• 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.
bolint said:
Raffaele was contacted by the police near the Slovenian and Austrian borders and his passport seized.
I guess fleeing was his plan only if he had been ordered back to prison on remand.
Click to expand...

Yup, idiot of monumental proportions. He may have been bailed until the final appeal. Not now, if this report is true.
 
Arthur Wilson said:
I think that that may be to underestimate their baseness and cruelty. The truth is that there are people who don't share your moral nature. They are not only willing to do whatever is necessary to further their agenda, but actually find it amusing that others who disagree with them can't see what they are really about.

Many of those who applaud the guilty verdict don't really think the two are guilty and think it is funny that people are so upset about it. You probably knew characters like that at school. Don't assume that they all grew out of it. Many of them post on forums just like this one.
Click to expand...

Astute observation, Arthur. As an example, yesterday, The Central Scrutinizer, man of almost 45,000 posts here, wrote this:

Also, on a skeptics forum, I like seeing CTers publicly humiliated.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Yup, idiot of monumental proportions. He may have been bailed until the final appeal. Not now, if this report is true.
Click to expand...

He remains free, anyway. Only his passport was seized.
According to Corriere they went to Austria then they came back.
Before the announcement of the verdict he was free to go to Austria.
 
bolint said:
He remains free, anyway. Only his passport was seized.
According to Corriere they went to Austria then they came back.
Before the announcement of the verdict he was free to go to Austria.
Click to expand...

Really? He innocently went on a vacation to Austria?

Welcome to jail son...
 
Mary_H said:
Someone needs to tell Maffei that 27 judges have not upheld the conviction. Something like 19 judges, at the beginning of the case, upheld the right of the prosecution to move forward with the case, before the case was tried. They had nothing to do with commenting on the convictions.
Click to expand...

You tell him. I don't think it matters how many people got this decision wrong.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Sure, we're seeing that here, and some of the people on the hate sites clearly operate from spite more than conviction.

But I have trouble ascribing that mind set to Dershowitz, who I would expect to care about his reputation.

Dershowitz didn't say anything about Amanda's case until after she was released. He apparently formed an opinion after reading John Follain's book. If that was his main or only source of information, it's easy to see how he was led astray. Now I suppose he is committed. He can enjoy being on the same team as "Harry Rag" and Peter Quennell and Brendan Mull. What Harvard law professor wouldn't want those associates?
Click to expand...
Nasty, like bacon and eggs the hen is involved, the pig is committed.
 
lionking said:
Yeah? So what's going to happen?

In the scheme of things, this case is inconsequential.
Click to expand...

Lionking, you are correct. The case is inconsequential in the larger scheme of things, but still of tremendous significance to those affected by this case, their communities, and people concerned with issues of justice and false convictions.

What will make it much more consequential will be the movie made from the defendants' perspective. Somebody will make this into a major movie and a hundred million people will see it. It will raise people's awareness of byzantine justice systems and wrongful convictions. It will also influence (shape) peoples' opinions of Italy.
 
Amazing isn't it, over 4 pages and 200 posts since certain posters claimed that those that believe in innocence would not change their minds if shown the evidence, and in response were challenged to show that evidence. Strangely those posters have posted a number of times since them, but in response to the challenge, something that should be extremely easy and I bet anyone here could do for the JFK Assassination, Apollo Moon landings, or 9/11 attacks, there has been nothing but crickets for those that believe in guilt. Amazing isn't it.
 
So how does the extradition process work?

I know America doesn’t extradite armed forces personnel or those working for a government agencies like the CIA, what of normal everyday citizens?

Does a judge actually get the court documents or the final ruling of a given case?

Does the Secretary of State office get involved in all extradition requests?

Is the Department of Justice involved in the process?

Does anyone know how many extradition cases America has turned down in recent years?

What happens if Italy doesn’t request extradition, but requests Amanda serves her time in an American jail, is the process different?
 
Strozzi said:
Lionking, you are correct. The case is inconsequential in the larger scheme of things, but still of tremendous significance to those affected by this case, their communities, and people concerned with issues of justice and false convictions.

What will make it much more consequential will be the movie made from the defendants' perspective. Somebody will make this into a major movie and a hundred million people will see it. It will raise people's awareness of byzantine justice systems and wrongful convictions. It will also influence (shape) peoples' opinions of Italy.
Click to expand...
I would suggest Sir Peter Jackson who funded the film West of Memphis made by Amy Berg resulting in the release of the wrongly convicted.

ETA the link
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-film-festival/news/article.cfm?c_id=1500937&objectid=10820250
 
Last edited:
The defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele have been criticised for being ineffective. However do you think the last trial was a kangaroo court with a guilty verdict ordered by the supreme court and the best defense team in the world would not have made the slightest difference.
 
Welshman said:
The defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele have been criticised for being ineffective. However do you think the last trial was a kangaroo court with a guilty verdict ordered by the supreme court and the best defense team in the world would not have made the slightest difference.
Click to expand...

Maybe.
But the fact remains that after six years and a lot of money spent on lawyers and experts by both families, they are almost where Rudy stands (possibly even worse) with his state appointed lawyers and zero money of his family.
 
bolint said:
Maybe.
But the fact remains that after six years and a lot of money spent on lawyers and experts by both families, they are almost where Rudy stands (possibly even worse) with his state appointed lawyers and zero money of his family.
Click to expand...

Bolint, you make an interesting comparison. There is another comparison to be made. Rudy alone is guilty of the murder, but got a light sentence for the crime because the prosecutor was really after the others. The others are innocent, but got much heavier sentences than Rudy because the prosecutor pursued a bad hunch and made suspect-centric evidence appear to fit the innocents.
 
I'm slightly interested on whether there is a constraint on Italian defence lawyers not to go all out to defend their clients if doing so would involve criticising the police or the forensics or simply the "establishment view".

The defence in this case seems to have been very light on the specific points I would have imagined would have been the most likely to lead to acquittals. Did they simply not understand these points, or were they inhibited from pursuing them as a result of internal Italian legal politics?

On the other hand, and I have noticed this in at least one other case, there seems to be a preference for simply sowing doubt, over going wholeheartedly for a single, exculpatory theory of the crime. Sometimes it's almost as if the defence don't want anything to be firmed up, so that they can obfuscate and waffle. However that can blow up in their faces very easily.

I wonder if, once this is all past the final stage, Bongiorno and/or dalla Vedova will go to the press and comment that there was so much evidence against their clients that couldn't be explained away, they were really on a hiding to nothing?

Rolfe.
 
I note by the way that the BBC line this morning was leading with the family of Meredith Kercher welcomed the verdict, but then went on to say that while Italy may attempt to extradite Knox "at some stage" (they didn't mention anything about Cazzione still having to rule on it), the consensus was that it was extremely unlikely an extradition request would be successful.

Rolfe.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Amazing isn't it, over 4 pages and 200 posts since certain posters claimed that those that believe in innocence would not change their minds if shown the evidence, and in response were challenged to show that evidence. Strangely those posters have posted a number of times since them, but in response to the challenge, something that should be extremely easy and I bet anyone here could do for the JFK Assassination, Apollo Moon landings, or 9/11 attacks, there has been nothing but crickets for those that believe in guilt. Amazing isn't it.
Click to expand...

It is interesting at any rate, especially as those of us who recognize the truth of this case have no difficulty explaining ourselves, and no reluctance to do so.

Amanda made an interesting comment on her blog:

None of the views we express are above peer review. Our choice to express them and how to express them also acts as evidence of our state of mind, our awareness of objective evidence, our biases, and our intentions toward each other.

That really sounds like someone who went to a Jesuit high school, don't you think?

People can choose to avoid substantive discussion, while commenting on peripheral matters as it suits their agenda, but they cannot escape the implications of doing so. Nor can they escape having those implications noticed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom