toto
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2002
- Messages
- 733
Sorry, I was being a bit ironic. But my irony was probably obscured by a wish to believe that maybe they really will explain things. I am too set in my ways to use emoticons!
Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case
- Thread starter Kaosium
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, I was being a bit ironic. But my irony was probably obscured by a wish to believe that maybe they really will explain things. I am too set in my ways to use emoticons!
Strozzi
Graduate Poster
Machiavelli, thank you for being on line today and available to answer questions regarding legal proceedings of the social worker case. Your input is appreciated.
For those of us who believe there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice in the Kercher murder, this is a sad day.
Do you mean "dismissal withOUT prejudice?" Dismissal "WITH prejudice" would conclude the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_(legal_procedure)
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
I believe they have the same thing. I'll have to do a side by side comparison to be sure. The caption says an hour and a half of video. I'm seeing 2 hours in our part 2 alone so we may already have more than they do.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Yes I did mean without, thank you for the correction.
It is no defense for my error but the terms always seemed reversed to me.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Or perhaps in Italian courts science doesn't count for much countering prosecution claims?
The time of death argument is incredibly simple, actually. Meredith ate roughly 6:00-6:30 PM and that entire meal was found identifiable in her stomach when she was autopsied, nothing had passed to her duodenum.
The time of death determined by the Massei Court on the prosecution evidence was 11:45 PM. That's impossible and was the basis of the argument you refer to.
anglolawyer
Banned
seems a bit harsh. Got a case reference to go with that?I believe they're innocent but I think this is wishful thinking. The powers that be have repeated ruled against these two and I see no reason or have any hope that things will change in the future. I don't know what the actual numbers are but there appears to be a very vocal, venomous group that vehemently believe in their guilt and this view keeps prevailing as bewildering as it is for me to try and understand.
This case is really confounding to me as I just don't see what the pgp folks see. I wonder what it felt like to be in Germany at the beginning of the persecution of the jews, I imagine there were many folks shocked and bewildered by the hate and violence that took over their country and being helpless to stop it and in any way understand it.
My diminishing hope is that like those (few?) Germans, truth and justice will prevail in the end but I'm sad to say it looks very unlikely at this juncture
moije2
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 284
I was basing that on California of which I am sure. I don't know Missouri as I only recently moved here. I am glad you are sure about Washington but I am skeptical. You can show me wrong. I believe that that term is universally applied to civil matters. "Here" was the US.
My intent in writing was to correct what I saw as an incorrect terminology more than the concept itself. There are similar ways to arrive at the "idea" of dismissal without prejudice in the criminal courts but not under that wording. I believe. Show me wrong and I will have no problem.
As for Washington I don't know. In my experience many of the other lesser states - meaning less populated and also perhaps less litigious - frequently model parts of their laws on say California or New York.
On that note how sure are you about your comment that Washington laws would affect the extradition process? That is certainly a federal matter it would not seem correct to think in terms of WA law.
icerat
Philosopher
Can someone on the "innocent" side briefly explain their answer to the "changed their alibis 9 times" claim from the "guilty" side? Evidence against Knox on this seems weak, but it doesn't for Sollecito?
I hear you, but what would you do if you were innocent but convicted of a similar crime?
What does an innocent person who finds themselves in this situation do?
Bend over and take it?
Seems to me fleeing would be an understandable reaction by someone who is guilty as well as someone who is innocent.
I don't see how these actions prove anything one way or the other
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Here's another one
The first two camera boys had silver cameras. Imagine my surprise to discover a third perp with a pocket camera on an official visit to the crime scene. This is the original "short fat perp". Notice his stature in relation to the mountain of a man behind him.
This perp enters in the beginning of the part 1 video and immediately starts snapping. Notice also the quite different mask with the square breather where the previous perps had round ones. This mask is similar to the one warn by the doctor in the green head cover.
ETA: Added unmasked photo of short fat perp entering cottage
The first two camera boys had silver cameras. Imagine my surprise to discover a third perp with a pocket camera on an official visit to the crime scene. This is the original "short fat perp". Notice his stature in relation to the mountain of a man behind him.
This perp enters in the beginning of the part 1 video and immediately starts snapping. Notice also the quite different mask with the square breather where the previous perps had round ones. This mask is similar to the one warn by the doctor in the green head cover.
ETA: Added unmasked photo of short fat perp entering cottage
Attachments
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
It would be good to have particulars of what these changes are supposed to be. I suspect they will turn out not to be changes of where they said they were but only changes of detail in what time they ate or in what sequence events in the humdrum evening occurred.
This is a recurring theme in guilterology - the unreasonable expectation that they should have total and identical recall of a humdrum evening on which they were first expected to focus nearly a week later. Guilters are good at imagining (and dismissing) the difficulties of remembering inconsequential details and the stress of late night interrogation and by their exacting standards these two are most certainly guilty.
What is the basis for your contention that they "changed their alibis 9 times?" They have consistently stated that they spent the night of the murder together at Sollecito's house. The alleged "changes" have to do with trivia, like exactly how long they were watching movies and what time they went to bed. But they have never said they went out anywhere. If I recall correctly, Sollecito was trapped into agreeing with a hypothetical question along the lines of "IF Amanda sneaked out and came back while you were asleep, you wouldn't have any way to know, would you?" But there is no evidence that she did so.
I don't think these links have been posted in awhile. If anybody wants to claim that Amanda's proponents are making misstatements of fact, please point them out.
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/home_eng.html
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/
moije2
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 284
Ok. Good enough. And perhaps that could also be applied in a Federal issue such as extradition. I shouldn't try to do this by tapping on my phone during work!
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Thanks. I was only pointing out that if there were differences between states that her extradition hearing would be in a state that has the laws as I described. My writing is less elegant than my usual inelegant style so I may have misled. I doubt state law will have any impact. I do think it is a standard across the country but...
Depending on the country, a criminal proceeding which ends prematurely due to error, mistake, or misconduct, may end as being dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. If the case ends without prejudice, the accused in the case (the defendant) may be retried. If the case ends with prejudice, the effect on the defendant (for the purpose of punishment) is the equivalent to a finding of not guilty and they cannot be retried.
In the United States, if there is a mistrial, or the case is overturned on appeal, generally this is without prejudice and (in the case of decision overturned on appeal) either all of the case is retried, or, if not all of the case is overturned, the parts that were overturned (like a sentencing hearing) are retried. If the case is dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct, it will typically be dismissed with prejudice, which means that the defendant cannot be retried.
In general, the rule for whether or not a case is dismissed with or without prejudice depends on what condition the case is in and whether "jeopardy" has attached to the case. If jeopardy is attached to a case, a dismissal or a resolution is "with prejudice" and the case can never be litigated again. In the case of a trial by jury, jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and a dismissal (for prosecutorial misconduct or harmful error) at that point must be with prejudice. In the case of a bench trial (trial by the judge only), jeopardy attaches when the first witness in the case is sworn.
If a criminal case is brought to trial and the defendant is acquitted, jeopardy is attached to the case and it can never be retried. If the defendant was convicted and his conviction is overturned, jeopardy is not attached because the defendant is considered to simply be in the same state they were before the case was tried.
If a person is brought to trial where they are charged with a particular crime and is convicted of a lesser offense, the conviction for a lesser offense is an acquittal of any higher-level offense (for example, a conviction for second-degree murder is an acquittal of first-degree murder). If the conviction is later overturned, the maximum the defendant can be retried for is the crime to which they were convicted; any higher charge is acquitted and thus is with prejudice.
Some other countries, however, allow the prosecution to appeal an acquittal.
In the United States, if there is a mistrial, or the case is overturned on appeal, generally this is without prejudice and (in the case of decision overturned on appeal) either all of the case is retried, or, if not all of the case is overturned, the parts that were overturned (like a sentencing hearing) are retried. If the case is dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct, it will typically be dismissed with prejudice, which means that the defendant cannot be retried.
In general, the rule for whether or not a case is dismissed with or without prejudice depends on what condition the case is in and whether "jeopardy" has attached to the case. If jeopardy is attached to a case, a dismissal or a resolution is "with prejudice" and the case can never be litigated again. In the case of a trial by jury, jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and a dismissal (for prosecutorial misconduct or harmful error) at that point must be with prejudice. In the case of a bench trial (trial by the judge only), jeopardy attaches when the first witness in the case is sworn.
If a criminal case is brought to trial and the defendant is acquitted, jeopardy is attached to the case and it can never be retried. If the defendant was convicted and his conviction is overturned, jeopardy is not attached because the defendant is considered to simply be in the same state they were before the case was tried.
If a person is brought to trial where they are charged with a particular crime and is convicted of a lesser offense, the conviction for a lesser offense is an acquittal of any higher-level offense (for example, a conviction for second-degree murder is an acquittal of first-degree murder). If the conviction is later overturned, the maximum the defendant can be retried for is the crime to which they were convicted; any higher charge is acquitted and thus is with prejudice.
Some other countries, however, allow the prosecution to appeal an acquittal.
Last edited:
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,757
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.
His new story is that he was already in Austria and recrossed the border after he found out they hadn't ordered preventive custody.
TCS is right, though. Sounds an awful lot like what a guilty person would do.
RoseMontague
Published Author
Yes the ISC judges on that panel acted illegally and ruled on the evidence, even inventing new theories. They will have a new panel for the next ISC hearing. We can only hope they see the problems with the first ISC decision which tells the appeal court how to convict and does not give them leeway for a decision of innocence. And there is no way the motivation will make any logical sense so AK and RS will appeal from that standpoint as well.
icerat
Philosopher
I came to it from a media opinion piece today (which I now can't find - it was a major outlet) that outlined numerous reasons why they may not have committed the murder but were probably in the house. One of these was the changing alibis.
Here's a Sollecito example from the pro-guilt wiki
I'll keep looking for the article.
- Status