• 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.
Poppy1016 said:
Well you would know if the criminal interrogators had recorded the interrogation
Click to expand...

Vibio said:
Raff ADMITS he changed his alibi. He ADMITS he did blame Amanda for telling him to lie. He writes it in his own hand in his diary, a letter to his Father. Yet I'm supposed to believe KnifeBoy's self-serving book written years after the fact? Oh please.
Click to expand...

Knife boy? Seriously? What a juvenile remark.
 
Strozzi said:
Thank you for pointing that out! My neighbor who lives across the street from me here in Washington DC is a senior attorney in the legal office in the State Department. My daughter was his kids' babysitter when she was in high school. We've nodded to each others for years as we go to our cars. He did a tour in Europe handling legal issues. Maybe I'll go have a beer with him! We could talk about the Seattle Seahawks and then about other Seattle related issues.

You think I'm kidding. I'm not kidding. I'm serious.
Click to expand...

Cool, I believe you. I would love to know what you learn. . The State Department is in charge of US Foreign affairs. Everything from extradition to deportation. They are America's liaison to the foreign governments around the world.

This is the process as I know it. It's also not the circuit court but the Western District Court. I got that part wrong.
 
Originally Posted by Kaosium
I don't know that Amanda Knox ever exchanged a call with a drug dealer. All I've seen is a report from 2011 that a number which called her phone in 2007 was held by someone who was up on drug charges. How did that case turn out BTW, has there been any further information? Did they ever release a name or detail what the charges and circumstances were?

How did it turn out? They found him in possession of a stolen laptop and cell phones taken in a burglary at a lawyer's office, a stolen kitchen knife, a suspicious lady's gold watch, and a small hammer like the kind provided on buses to use in an emergency to break out a glass window. The arresting officers called a supervisor and were told that they had no grounds to hold him. So they let him go. :p
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Is that when she turned the cartwheels? Her story has changed so many times, that it's hard to keep track.
Click to expand...

Why don't you bother actually make arguments based on facts instead of trolling? All you're doing is throwing an ignorant bomb and leaving. Trying for a reaction as opposed actually debating the actual facts or even learning anything.

Just curious. If you new the facts, then you would know that Amanda didn't actually do "cartwheels" That is what was reported in the papers. She did a yoga split.

And Amanda only once told a different story and that was during the interrogation on November 5/6 under duress. You in fact cannot name any contradictions from any of her story other than on that night.

But hey, why let the facts get in the way of throwing your bomb? Right?
 
Machiavelli said:
Never caught committing any burglary. It won't change much actually, but that is, for the record.
Sleeping inside a school is not a burglary.
Possession of weapon is actually something about Sollecito, he was the man caught carrying a weapon inside a police station.
Click to expand...

Yea, sleeping inside a nursery that he broke into while possessing items from two other burglaries. Yea..that isn't evidence....is it?
 
Machiavelli said:
I think rather than culture there is also a problem with precise knowledge of details. There isn't a single statement of Curatolo about costumes, and there is actually no evidence he got the buses wrong (there is just an unproven defence claim).
Click to expand...

So since you think Curatolos testimony is rock solid, you must also agree that Amanda and Rafael are innocent based on that testimony correct?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Is that when she turned the cartwheels? Her story has changed so many times, that it's hard to keep track.
Click to expand...

Her story was changed. She was told there was 'hard evidence' she was at the cottage the night of the murder, that Raffaele had said she went out, and that she 'repressed' the memory of the murder due to the trauma and needed to 'remember.' When they were done with her they told her 'it would all come back to her soon' when she started to question it.

She spent 53 of the 89 hours with police from the time the Postals showed up until the second statement. She was utterly exhausted, stressed and traumatized and was silly enough to believe what the police were telling her, that she had to have been there and witnessed the murder. When they demanded she stop 'protecting' the murderer and shoved the phone message from Patrick under her nose and whupped her upside the back of her head she realized they were talking about Patrick, summoned some mental images of him and assumed in her sleep-deprived state she must have 'recovered' those memories and they confabulated two witness statements out of them.

Then they arrested her, Patrick and Raffaele on bogus or mistaken evidence. Do you still think Patrick was involved? Do you think his text message had anything to do with the murder? That there was a handprint of Amanda's on Meredith's face? That Rudy's shoeprints were an exact match for Raffaele's like their ('second opinion'--they didn't like the first one) forensic report declared?


Now what are the odds any of those three arrested on that evidence which was mostly manufactured by police off a bum lead had anything to do with the guy who broke in and murdered Meredith?

That's the conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
The first extradition hearing, if there were one. That is the local US District Court who's jurisdiction is Western Washington where Amanda Knox resides.
Click to expand...

An extradition hearing in a US District Court in Western Washington could be interesting. In addition to being represented by very good constitutional lawyers, there may be a lineup of forensic experts and retired FBI criminal profilers in the courtroom observing the case. Maybe they will give testimony.
 
Strozzi said:
Wasn't Meredith's basement boyfriend - what's his name, Glaucoma? :p - arrested for drugs? Did he call Amanda too or just Meredith's phone?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I don't think there was ever a name given. If your guess is correct, we now know why. ;)
 
Maciabelli said:
Never caught committing any burglary. It won't change much actually, but that is, for the record.
Sleeping inside a school is not a burglary.
Possession of weapon is actually something about Sollecito, he was the man caught carrying a weapon inside a police station.
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
Yea, sleeping inside a nursery that he broke into while possessing items from two other burglaries. Yea..that isn't evidence....is it?
Click to expand...

Pay attention to Machiavelli's use of language. A pocket knife, legally purchased and legally possessed, with no reason, really, NOT to carry it into the police station.... except for an as-yet configured stupidity on his part, given what awaited him.... entrapment comes to mind....

Vs. Guede who is sleeping inside a nursery after breaking in.... but it's not a burglary....

Hey! That's Rudy's M.O. at the cottage! It even matches Battistelli's first assessment of Filomena's room.... "This is no burglary!"

Who is espousing a conspiracy theory here?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
LOL!!! Yeah, gibberish might impress the CTers, but not critical thinkers like you and I.

It wasn't me, I didn't do it! (even though I did) it was because of the Italians and their justice system!!!11!!!1 It was the black guy! I'm a pretty white girl, I couldn't have done it!

Or something....
Click to expand...

Can the mods do something about these posts?
 
-

Strozzi said:
If it were me, I'd want to get Rudy drunk or high, get him talking details, and record the conversation. When he is let out on work release, they better as someone here suggested have him work as a janitor at the police station so they can watch him. I know an apprentice journalist in Perugia who gets disoriented, lonely, or attention-seeking people to remember things eight months later that they didn't know they knew earlier.
Click to expand...
-

Undercover journalism, I like it,

d

-
 
anglolawyer said:
Bill, did you read my post? The part about the decision to extradite being an executive decision? While that may well be subject to judicial oversight, the grounds available are likely to be very narrowly confined. In order for the judiciary not to be in a position to subvert the executive, or usurp its authority, my guess would be (American jurists please comment) that only if the exercise of the discretion to extradite is unreasonable in a high degree, or affected by fundamental procedural irregularity, or something of that kind, would a court interfere.

In entering into the treaty the US has conferred a priori validity on convictions secured in Italy. The plain words of the treaty require nothing more than the filing of certain documents. On what grounds have such executive decisions been challenged before? Have you any relevant case law you can cite?

If the intention of the treaty was that a probable cause test should apply to requests both of convicted as well as merely suspected persons there would have been no reason not to give discretion to the judiciary, but in case of convicted persons the judiciary has no role and there is no probable cause requirement. It may be case law has placed a gloss on this interpretation but, if so, I don't see it cited in your post.
Click to expand...

I am going to guess that when the United States enters into an extradition treaty with another country, it does so based on 1.) certainty that the other country's constitution guarantees human rights to its own citizens as well as to visitors, and 2.) the caveat that the nation in question will not break its own laws in order to detain or prosecute a US citizen.

If that is the case, then I would argue that when Perugian law enforcement interrogated and accepted self-incriminating information from Amanda without informing her of her absolute, non-waivable right to legal representation; when they did not video-record the interrogation; and when they did not file the correct documentation required for denying legal counsel to a suspect, they broke several laws and denied the suspect her rights as guaranteed by the Italian constitution.

Therefore, the terms of the extradition treaty presumably were broken and hence the treaty should be null and void.
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
An extradition hearing in a US District Court in Western Washington could be interesting. In addition to being represented by very good constitutional lawyers, there may be a lineup of forensic experts and retired FBI criminal profilers in the courtroom observing the case. Maybe they will give testimony.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A lot will depend on the judge and how much that judge will entertain opening the case up to arguments about the Italian's evidence.
 
icerat said:
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?
Click to expand...

Many others, most notably Rose, have answered this question well, but I would like to emphasize the most important point, which is that there are no written or audio records of anything Amanda and Raffaele said before they were interrogated at the Questura on the 5th-6th.

It is a non-starter to claim they changed their alibis from what they had said previously. We don't even know whether the police asked them for alibis before the interrogations. Any claims about anything they may have said are hearsay from biased parties, nothing more.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Yep. The CTers are so emotionally invested in this, that they've lost sight of the fact that Amanda and that other dude murdered poor Meredith. You see, many of them have literally spent thousands of hours hunched over their computers, researching where the prosecutor went to grade school, what the judge had for breakfast, and who the court reporter is dating. And for all that "important" work, they want to see a payoff. And if it means a murderer goes free, that's OK.
Click to expand...

I have followed this thread pretty closely but have never seen the information about the prosecutor's background, although I have been curious about it, as he seems to have some personal quirks, to say the least. Could you direct me to those discussions? Since you have mentioned them twice, I assume you are familiar with approximately when they took place.

I'm pretty sure you're joking about what the judge had for breakfast and who the court reporter is dating, just as I know you are being facetious when you talk about people spending thousands of hours on their computers researching what they are interested in. Ha ha, I get it!
 
Bill Williams said:
Can the mods do something about these posts?
Click to expand...

Why would they? My grasp of the rules and how they are interpreted is flimsy at best, but I can't see that he is breaking any of them. I say, respond to him or ignore him as you see fit. We have too much moderating as it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom