the family suffered from (or rather has been the victim of).... look at what John Douglas says in his book "Law and Disorder". Steve wrote an article on this same subject, too, and I thought it was very gracious. Could he have left out the actual name John Jr.? I dunno, but I think that HR needs to come clean, otherwise he's making the family look bad. And THAT is not cool. The info came out for all to see, but how Steve dealt with that info, well I for one, I thought it was pretty cool and forgiving. He blogged about families and victims in addressing this. I don't know if you're allowed to post links here. It's on his blog. He ain't a dumb guy and wouldn't even insinuate unless he had good reason to right? The answer to that is "yes".
Click to expand...
-

You can post links here:

http://gmancasefile.com/

-
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Incidentally, the verdict in the appeal will be delivered on the 30th. The 20th is for prosecution closing (rebuttal) arguments:


Il presidente della Corte d'assise d'appello di Firenze, Alessandro Nencini, ha calendarizzato le prossime udienze: il 20 gennaio sono previste le repliche e il 30 gennaio la camera di consiglio e la sentenza.
Click to expand...


Translation:

The President of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence, Alessandro Nencini, has scheduled the next hearings: January 20 is provided for the rebuttals, and January 30 for the judgment and sentencing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If that's an accurate reflection of what Nencini scheduled, the highlighted bit seems to be putting the cart before the horse, and would appear to illustrate some improper pre-judging going on.
 
LashL said:
If that's an accurate reflection of what Nencini scheduled, the highlighted bit seems to be putting the cart before the horse, and would appear to illustrate some improper pre-judging going on.
Click to expand...

Not really. At every other trial the sentencing was announced along with the verdict.
 
Bill Williams said:
Not really. At every other trial the sentencing was announced along with the verdict.
Click to expand...


Makes no sense, because in the absence of a conviction, there is no sentencing.

ETA: Perhaps it's a 'lost in translation' sort of thing, though. It would be fine if it said, "judgment and disposition", for instance. "Sentencing", however, is a very specific legal term and can only follow a conviction.
 
Last edited:
michellesings said:
Didn't Raffaele having a phone call coming in as well as a text? :/ I wonder what people think when they know that all 3 computers were fried? Not one, not two, but all three????
Click to expand...

Actually 4. But even two is absurd. The people that investigated this crime was Italian version of the Keystone Cops.
 
LashL said:
Makes no sense, because in the absence of a conviction, there is no sentencing.

ETA: Perhaps it's a 'lost in translation' sort of thing, though. It would be fine if it said, "judgment and disposition", for instance. "Sentencing", however, is a very specific legal term and can only follow a conviction.
Click to expand...

You may be right Lashl, but then again, this might be something that is just getting lost in translation and semantics. I hope so.
 
LashL said:
Makes no sense, because in the absence of a conviction, there is no sentencing.

ETA: Perhaps it's a 'lost in translation' sort of thing, though. It would be fine if it said, "judgment and disposition", for instance. "Sentencing", however, is a very specific legal term and can only follow a conviction.
Click to expand...
-

It doesn't make sense, but what did they do in 2011? How did they announce the date the last time?

d

-
 
Bill Williams said:
Not really. At every other trial the sentencing was announced along with the verdict.
Click to expand...

LashL said:
Makes no sense, because in the absence of a conviction, there is no sentencing.

ETA: Perhaps it's a 'lost in translation' sort of thing, though. It would be fine if it said, "judgment and disposition", for instance. "Sentencing", however, is a very specific legal term and can only follow a conviction.
Click to expand...

Welll... perhaps the "sentencing" for an acquittal is, "Go home!"
 
LashL said:
Makes no sense, because in the absence of a conviction, there is no sentencing.

ETA: Perhaps it's a 'lost in translation' sort of thing, though. It would be fine if it said, "judgment and disposition", for instance. "Sentencing", however, is a very specific legal term and can only follow a conviction.
Click to expand...

These hearings have addressed nothing of importance. They are a fig leaf for a decision that was made before they started.
 
LashL said:
No. As mentioned above, in the absence of a conviction, there is no "sentence" or "sentencing" whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Ok... then to be strictly correct....

If there is no conviction on any of the charges, there is no sentencing.

If there is a conviction on one or more charges, what Italy seems to do (as they did in Dec 2009 and Oct 2011) is announce the sentence at the same time as announcing the conviction.

I don't know if this is the preferable way or even the logical way of doing it, but with both the Massei and Hellmann courts this is what happened.
 
Bill Williams said:
Ok... then to be strictly correct....

If there is no conviction on any of the charges, there is no sentencing.

If there is a conviction on one or more charges, what Italy seems to do (as they did in Dec 2009 and Oct 2011) is announce the sentence at the same time as announcing the conviction.

I don't know if this is the preferable way or even the logical way of doing it, but with both the Massei and Hellmann courts this is what happened.
Click to expand...


It appears to me that you've missed my point entirely; perhaps I didn't make it clear enough, so I'll try again. My point is that if it is true that Nencini set a schedule in advance for "sentencing" before there is even a conviction, that appears tantamount to pre-judging that there will be a conviction, even before the arguments and submissions are concluded.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom