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

[acbytesla]

No.
It didn't.
It annulled it on some grounds - not "reverse", but "annull" - and ordered he should be sentenced again - not found innocent, but found guilty and sentenced. However, his sentencing should be re-calculated because he had a right to a mitigating factor which the court failed to acknowledge.



The decision is just legal. First, I point out that your claim is false: the decision does not say that it is ok for a 60 year old to have sex with an 11 year old, and if you say that you are repeating a falsehood without getting informed, which is a kind of telling a lie.
Second, the decision is not only legal but also has some principles of common sense fairness in it due to the principle of proportion, because justice is not something made of "good" and "bad" things, it is based on a principle of proportionality. I knew of a man who killed a 10yo child because driving on cocaine didn't stop at zebra crossing, the man got four years for manslaughter. The paedophile sleeping with a 11yo who did not not appear traumatized got 5 years. That may be a not entirely correct proportion. The point is that you need to put things in comparison within the system.

Hardly, annul means to make null. You can say that it doesn't mean what it means. But in effect your courts said that the romantic relationship was a "mitigating factor". As if an 11 year old can give an informed consent.

You can try and act like that this ruling wasn't shameful and moronic but the rest of the civilized world knows that it was.

 

[Kaosium]

They were also found guilty and imprisoned, on the basis of the evidence. You keep forgetting that.

The SC just broke the tie.

They just picked a side, the home team, which is the prosecutors. One can tell from a cursory reading of their decision they never evaluated the evidence even in their far more limited capacity. It's all cribbed from the kooky nonsense and interpretations the original prosecutor made. Considering their caseload that would figure.

The first decision was an abomination of logic and science, the second one was reality. Unfortunately for Raffaele (especially) and Amanda, Cassation prefers to be abominable and embraced dietrologia. It's kind of a national sport and works out wonderfully for the prosecutors who can come up with any explanation they want for why they are not wrong.

 

[MDDVS]

No.
It didn't.
It annulled it on some grounds - not "reverse", but "annull" - and ordered he should be sentenced again - not found innocent, but found guilty and sentenced. However, his sentencing should be re-calculated because he had a right to a mitigating factor which the court failed to acknowledge.



The decision is just legal. First, I point out that your claim is false: the decision does not say that it is ok for a 60 year old to have sex with an 11 year old, and if you say that you are repeating a falsehood without getting informed, which is a kind of telling a lie.
Second, the decision is not only legal but also has some principles of common sense fairness in it due to the principle of proportion, because justice is not something made of "good" and "bad" things, it is based on a principle of proportionality. I knew of a man who killed a 10yo child because driving on cocaine didn't stop at zebra crossing, the man got four years for manslaughter. The paedophile sleeping with a 11yo who did not not appear traumatized got 5 years. That may be a not entirely correct proportion. The point is that you need to put things in comparison within the system.

This is interesting. It reveals much about the ideas on sexuality that permeate italian law (society?).

 

[Dan O.]

Anyways,
I'm still trying to piece together a coherrant pro-guilt theory of what happened the night Miss Kercher was murdered.

Is it The Poo Theory?

Here's a photo of the crime scene:


Thoughts?

I have one. You see that small table by the bed with the top drawer partially open? Rudy Guede told his friend on Skype that that is where Meredith kept her money. Now, there are two ways that Rudy can know that information: 1. Meredith told him like he said. or 2. Rudy stole Meredith's money from that drawer. Some people believe Rudy is telling the truth.


Rudy also said something else; he said that when he left the window wasn't broken. Specifically, he said:

R. Yes but then, after, though, from what I've read, someone else came, because when I left, the window wasn't broken, Giacomo, the window of the house, that window out front, it wasn't broken.

This is a problem because what you can read in the press only ever said that it was Meredith's window that was broken. Meredith's window is on the back side of the house looking out on the valley. How does Rudy know that the broken window was out front? It's quite simple: Rudy the burglar broke the window to enter the cottage and is trying to create an alibi by saying that somebody else must have done it like he blamed the murder on the left handed curly haired italian stranger.


There is a simple coherrant pro-guilt theory that fits all the known facts: Rudy is guilty. It's a simple case of a burglar getting caught when the resident unexpectedly returns and he killed her.

 

[andreajo]

No.
It didn't.
It annulled it on some grounds - not "reverse", but "annull" - and ordered he should be sentenced again - not found innocent, but found guilty and sentenced. However, his sentencing should be re-calculated because he had a right to a mitigating factor which the court failed to acknowledge.



The decision is just legal. First, I point out that your claim is false: the decision does not say that it is ok for a 60 year old to have sex with an 11 year old, and if you say that you are repeating a falsehood without getting informed, which is a kind of telling a lie.
Second, the decision is not only legal but also has some principles of common sense fairness in it due to the principle of proportion, because justice is not something made of "good" and "bad" things, it is based on a principle of proportionality. I knew of a man who killed a 10yo child because driving on cocaine didn't stop at zebra crossing, the man got four years for manslaughter. The paedophile sleeping with a 11yo who did not not appear traumatized got 5 years. That may be a not entirely correct proportion. The point is that you need to put things in comparison within the system.

Honest questions:

Was there an aggravating factor considered in the sentencing regarding the position of power and trust held by this man, who was a social worker who was working in a professional capacity with the family?

Who determined that the girl did not appear traumatized?

 

[RandyN]

So, le'ts get the facts straight. Newsweek polls were on the question:
"Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.

So in 2007 50% of US citizens still either believed Saddam played a role (41%) or thought it's possible, maybe yes (9%).

"Saddam was a Bush thing": you perefectly know this made sense only as history, if referred a past political era, that was until the nineties, before Clinton; nothing to do with the time of the polls, and we are not even talking about the same Bush.

Was this before or after Tina Brown drove Newsweek from respectable into a bankrupt joke of a news-magazine? You may remember this is about the time she allowed tabloid hacks like Nadeau to actually write articles for publication there. Those two brought down that publishing giant in a few short years.

Yes please explain the Bushes 42 and W's politics to me... I find both to be confusing and shameful. A time in USA history that will be looked back on as the lowest points in the political history of the USA. W especially was a dumb dumb guy and yet the voters put him in twice. Well the SC put him in once and some idiot named AL Quada put him in the second time...but.

Thousands of lost lives and billions of wasted dollars later who can still care? After all Justin Beaver just got arrested again. See Americans do stupid things too. But we try not to rally around a fool for countries or prides sake...and we would never allow our legal system to go so far off track that they make the whole damn populace look like complete incompetent lying idiots! Italian law is not complex...devious and duplicitous...sure.

Saddam had nothing to do with 911. And he also had no weapons of mass destruction. He was simply a brutal maniac which may actually be a requirement BTW for governing a country of religious fanatics like his was....is. Looks like they might need a Saddam in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Syria oh wait....

No matter USA needs to end the games and remove themselves and their money from these hellish sand pits. Americans need to stop visiting dangerous countries like Italy too.

Are you glad at least that the "criminal" RS will be off the streets now? Knox however will remain free as a bird safe in her democracy and covered well with her Constitutional blanket!

 

[Bill Williams]

You are making up stuff. You have no clue what the Supreme Court rules about. You have no experience about SC rulings and you don't know even know what "point of law" means.
I explained something about what the SC rules about in the past, and I proved myself right on every point of law (with supreme horror of LJ who always stubbornly refused to acknowledge reality and insisted in condescendignly "schooling" me about, well about his envisioning of how the Supreme Court was, without reading a line of jurisprudence from it).
I think you also have little clue about what a prosecutor is in Italy (possibly even of what God is in Italy). You don't know anything about how the judiciary works, nor about what politics is in Italy; but above all, as I said you seem to not know the basics of Cassazione rulings, related laws, relation to evidence, etc.

I expected anger from people convinced that a grave injustice was done today... so I didn't really expect this reaction.

It's hard to "read" the passions underlying a post, but I'd say this was written from anger. I could be wrong.

Still, it's amazing what supporters of guilt always avoid addressing... but no matter. This now is far greater than winning a clever debate on some skeptics thread somewhere.

Two innocent lives are in the balance. This is the hallmark of a wrongful conviction which transcends any one particular country or system.

At base, a just system does not convict with invented facts. And here if Nencini listens to Crini... is it Meredith going in a rage because Rudy didn't flush a toilet? I mean forget Amanda, that one doesn't even match Meredith's personality. That was Crini's theory which (seemingly) carried the day today.

Is it a sex game gone wrong? The ISC seems to think so, and we're waiting 90 days to see if Nencini agrees with the stipulations of the ISC, or agrees with Crini's "out of the blue" theory....

Or whether Nencini goes back to Massei's "no motive", just a "choice for evil," or for heavens sake, will we in 90 days be arguing about Satanic rites again, because Nencini bypassed "Hallowe'en, day of the dead rites induced killing," to resurrect Good ol' Lucifer himself?

Or worse.

Will Nencini write about a hereto unknown "theory" of how this happened? If Nencini writes a completely new "theory" as to his reason for convicting, how can one say that the defence could have been aware of what they were defending their clients against?

Sort of like Massei? Did the defence even know about Massei's "choice for evil" theory, so as to be able to make full and informed answer?

I guess we'll now be schooled in why it is not necessary for a defendant to be informed of the theory against them - they can read about it in jail when the motivations comes out... a little late to mount a defence.

It looks like the ISC gets to wave away with the flick of a wrist the right to a fair trial in Italy. At some point one can argue law all they want.... but if the citizenry catch on that the system is unfair this way.... well, you get my drift.

 

[JREF2010]

Bill, being pessimistic today I could guess Raffaele will go to prison, Rudy will get released from prison, the Hate Mongers will continue framing people due to their gut instincts and the Italy Courts will forever invent insane motives and theories. Amanda can hang around or move to a place that doesn't have a extradition treaty with Italy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Robin Cotton on discovery

On page 538 of the same textbook as I previously cited, John M. Butler quotes Dr. Robin Cotton (an associate professor at Boston University): “I think that the most important question for a lab (in fact, any discipline in the lab), is if you were to hand this information—the information you are going to give over to the defense—to a respected colleague, would you have given them everything they need to evaluate your work? If the answer is “yes”, then that’s about what you should be giving on discovery.”

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

No.
It didn't.
It annulled it on some grounds - not "reverse", but "annull" - and ordered he should be sentenced again - not found innocent, but found guilty and sentenced. However, his sentencing should be re-calculated because he had a right to a mitigating factor which the court failed to acknowledge.



The decision is just legal. First, I point out that your claim is false: the decision does not say that it is ok for a 60 year old to have sex with an 11 year old, and if you say that you are repeating a falsehood without getting informed, which is a kind of telling a lie.
Second, the decision is not only legal but also has some principles of common sense fairness in it due to the principle of proportion, because justice is not something made of "good" and "bad" things, it is based on a principle of proportionality. I knew of a man who killed a 10yo child because driving on cocaine didn't stop at zebra crossing, the man got four years for manslaughter. The paedophile sleeping with a 11yo who did not not appear traumatized got 5 years. That may be a not entirely correct proportion. The point is that you need to put things in comparison within the system.

Yeah, she had affection for the guy. In other words, she probably asked for it. The thing is, it doesn't matter if she was naked and rubbing up and down his lap -- it is just plain wrong to have sex with a child. And don't go arguing she wasn't a child because she was an adult. You tend to get mixed up easily about what the word adult truly means.

 

[andreajo]

Wow, I wasn't expecting to see people swanning around triumphantly over this. Seriously? A heavily contested (and once overturned) conviction and the reaction is like a gang of middle school bullies.

Amazing. All I can say is that it's pretty obvious the Amanda and Raffaele whom you're celebrating being branded as murderers today are creatures of your own imagination.

The sad fact is that there are a pair of young people with those names who do exist, and who have done nothing whatsoever to deserve any of this. Not suspicion, not interrogation, not arrest, not indictment, not trial, not imprisonment, not conviction. The triumphalism is about something, but not about them.

Thanks for this! It was how I was feeling, but I couldn't put it into words.

 

[RandyN]

No.
It didn't.
It annulled it on some grounds - not "reverse", but "annull" - and ordered he should be sentenced again - not found innocent, but found guilty and sentenced. However, his sentencing should be re-calculated because he had a right to a mitigating factor which the court failed to acknowledge.



The decision is just legal. First, I point out that your claim is false: the decision does not say that it is ok for a 60 year old to have sex with an 11 year old, and if you say that you are repeating a falsehood without getting informed, which is a kind of telling a lie.
Second, the decision is not only legal but also has some principles of common sense fairness in it due to the principle of proportion, because justice is not something made of "good" and "bad" things, it is based on a principle of proportionality. I knew of a man who killed a 10yo child because driving on cocaine didn't stop at zebra crossing, the man got four years for manslaughter. The paedophile sleeping with a 11yo who did not not appear traumatized got 5 years. That may be a not entirely correct proportion. The point is that you need to put things in comparison within the system.

So the ISC is saying that he should get less time (maybe) since there was maybe love and that the 11 year old does not "appear traumatized"... is that the argument you wish to go with?

Your country is doomed to the 8th level of hell surly. The ISC must be comprised of pedophiles too. Foolish pedophiles.

 

[Kaosium]

[IMGL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=30126&d=1391040175[/IMGL]Now, doesn't camera boy have that look of guilt like maybe he was just caught doing something bad?

Moment's before this frame, he and the short fat perp (camera boy no. 2 in the background) were huddled around the base of Meredith's desk taking a picture of something on the floor at time index 00:13:46.

What's so special about that spot? And who are these boys and what is their role in the investigation?

The base of Meredith's desk is where the bra clasp was found later on. It's also interesting watching Stefanoni at that moment, later on. She leans down, putting her hands behind her back like a defensive back who just held a receiver, and then just about exactly the time the rug is pulled back she quickly walks away from the scene and gives the camera an even funnier look than your new friend before disappearing from view. A weird response to finding something they were supposedly looking for from the ranking forensic technician at the scene.

However all that does make me wonder just why as they first got there they started measuring out where the bra was found, and not where the clasp was orignally photographed, as it had become detached. I also noticed something that indicated in the original collection of the bra they noted the clasp was missing, they're pointing at that area and whatnot. So it appears they knew that the clasp was missing, and had video evidence of where the clasp was, but immediately head towards where the bra was found, if I've interpreted all that correctly. I wish I had audio, I wish even more I understood Italian. It has occurred to me that had I registered for free classes at the UW in Italian in fall of '10 when I first became interested in this case that I would be on my eighth semester of Italian now.

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, she had affection for the guy. In other words, she probably asked for it. The thing is, it doesn't matter if she was naked and rubbing up and down his lap -- it is just plain wrong to have sex with a child. And don't go arguing she wasn't a child because she was an adult. You tend to get mixed up easily about what the word adult truly means.

Sounds like the Catholic Church. You sure the decision wasn't made elsewhere in Rome? Like Vatican city?

 

[kwill]

Thanks for this! It was how I was feeling, but I couldn't put it into words.

You're welcome.

This won't stand, you know. I don't pretend to understand the Italian system for delivering justice . . . I'm sure it has good and horrible qualities, like any other, including our own in the USA. Nobody gets it right every single time.

But this woman is not the green college student who was bullied into telling the authorities what they wanted to hear and then ruthlessly punished for it.

And these threads are evidence that there are armies of informed bystanders who have her back. She's not -- sadly -- going to be able to live her life peacefully and privately. Instead she's going to become a symbol of toughness and courage and honesty. She said it to an interviewer the other day, that people don't have to believe HER, but they have to recognize that wrongful conviction is a thing that happens all the time, to all kinds of people. That's a fight worth having.

I really want to know what is possible for Raffaele to do now. It's unreal that they may put him into prison again. Unreal.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, being pessimistic today I could guess Raffaele will go to prison, Rudy will get released from prison, the Hate Mongers will continue framing people due to their gut instincts and the Italy Courts will forever invent insane motives and theories. Amanda can hang around or move to a place that doesn't have a extradition treaty with Italy.

Not sure why this is to me....

.... but thanks anyway. Me, I am still wondering.... how a trial can can about 5 to 7 sitting days since Sept 30, can hear from Aviello, who basically confrims what he's always said (no the Sollecito's did not pay him off), have the RIS Carabinieri do a proper DNA investigation this time on 38I, but more importantly brought all the stuff with them to court that Stefanoni STILL is withholding (after 5 years)...... and the Carabinieri investigation basically takes the knife out of the crime (in DNA-terms)......

And the prosecutor invents a theory for the crime from somewhere, a "somewhere" that not even the ISC thought about in quashing Hellmann... and then Crini says the kitchen knife is a match for the bedsheet stain; a real Hail Mary-pass now that the DNA is debunked....

An equivalence between stain and kitchen knife that even Mignini was too embarrassed to venture..... thus Mignini's two-knife theory.......

It's as someone said today. Courts have no room for the innocent. Innocence is actually an impediment to acquittal.

 

[RandyN]

Here's your chance TCS. I firmly believe that the evidence shows that Oswald acted alone, that Apollo really happened, and that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda.

So... provide the evidence that Knox killed Kechner. Evidence that will stand up to the same level of scientific scrutiny as the evidence for JFK's murder, the Apollo moon landings, and 9/11.

Provide me with a timeline of the killings that matches all of the evidence, just as I have seen for the JFK murder, the Apollo moon landings, and 9/11.

Provide me with a narrative of what happened that night that includes all of the evidence and makes scientific sense, just as can be done with the JFK assassination, the moon landings, and 9/11.

Finally, provide me with a motive that makes sense, just like can be done with JFK, the moon landings, and 9/11.

If you have all of this you should be able to convince me of Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt easy.

So... will you accept the challenge, or will you merely claim that the court has it all and refuse to post it? The ball is in your court, I'm waiting for you to convince me that you are right by showing me your evidence.

LOL...44 thousand posts and you expect Scrut to now actually stop and think and then research and then actually make a real more than 10 word thoughtful fact filled post? Let me repeat...LOL!!!

 

[Poppy1016]

No? Why not?

Now that the trial is over Mach, perhaps you can reveal your true identity.

 

[Poppy1016]

I dont see a connection with nationality, anyway there isn't any "second male" profile on the bra clasp.
There are extra alleles. An allele is a short haminoacid chain, a fragment of polimeric protein, not a person. You can't match it to an individual. It can be transferred from broken DNA left in the environment or derive from degradation or alteration of breaking of a molecule.

Translation, you can't explain it , so you make up crap.

 

[RandyN]

Wow, I'm surprised it took this look for someone to make that comparison. Do you know for a fact that Kenneth Bae wasn't trying to overthrow the government of North Korea? If so, how do you know this? Because someone told you?

Yep Dennis Rodman. First he said he was... but then he apologized for that...which means he has reconsidered... and now he is being investigated for illegal trade with N Korea. He should start hanging with Justin Beaver...they cool like dat.