• 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:
Chris

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...

It is strange that the defense didn't use some strategies. There were a number of times that lawyers were either threatened with or actually charged with crimes for stating certain contentions about police behavior. At this moment I would need help to provide detail.

Although people came here after the verdict with CTer accusations I have never thought that the basic flaws in this case were a result of purposeful actions but rather mistakes and hunches. With or without the duodenum evidence it seems clear that Meredith didn't live past 10 pm. I can't understand how any of these courts came to any other conclusion.

If a key witness to the JFK murder leading to the one man theory was a heroin addict that denied seeing anything at first and came out a year later, I certainly wouldn't give that testimony any credence. Now while I don't see this trial as a conspiracy per se, but it is pretty clear that there was some sort of group effort by some of these same cops for their erstwhile boss, Napoleoni.

Coming back to why the defense did what they did and didn't do what they didn't do. Italians do seem to think differently than Anglos. Mach has made that evident by his comments about witnesses, specifically Nara and Curatolo. While many here find Curatolo unacceptable because of his character (heroin use and sales, multiple trial witness, lack of basic health and perhaps vision care, mistaken date facts and altered state that night) Mach said he seemed certain and had no reason to lie (this isn't clear) so he must be believed. I think that in most of the world he wouldn't be considered a good witness just based on getting the costumes and buses wrong.

Another issue is the interrogation. I can't even imagine a police chief saying that his men questioned a young woman, much less one that spoke only a little English, until she buckled and told them what they already knew to be true. If the chief did say that and then announced that the facts in the statement were in fact not true, then an investigation of the interrogators would commence.
 
I do not have a record of what the defense said during the current trial re TOD but the in the appeal documents for the second trial the defense did make a major issue of TOD. This is what the defense said in the appeal document re TOD:-

"The defense argues that the time of death was improperly calculated. Due too errors early on, the time of death cannot be accurately estimated. The prosecution stated the time of death to be close to midnight. The defense argues that the time of death was between 9:30 and 10:00pm. Times were estimated using body weight, temperature and digestion. Dr. Lalli estimated the body weight at just 50 kg upon first viewing the body at the cottage. Dr. Lalli later stated after doing the autopsy that the weight was closer to 55 kg based on his best guess. Dr. Lalli never officially weighed the body. Defense experts stated that the body weighed between 55.4 and 60 kg. When looking at the correct weight along with normal digestion, the defense argues the time of death was between 9:30 and 10:00pm. The ideal weight formulas show her weight to be from 55.4 to 60 kg, with the average at 57 kg. Using this formula produces a more accurate time of death at around 9:30pm.

The court has indicated wrongly that Professor Ronchi testified that it can take 4 to 5 hours for stomach contents to empty, when his actual testimony on October 19, 2009, stated that it takes 3 to 4 hours. The court also concluded incorrectly that there was a failure to allow ligation of the duodenum, that there was slippage after traveling 5 meters in the small intestine so the court found it unreliable that Dr. Lalli found the duodenum empty. However, the court watched the actual autopsy on November 11, 2009, by Dr. Lalli who did correctly close the duodenum to prevent any slippage from the stomach down. The court talks about her eating food and drinking back at the cottage in one section but later says she had no alcohol. The prosecution assumes a mushroom was eaten after she returned home. Based upon experts and medico-legal criterion, Meredith died at 2-3 or 3-4 hours after her last meal which was completed around 6:30pm to 7:00pm. This places the death using 3 hours at 9:30pm to 10:00pm. The only food found in her stomach was consistent with what her friends indicated she ate for dinner that night. The food had not emptied into the duodenum and failed to initiate gastric emptying, which was properly closed by ligation as seen on the video footage. An item of food found in the 3rd distal esophagus was kept in a container but never tested to determine what is was, which likely was an apple from the apple pie desert she ate after dinner and not a mushroom from her home. The defense requests that this sample be tested to confirm what it is. If the sample is apple as the defense believes, the time of death would be closer to the range that the defense suggests, 9:30pm to 10:00pm.

The time of death is extremely important. The court goes to great lengths to push the time of death to a later time. In order for the court to come to this conclusion, it must ignore expert testimony and video regarding the autopsy. The court also must ignore the testimony regarding the stalled vehicle in front of the cottage. The defense argues, based on the evidence, the murder occurred between 9:30 and 10:00pm. This is supported by the evidence provided during the autopsy and is also supported by the witness testimony dealing with the stalled vehicle. The court chooses to ignore all of this evidence. Why? Raffaele’s computer activity would make it completely impossible for him to be involved in this crime if the murder occurred at 9:30 to 10:00pm. Raffaele was active on his computer in his apartment at 9:10pm as noted by the court. The defense also argues that Raffaele was active on his computer at 9:26pm. The court’s suggested time of death is also in conflict with the phone activity on Meredith’s phones."
 
anglolawyer said:
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 knew she was going to lose, and yet, still was shocked and surprised. I think its shocking to witness a court committing an intentional miscarriage of justice.
 
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...

This is an interesting white paper: http://www.americanbar.org/content/...tter/crimjust_wcc_bailmotion.authcheckdam.pdf

As you read it, keep in mind that Amanda resides in the 9th Circuit.
 
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...

The 5th doesn't apply when abroad. There used to be a warning in passports about not having US protections and needing to follow local laws when abroad.

It is not clear to me exactly what the supremacy clause means precisely -

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

It seems anti UN people fear that treaties can be made that take away constitutional rights.
 
Diocletus said:
I knew she was going to lose, and yet, still was shocked and surprised. I think its shocking to witness a court committing an intentional miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...

Well expressed. A civilized western nation in the year 2014, operating as if it were the 12th century? With the cynical pomp of the motto that all are equal before justice, emblazoned on the wall behind the convicting judge? Yes.
 
Vibio said:
When they found him, I wonder if the sleaze ball had one of his switch-blades in his pocket ...
Click to expand...

I note without surprise you never answered the question put to you whether you could produce evidence that Sollecito had ever even met, much less associated with, Rudy Guede. You'll understand in advance that your hunches, combined with the garbage you've consumed on the various sites that promote such groundless nonsense, will cut you no ice.
 
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...

I accept the point that there are different varieties of guilter. Assuming we leave out people who simply hold the opinion that a defendant is guilty. there are a few basic types which you can study.

I would say that Nencini is simply a functionary who’s been given a job to do. He might not feel too good about it, but he’s a professional who takes pride in his lack of emotion.

Dershowitz has some sort of angle. He has made personal attacks on Amanda calling her “a terrible person”. Could his Zionism have something to do with it? Maybe he heard about the Charles Mudede allegation. Knox is supposed to have said to a jewish guy “Did my people kill your people?” If that’s not it, it must be something else.

Why is Dershowitz behaving like some farm animal- metaphorically speaking. Where Wendy Murphy is concerned we know why, well enough. The woman has defended the conduct of prosecutor Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse case. With her, it looks like solidarity with other prosecution types. But she’s the kind of person you would expect Dershowitz to despise.

What they do have in common is a fondness for coming on television and expressing “controversial” views. Maybe that’s all it is. Dershowitz posturing in the media! He’s with the guilters to gain publicity for himself.

I would say that guilters divide into the cold reptiles who have an agenda and the out and out trolls who like teasing the supporters of an accused person. A few might come under both headings.
 
Here's an english language report on Sollecito's Austrian adventures (my bolding)-

Sollecito's lawyer, Luca Maori, insisted his client was in the area of Italy's northeastern border with Austria on Thursday because that's where his current girlfriend lives. He said Sollecito went voluntarily to police to surrender his passport and ID papers.

But the head of the Udine police squad, Massimiliano Ortolan, said police were tipped off that Sollecito had checked into a hotel in Venzone, on the Italian side of the border, and they went to find him there, waking him and his girlfriend up Friday morning and bringing him to the police station in Udine.
No arrest warrant had been issued by the Florence court. But the court demanded that Sollecito turn over his passport and ID papers to prevent him from leaving the country.

At the police station, Sollecito told investigators that he had driven into Austria on Thursday afternoon after attending the opening session of the trial in Florence. After the court began deliberating, Sollecito said he travelled the 400 kilometres from Florence to Udine on Italy's northeastern border with Austria and crossed the frontier, Ortolan said.

He said Sollecito and his girlfriend had told investigators they had visited Villach, a town near the border, and had then returned to Italy and checked into the Venzone hotel at about 1 a.m. He said Sollecito didn't explain why he had taken the trip.

“I think it's somewhat significant that, before the sentence was handed down, he left Florence where he had been and travelled many kilometres to get close to two frontiers, Slovenia and Austria,” Ortolan said. “It is a bit perplexing.”

In Italy, adults checking into hotels must hand over ID upon check-in. Hotels are then required to communicate the information to local police. At about 6:30 a.m., police showed up at the Carnia hotel and brought Sollecito to the Udine police station, where he handed over his passport and ID papers.
Since the court didn't order Sollecito detained, he was freed Friday afternoon and was seen driving away with his girlfriend.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
I made no reference to the president. The US must have its sovereign power somewhere though.
Click to expand...

The President is the highest and most powerful official in the United States. And even he cannot "override" the Constitution. If I understand what you mean by sovereign power, it resides collectively in the laws and the officials who enforce them, but no official has more authority than the laws, and ultimately the Constitution, grant him. Nobody can say "I have the right to do whatever I want."
 
Diocletus said:
This is an interesting white paper: http://www.americanbar.org/content/...tter/crimjust_wcc_bailmotion.authcheckdam.pdf

As you read it, keep in mind that Amanda resides in the 9th Circuit.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I have kept that. Lots of useful references in there. This is cutting edge stuff isn't it? The paper mentions the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...
At some point an officer of the government has to show up and arrest the individual. I guess this is where the rebuttable presumption of probable cause could kick in - if that's all there is it should not be insurmountable to rebut the presumption, assuming limitless funds of course.
 
Bill Williams said:
You mean returning from Austria is an admission of guilt?

To newbies: please hold everyone here accountable to having their facts right before letting them draw conclusions.

It is the ground floor of wrongful convictions.
Click to expand...

For all we know, he could have been up there testing grounds for his own underground railroad out of Dodge. Were I in Sollecito's position, enduring an absolutely Kafka-esque experience in my 20's, I would do no less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom