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

[Vibio]

The guilty verdict was on page A14 of my local paper so it must be a storm in a teacup.

In all major newspapers it's pretty much been a big yawn.

There's just not much interest in Knox and her plight. After a few weeks of interest, her book tanked quickly. She came off poorly in her Diane Sawyer and Chis Cuomo interviews: cold and unlikable. She became old news fast.

No, this case is not going to become a cause célèbre.

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

1. The aggravating factor exists in the code, but was not used in this trial against the man as far as I know, he was not charged with that aggravation. The aggravation you mention does not apply to a generic 'position of power and trust' and does not extend to the family, it is limited to an official tutorial or teaching function of the accused, in direct relationship with the child (must be his/her janitor, his/her teacher, his/her religious counselor, his/her economical supporter etc.). Generic social working with the family is not enough. The man could not be charged with that aggravation.

2. That the girl was not traumatized is something determined by the lower court appeal judges themselves.

 

[JREF2010]

Since the verdict the haters have been crawling out of the wood work and gloating about the guilty verdict. There is a question I would like to ask the haters. If the prosecution had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, how do you explain the massive level of misconduct which ocurred in this case? If the prosecution had a mountain of solid irrefutable evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the the prosecution have to resort to supressing evidence and lying? In addition, the prosecution had an entire year to prepare their case. If the prosecution had a strong case, why is it that with all the time available to prepare their case a knife which did not match the wounds was the best evidence the prosecution could come up with.

You will never get a cohesive explanation of the crime from the hate-mongers.

Ive never seen a case where the prosecution convicts using different scenarios and motives each trial....better yet, its as if they dont need motives, or evidence. (not to mention compromised or non-existent evidence)

Accusations and gut instincts! and some political power, is this all thats needed?

 

[Diocletus]

2. That the girl was not traumatized is something determined by the lower court appeal judges themselves.

Oh really. The old man forcibly put his penis in the child and that wasn't traumatizing?

Dumbasses.

 

[tsig]

Apparently they caught him last night trying to escape to Austria. That sounds like something a guilty person would do.

He was just going on a little hike to loosen up his legs for some real running.

ETA: Maybe he was pining for the beaches.

 

[Grinder]

Apparently they caught him last night trying to escape to Austria. That sounds like something a guilty person would do.

It would seem that a guilty person would have left long ago, for example Rudy.

Why in the world would an innocent person stay if they could get away?

An innocent person could live his life in piece with himself and would gain nothing by serving time as opposed to a guilty person that could feel cleansed by the prison time punishment.

 

[Grinder]

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.

You are a hoot -

Raf once again shows himself to be a ditz. At least he could have actually left the country, then he would be in another country being accused of running instead of looking like he might run. He will get all the criticism and none of the benefits.

When it comes to Italy, I go with incompetence.

 

[Diocletus]

He was just going on a little hike to loosen up his legs for some real running.

ETA: Maybe he was pining for the beaches.

I think he was trying to flee over the mountain to Schloss Von Trappe. But the Nazis caught him.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, right, the 4th and 5th amendments are the keys here.

Curiously, it doesn't seem that cutting edge to me. I think it's obvious that the government can't enter into a treaty that takes away someone's Constitutional rights. It's ultra vires. But I'm just some guy on the internet.

When one travels abroad one accepts their laws. When we have a treaty with another country for extradition that extends that situation to those that broke another country's laws but was able to make it back to the US.

Case law has more than one case where a person was found not guilty during a three part system or an appealable innocent finding and later was found guilty as part of the system and then was extradited.

Even here one have their case dismissed with prejudice which allows the prosecutor to reopen the case again.

 

[Bob001]

In all major newspapers it's pretty much been a big yawn.

It was on all three network news shows, CNN and MSNBC yesterday.

There's just not much interest in Knox and her plight. After a few weeks of interest, her book tanked quickly. She came off poorly in her Diane Sawyer and Chis Cuomo interviews: cold and unlikable. She became old news fast.

In those interviews she seemed bewildered. She obviously hadn't been coached in how to make her case to a disinterested or disbelieving audience, or how to correct misconceptions. And Cuomo was overtly hostile, actively promoting the prosecution side.
http://gawker.com/youre-a-freak-wat...m_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...09/cnns-sex-crazed-amanda-knox-case-interview

No, this case is not going to become a cause célèbre.

Regrettably, I think that's probably right, until another American is falsely locked up in Italy and people say "This sounds that whats-her-name thing."

 

[Dan O.]

I've been putting together the evidence of crime scene photos that were excluded from the case file. On November 2/3 the photo set still had their original file names and some other sequencing information. In the return visit in December, some information is being deliberately excluded. The video no longer has audio or the on-screen timestamp. File names of the photos have all been renamed into a new sequence. All of the photos were reprocessed the next day. Many of the photos which we can see being taken are not in the case file. none of the photos from the two pocket cameras are in the case file though some did end up in the tabloid press articles.

But then I noticed in photo 103.jpg the video camera is still there and this is well after the end of the second tape in part 2. Is there a video part 3 that we are missing?

BTW: For those that wanted to know in the Martin thread, the green box on the tripod is a Total Station.

 

[Diocletus]

When one travels abroad one accepts their laws. When we have a treaty with another country for extradition that extends that situation to those that broke another country's laws but was able to make it back to the US.

Case law has more than one case where a person was found not guilty during a three part system or an appealable innocent finding and later was found guilty as part of the system and then was extradited.

Even here one have their case dismissed with prejudice which allows the prosecutor to reopen the case again.

This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the rights that she has within an extradition process.

 

[Diocletus]

I've been putting together the evidence of crime scene photos that were excluded from the case file. On November 2/3 the photo set still had their original file names and some other sequencing information. In the return visit in December, some information is being deliberately excluded. The video no longer has audio or the on-screen timestamp. File names of the photos have all been renamed into a new sequence. All of the photos were reprocessed the next day. Many of the photos which we can see being taken are not in the case file. none of the photos from the two pocket cameras are in the case file though some did end up in the tabloid press articles.

But then I noticed in photo 103.jpg the video camera is still there and this is well after the end of the second tape in part 2. Is there a video part 3 that we are missing?

This is fascinating. Sounds like a carbon copy of what I discovered when I went through the DNA records.

Did you check the Oggi site for the videos? There were many different files on there: http://www.oggi.it/focus/attualita/...mento-del-gancetto-del-reggiseno-di-meredith/

 

[Grinder]

This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the rights that she has within an extradition process.

Exactly what I was talking about.

 

[moije2]

When one travels abroad one accepts their laws. When we have a treaty with another country for extradition that extends that situation to those that broke another country's laws but was able to make it back to the US.

Case law has more than one case where a person was found not guilty during a three part system or an appealable innocent finding and later was found guilty as part of the system and then was extradited.

Even here one have their case dismissed with prejudice which allows the prosecutor to reopen the case again.

Regarding your last paragraph: there is no "dismissal with prejudice" in the criminal system here. That is a civil proceedings concept.

 

[Grinder]

If it is DJ then it should be reversed by the ECHR.

All members of the Council of Europe (which includes nearly all European countries, and every member of the European Union) have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. The optional Seventh Protocol to the Convention, Article Four, protects against double jeopardy and says:

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.

Member states may, however, implement legislation which allows reopening of a case in the event that new evidence is found or if there was a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings:

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.

This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except five (Belgium, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom).[4] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.

 

[Diocletus]

Exactly what I was talking about.

Who's on first?

 

[Strozzi]

I think we need to wait for the motivations report which should clear this point up for us. (Maybe).

Toto, the motivations report will be interesting reading but I'm not sure it will clear up why no DNA or prints of the two defendants were found in the murder room while Rudy's DNA was found on the victim's clothes, purse, and in her vagina (not the result of a consensual act). The real answer is provided by reputable scientists and a forensic engineer who understand and have reviewed how "evidence" was collected, protected, processed, and analyzed. There is no reliable DNA of either of the two defendants. They were not present the evening Meredith was killed.

By the way, do you believe that the motivation report will include copies of the missing electronic data files that Dr. Stefanoni withheld?

 

[Diocletus]

If it is DJ then it should be reversed by the ECHR.

All members of the Council of Europe (which includes nearly all European countries, and every member of the European Union) have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. The optional Seventh Protocol to the Convention, Article Four, protects against double jeopardy and says:

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.

Member states may, however, implement legislation which allows reopening of a case in the event that new evidence is found or if there was a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings:

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.

This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except five (Belgium, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom).[4] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.

There is no final conviction yet. They have a retarded procedure that allows them repeatedly to conduct jury trials with less and less evidence, until they finally get to a jury that knows so little about the case that it will wrongly convict.

 

[Grinder]

Regarding your last paragraph: there is no "dismissal with prejudice" in the criminal system here. That is a civil proceedings concept.

Where is here? Just Missouri?

In Washington State, where an extradition hearing would be held, there is dismissal with prejudice. I'm a hundred percent sure of it. I've been involved in cases where people charged with assault that they didn't commit eventually had the charges dismissed with prejudice, which left them in a sort of limbo.