• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
CoulsdonUK said:
Concrete proof the prosecution haven’t been following this thread. :eek:
Click to expand...


What are you saying, Coulsdon?

Have you looked at the time stamp data from the garage? Do you believe Raff called the Carabinieri after the postal police arrived? Or do you know perfectly well he didn't -- and KNOW the prosecution is making a blatantly false argument?

Do you really want someone convicted on that basis?
 
@Annella retweeted La Nazione in English during Luca Maori's arguments. Mach only started tweeting for Crini's rebuttal.

Hardcore guilters had organized some kind of twit storm for today, so I expect they are busy twitting up a storm.
 
Wildhorses said:
I have no delusion about the prosecution following this thread.

What I see is concrete evidence of railroading. And it's wrong. I would hope you realize that.
Click to expand...
I was expressing astonishment that this thread is not being followed by the prosecution. The verdict is not in our remit.
 
RoseMontague said:
It is not logical that they would call Amanda's phone for directions 8 minutes after they got there, but some people continue to believe because somehow they just want to.
Click to expand...
Are the defence allowed to challenge the prosecutions rebuttal, can they object to what is being said? It seems like both sides state their case and the judges and jury listen impassively.
 
Mach just tweeted this from Crini:

Crini: no defence wounds, no fight bruises, nothing under nails, bruises indicate forced restraint of victim; how she was immobilized

I get so confused about this multiple attacker argument. Here Crini says fewer wounds means multiple attackers. I have also read the argument that OMG she had over 40 wounds. So many wounds means multiple attackers!

Can somebody help me to understand this better?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
I was expressing astonishment that this thread is not being followed by the prosecution. The verdict is not in our remit.
Click to expand...

Strange thing to be astonished about, but whatever. No, I don't think there are any jury members that are members here. You have a point?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Are the defence allowed to challenge the prosecutions rebuttal, can they object to what is being said? It seems like both sides state their case and the judges and jury listen impassively.
Click to expand...

AFAIK the prosecution rebuttal goes last, since they have the burden of proof.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Are the defence allowed to challenge the prosecutions rebuttal, can they object to what is being said? It seems like both sides state their case and the judges and jury listen impassively.
Click to expand...

Prosecution gets the final say, they can't continue to go back and forth forever. The court is supposed to have studied the case file. We will see.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
I was expressing astonishment that this thread is not being followed by the prosecution. The verdict is not in our remit.
Click to expand...

Wildhorses said:
Have you looked at the time stamp data from the garage? Do you believe Raff called the Carabinieri after the postal police arrived? Or do you know perfectly well he didn't -- and KNOW the prosecution is making a blatantly false argument?

Do you really want someone convicted on that basis?
Click to expand...

With all due respect Coulsdon. You didn't address any of Wildhorses questions.

I would really like to see your answers.
 
RoseMontague said:
Prosecution gets the final say, they can't continue to go back and forth forever. The court is supposed to have studied the case file. We will see.
Click to expand...
Sorry no I meant to actually object to points being made, interrupt what is being said. So it could all come down to whether they (professional judges) have read the case file and what is actually in the case file.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Sorry no I meant to actually object to points being made, interrupt what is being said. So it could all come down to whether they (professional judges) have read the case file and what is actually in the case file.
Click to expand...

My understanding based on Migi's closing in the previous first trials is that they can just make stuff up if they feel like it. Which is what he did. I think Italy gives them more leeway on this and I am sure Patrick's lawyer will be doing the she-devil thing again as well.
 
acbytesla said:
With all due respect Coulsdon. You didn't address any of Wildhorses questions.

I would really like to see your answers.
Click to expand...
The relevant context is what is happening in the appeal; based on what Rose posted it seems to depend on what is in the actual case file, has the case file been made public? Do the defence have access to the case file?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
The relevant context is what is happening in the appeal; based on what Rose posted it seems to depend on what is in the actual case file, has the case file been made public? Do the defence have access to the case file?
Click to expand...

The prosecution gets to pick what is in that file unless a judge orders more of the actual evidence placed in it like he did leading to the discovery of the "too low" and negative TMB testing. Or the judge can refuse to put evidence in there even if the defense requests as was done with the raw data. Regarding the subject of the call to the cops demonstrated that was before the cops arrived by the defense, that one is in the case file because it was presented and shown in court in front of Massei.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
My understanding based on Migi's closing in the previous first trials is that they can just make stuff up if they feel like it. Which is what he did. I think Italy gives them more leeway on this and I am sure Patrick's lawyer will be doing the she-devil thing again as well.
Click to expand...

Oh NO. Patrick's lawyer gets to carry on again? I thought we were through with Patrick.

Isn't the calumnia charge a done deal?
 
Wildhorses said:
Oh NO. Patrick's lawyer gets to carry on again? I thought we were through with Patrick.

Isn't the calumnia charge a done deal?
Click to expand...

The guilt part is done, but the sentence can be changed (increased) which is very likely to happen. At least that is my understanding. Patrick's lawyer was allowed to speak at the opening arguments so it is a good bet he will be allowed a closing argument as well as Maresca.

ETA, The defense objected at the start of this appeal trial to Patrick having a say in this appeal but the judge overruled.
 
Last edited:
Did they drop the turd argument ? I thought this was the **** that held the prosecutions case together . Not
 
CoulsdonUK said:
The relevant context is what is happening in the appeal; based on what Rose posted it seems to depend on what is in the actual case file, has the case file been made public? Do the defence have access to the case file?
Click to expand...


What are you Coulsdon, a politician? Have some courage. Address the questions. They are straightforward. How about some straightforward answers?
 
looks like prosecution is asking RS and AK be jailed for the rest of the process.

ProcessoMeredith, pg Horsehair: "Condemned Sollecito and Knox and decide precautionary measure to ensure execution of the sentence" # meredithnazione
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom