• 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.
pilot padron said:
Did the Court examine the endless stomach arguments promulgated in prolific rambling diatribes here ??

Did the Court ever get a timeline that FOA fanatics incessantly whined about wanting from any poster who had dared dish up doubts about "the Angel's" innocence.

Did the Court overlook the absolute credibility of each of the many varied (and endlessly varying) explanations that Knox and Raffie proffered for their innocence ??

Did the Court pay any heed to the pricey public relations avalanche paid for by FOA ?

As I glance over recent posts here today, the significant silence from all the previously most verbose FOA fanatics seems to say all thNat needs to be said.

Finally, too bad Raffie's 'hiking trip' to the border of a Country he hope to escape to was interrupted by Police.
And his hope to have a quickie green card marriage was also foiled.
Those efforts also speak volumes, don't they?:cool:
Click to expand...

Do you ever bother to actually read and analyse the evidence , or do you just repeat what others say.
 
ain't no point in talking when nobody is listening

lionking said:
And I'd like to ask you why the "slam dunk" evidence about time of death repeated in this thread ad infinititum didn't feature in the defence's case?
Click to expand...
Lionking,

The CSC used a putative scream, which suggests a late TOD, about 23:30 (if I am reading p. 22 of the translation correctly). Therefore, a defense argument to the effect that TOD was early is telling the CSC that they got it wrong. They have already shown that they don't like to be told they were wrong (re: Guede).

What portion of the CSC's motivations report makes you think that they know or care about science? I have yet to see any, but I have seen plenty of evidence that they don't. MOO.
 
Article VI non bis in idem (double jeopardy)

There is this:



But is it DJ? Not according to this

USA Today spoke with Giorgio Spangher, the head of the law school at Rome’s Sapienza University, who said that technically, the Italian court annulled Knox’s not guilty verdict, which was won in appeals court, and that Knox would be retried in the same appeals court.
Click to expand...

There must be something clearer than this out there.
 
lionking said:
And I'd like to ask you why the "slam dunk" evidence about time of death repeated in this thread ad infinititum didn't feature in the defence's case?

Perhaps the case for innocence isn't as strong as you think.
Click to expand...

Lionking will not address the issue as to why the prosecution had to lie and supress evidence if they had a strong case.
 
pilot padron said:
Maybe I am missing something:confused:

After *full* legal process, just verdict and a reasonable sentence was rendered

Are you now suggesting that all law abiding citizens throughout the world should now rejoice with you about extradition technicalities ??
Rejoice that a twice convicted murderess will possibly escape the reasonable jail term that she was rightfully sentenced to ??
Rejoice that a drug addled spoiled brat goes unpunished for horrendously murdering Meredith Kercher?

Really ??:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What drugs was Amanda taking ? Please enlighten us.
 
lionking said:
And I'd like to ask you why the "slam dunk" evidence about time of death repeated in this thread ad infinititum didn't feature in the defence's case?

Perhaps the case for innocence isn't as strong as you think.
Click to expand...


Yes, it really is. It may be that the defence lawyers themselves actually didn't understand this. Or that, even understanding this, they believed the judges would be unable to understand it and would fall for the obfuscation just as the Massei court did.

Look, Lionking, I understand you take the view that Law Enforcement in general are good guys and get it right. That's absolutely fair, but one has to bear in mind that nothing of this nature is absolute. No matter that 99% of cases may be competently investigated and result in the just conviction of the right people, nobody can deny that once in a while they get it horrendously, tragically wrong. And that this seems to happen in every jurisdiction.

Obviously, the well-handled cases aren't the ones that make the headlines or have mega-long JREF threads. There's one solitary guilter keeping the Jeffrey MacDonald thread alive as far as I can see. The cases that spark outrage are going to be the ones with the high profiles.

You simply can't come to a case with a huge profile and a large number of people expressing well-reasoned doubts about the conviction, and adopt the "cops are good guys and nearly always get it right" attitude. That says nothing about whether or not the case in question is one of the unusual few in which there has been a horrendous miscarriage of justice.

Meredith died shortly after returning home. That is a fact, whether or not the defence understand it and whether or not they choose to make that point. She was most certainly dead well before the car broke down outside the house. Now it may be that someone can construct a timeline whereby Knox and Sollecito managed to murder her about half past nine, and if someone does I'll consider it seriously. But until they can do that, no dice.

I feel for the accused, not even knowing what they are supposed to have done or when. Originally Meredith died at what, 11.45? And Knox was in the room, stark naked, doing the stabbing. Then she was outside the room, just egging on the others with her words. Now apparently Meredith died before 10.00, according to the latest prosecutor. What is any defence supposed to do with that? It's no wonder in a way that they seem to want to steer clear of apparently firm inferences that reduce the range of possibilities, for fear the prosecution just turn round and shout "gotcha!"

What is it that makes these different prosecutors so certain that Knox and Solecito did it that they have to keep altering the time-line and the motive for the crime and the actual circumstances of the murder, so that every time one scenario is knocked back they have another up their sleeve? Nothing. Nothing but a blind determination to convict.

It is a profoundly dangerous attitude to respect police and law enforcement so much that you don't question what they're up to even when it's as blatantly dishonest as this exercise so obviously is.

Rolfe.
 
Caper said:
BTW..., this topic needs it's own subform. This is far to confusing a thread. Newbies don't stand a chance.
Click to expand...

There's no way in but diving in....

And this is a pool with nothing but deep ends.

Surprisingly, the horrible murder itself is fairly straight forward. Rudy broke in, went to the toilet. Meredith returned from an evening with friends while her roommates were away for the weekend holiday. She was unawares of the breakin.

Rudy attacked her, killed her, molested her, stole from her, and went dancing. He then fled to Germany. That's what killers do before anyone is aware.

During a Skype call back to Italy with a friend he confessed to being at the cottage when Meredith was killed. He said that Amanda was not there.

Everything else from that point on is smoke and mirrors. As a newbie, pay attention to what the courts do... they have, so far at least, offered about 6 or 7 ways that Amanda and Raffaele were supposed to have been involved.

That's where particularly newbies don't stand a chance. Because no one from that side of the fence will ever lay out the facts to support their views - like Rudy Guede himself laid out. They won't even tell which which version of the facts they support. Sex game? Argument over cleanliness? Hallowe'en ritualistic killing? Psychopathology of AK and RS? Or no reason at all - they just got caught up in a brief "choice for evil"......

They never say.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
.... Also, does the constitution not provide the executive with sovereign power to override or modify provisions like the 5th amendment? ..
Click to expand...

What?? In the U.S. we don't call our elected President the "sovereign." And no, the executive branch cannot override our Constitution. Lawyers would go to court and argue whether and how particular provisions do or do not apply in a specific matter, but multiple levels of federal judges, including the Supreme Court, make the decision, not the executive branch. Even the President can't make you testify against yourself.
 
anglolawyer said:
Hmm. No case law?
Click to expand...

There is some commentary and case law, but in general this seems to be an open issue. And, it's an interesting one. The US Supreme Court has never squarely answered the question.

To me it's pretty obvious that the Senate can't enter into a treaty that strips an individual of his 5th Amendment rights.
 
kudos to the land down under

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

So is the Farah Jama case. But it is consequential to him and to his family. He is a black Muslim who was wrongly convicted on the basis of DNA contamination. Fortunately for him, Australia is a strong enough country to investigate its mistakes. Kudos to the Vincent commission for a thorough investigation and a report that is a pleasure to read. MOO.
 
Diocletus said:
There is some commentary and case law, but in general this seems to be an open issue. And, it's an interesting one. The US Supreme Court has never squarely answered the question.

To me it's pretty obvious that the Senate can't enter into a treaty that strips an individual of his 5th Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

So the treaty with Italy, this aspect of it anyway, is unconstitutional? Interesting. Jeez, if Italy does ask for extradition this thread will end up making 50 continuations.

On a separate note I saw Amanda in her reaction to the verdict expressed shock and surprise. This does rather make me wonder what her lawyers have been telling her the last 10 months or so. A diet of optimism isn't always the best thing to feed one's clients.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
I guess given yesterday’s verdict, it is moot. However, I don’t understand why either defence teams didn’t go out with all guns blazing, maybe as you and others said last year they already knew the outcome, yet all defence lawyers stated they were going to appeal yesterday’s verdict.
Click to expand...


Well of course they are. They'll get paid, won't they?

I'm beginning to suspect that defence lawyers in Italy put up the best case they can for their clients subject to the provision that this does not entail upsetting or crossing those in authority. Under this situation it's fine to go on appealling as long as you like, just so long as you don't push so hard that you get on the wrong side of the Right People.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Yes, it really is. It may be that the defence lawyers themselves actually didn't understand this. Or that, even understanding this, they believed the judges would be unable to understand it and would fall for the obfuscation just as the Massei court did.

Look, Lionking, I understand you take the view that Law Enforcement in general are good guys and get it right. That's absolutely fair, but one has to bear in mind that nothing of this nature is absolute. No matter that 99% of cases may be competently investigated and result in the just conviction of the right people, nobody can deny that once in a while they get it horrendously, tragically wrong. And that this seems to happen in every jurisdiction.

Obviously, the well-handled cases aren't the ones that make the headlines or have mega-long JREF threads. There's one solitary guilter keeping the Jeffrey MacDonald thread alive as far as I can see. The cases that spark outrage are going to be the ones with the high profiles.

You simply can't come to a case with a huge profile and a large number of people expressing well-reasoned doubts about the conviction, and adopt the "cops are good guys and nearly always get it right" attitude. That says nothing about whether or not the case in question is one of the unusual few in which there has been a horrendous miscarriage of justice.

Meredith died shortly after returning home. That is a fact, whether or not the defence understand it and whether or not they choose to make that point. She was most certainly dead well before the car broke down outside the house. Now it may be that someone can construct a timeline whereby Knox and Sollecito managed to murder her about half past nine, and if someone does I'll consider it seriously. But until they can do that, no dice.

I feel for the accused, not even knowing what they are supposed to have done or when. Originally Meredith died at what, 11.45? And Knox was in the room, stark naked, doing the stabbing. Then she was outside the room, just egging on the others with her words. Now apparently Meredith died before 10.00, according to the latest prosecutor. What is any defence supposed to do with that? It's no wonder in a way that they seem to want to steer clear of apparently firm inferences that reduce the range of possibilities, for fear the prosecution just turn round and shout "gotcha!"

What is it that makes these different prosecutors so certain that Knox and Solecito did it that they have to keep altering the time-line and the motive for the crime and the actual circumstances of the murder, so that every time one scenario is knocked back they have another up their sleeve? Nothing. Nothing but a blind determination to convict.

It is a profoundly dangerous attitude to respect police and law enforcement so much that you don't question what they're up to even when it's as blatantly dishonest as this exercise so obviously is.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

This is, by far, the most amazing thing I've read in a long time on the Internet.
Thank you, Rolfe.
 
Bob001 said:
What?? In the U.S. we don't call our elected President the "sovereign." And no, the executive branch cannot override our Constitution. Lawyers would go to court and argue whether and how particular provisions do or do not apply in a specific matter, but multiple levels of federal judges, including the Supreme Court, make the decision, not the executive branch. Even the President can't make you testify against yourself.
Click to expand...

I made no reference to the president. The US must have its sovereign power somewhere though.
 
Diocletus said:
This case doesn't present a Non Bis Idem defense. That said, I think that the 5th Amendment bar against double jeopardy could and would be considered by the political branch in determining extradition.
Click to expand...

No, I read it again. You are right. Italy cannot extradite for an offence that has already been dealt with in the US, which is not what we have here.
 
anglolawyer said:
So the treaty with Italy, this aspect of it anyway, is unconstitutional? Interesting. Jeez, if Italy does ask for extradition this thread will end up making 50 continuations.

On a separate note I saw Amanda in her reaction to the verdict expressed shock and surprise. This does rather make me wonder what her lawyers have been telling her the last 10 months or so. A diet of optimism isn't always the best thing to feed one's clients.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that it's unconstitutional. I would say that it could potentially be applied unconstitutionally, but on the other hand, it doesn't have to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom