• 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.
Does anyone know what happened to the theft conviction? My memory is AK was originally convicted for theft in addition to murder and callunia. Is that still the case?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its why they invented the ignore function.
I agree with that approach instead of outside mod's.

The Hate Mongers are just being happy, they enjoy the possibility of a live courtyard guillotine show. They dont really care whose innocent or guilty, they just enjoy the fear and hate stuff, it seems. Like Edgardo Giobbi types who dont need science, science is for stupid people, the Hate Mongers just know by their gut instinct. Who cares about RFU levels and cherry picking peaks...

Curatolo seems to be a main staple for some, they prefer a heroin bums testimony over two college kids, its as simple as that it seems and hasnt changed in the entirety of this case. So after years what is the point, its a stalemate.

Nencini represents a fast-food verdict , imo. Like some uneducated DNA humans making judgements based on their uneducated interpretation of the DNA, I assume. Nencini report I will guess will be a puppet to what the ISC wanted. Nencini keeps his career intact, the inquisitors find them guilty.

Maresca manipulates the Kerchers, at least Kyle. or Lyle...I wonder what Marescas report would look like. Does he hold Rudy with credibility? or is he another Toto worshipper?
I would think having the victims family on your side of the courtroom and verbally saying they side with the prosecution would be very powerful emotionally in a courtroom of uneducated Judges.
Maybe Lyle will write a book and explain what the minister Maresca has sold him.
 
Machiavelli said:
Many people release statements and then they withdraw them, for various reasons. But Amanda Knox did not withdraw her statement. She put it in doubt, undermined its credibility. She could have stated "I lied because I felt coerced/threatned" but instead she clearly stated that she did not lie, that her testimony was genuine.
Click to expand...

And she didn't lie. You are not understanding that at that moment, the truth of what the police were saying outweighed her personal truth. If you say she lied by repeating what the police said, then you are saying the police were encouraging her to lie, and they were lying themselves.

This closes the question: to me this means no coercion (moreover there is no confession, there is only a false accusation). A claim of coerced statement has its foundation on a claim of having lied because they forced you to lie by threats or other explicit means.
Click to expand...

"Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone."

"...but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received."

Yelling and hitting don't come across to you as threats?

Moreover the first and second memoriale actually do place further false evidence against an innocent (Lumumba). They repeatedly offer false evidence, albeit at the same time they intend to qualify this evidence as "non reliable" - but they do place false evidence, they offer a false testimony, this is a fact itself meaningful and indepent from assessment about the evidence reliability.

Knox instead claims genuine testimony (besides repeatedly placing false evidence) thus, the only innocent option would be internalized testimony, that is false memory, and confusion.
But this is not credible.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that if the police had suggested that Giacomo was the one who killed Meredith, and insisted that Amanda admit she knew it, that she would have done exactly as she did, only while saying a different name?

There was nothing personal in her accusing Patrick. Her primary goal, which is blatantly obvious to anyone with even an inkling of an understanding of human nature, was to please the police. That's what made the interrogation and arrest such an absolutely disgusting process of betrayal.

Machiavelli said:
Yes, yes. Go further with your inventing things. As inventing Massei's words, etc. You can re-design the whole world.
Click to expand...

You redesign reality when you repeatedly insist that you understand Amanda's statements better than her fellow citizens do.
 
Planigale said:
Does anyone know what happened to the theft conviction? My memory is AK was originally convicted for theft in addition to murder and callunia. Is that still the case?
Click to expand...

No, she was never convicted of theft. I believe there was a charge for staging, but that was dropped with the Hellman reversal and it has never come back. Maybe someone else can confirm that. That is from memory.
 
Differing perspectives fuel debate over Knox case...

-

Differing perspectives fuel debate over Knox case, and whether she should be returned to Italy

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/0...-debate-over-knox-case-and-whether-should-be/

Published February 01, 2014
Associated Press

"SEATTLE – To some Americans Amanda Knox seems unfairly hounded by a capricious legal system in Italy that convicted her this week in the death of a 21-year-old British woman.

"But in Europe, some see her as a privileged American who is getting away with murder.

"As she remains free in Seattle, the perceptions will likely fuel not only the debate about who killed Meredith Kercher in 2007 and what role, if any, Knox played in her death. They will also likely complicate how the U.S. and Italian governments resolve whether she should be sent to Italy to face prison.

"Anne Bremner, a Seattle attorney and Knox supporter, says that it's been a polarizing case, and will remain that way... "

-
 
Knox trial: Both sides say the truth is in the evidence

-

Knox trial: Both sides say the truth is in the evidence
February 1, 2014 -- Updated 0137 GMT (0937 HKT)
By Mallory Simon, CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/31/world/amanda-knox-evidence/?hpt=hp_t2

"Editor's note: This is an edited version of a story first published in November 2009 during the first murder trial of Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Sollecito looking at the disputed evidence in the case, which has largely remained the same.
"(CNN) -- Within weeks of British student Meredith Kercher's death in the vibrant college town of Perugia, Italy, in 2007, prosecutors and police declared the case closed.

"They'd seized two knives in their search for the murder weapon. They took DNA from the room where Kercher was killed. And at least one suspect had confessed to being at the murder scene. Or so they said.

"Kercher had been stabbed in a sexual misadventure, officials said. And they knew the killers.

"American Amanda Knox, Kercher's roommate; Italian Raffaele Sollecito, Knox's former boyfriend; and Ivory Coast native Rudy Guede, a drifter known in the area, had their pictures splattered across the world's media... "

-----
Is that highlighted part true?

d

-
 
Original conviction overturned on appeal 'In the case of the murder (and the sexual assault, transporting the knife, and theft), Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted "for not having committed the act."

With regard to the charge of staging a burglary, Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted "because the act does not exist."

Do we take it that ISC accepted the verdict from the second court with all except murder? Or are the charges of sexual assault, theft, transporting a knife and staging still in play. If the ISC has accepted innocence of staging and transporting the knife then how were these things still being argued?
 
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...

But, under the treaty, from which I listed extracts yesterday, extradition is a question for the executive. Apart from the legal controversy about which Diocletus posted yesterday, which only concerned bail, the court is not involved.

I suppose the all-embracing habeus petition can be lobbed into the works at any time after she is taken into custody. Any idea?
 
Thanks JREF posters.

It bolsters my hope that rationality will prevail to read all the fine posts in last 36 hours. Given how sad and senseless yesterday's events were, it is a great relief to see people wresting truth from chaos and distortion.

This WaPo article, which was posted an hour ago, contains some serious errors. I'm probably going to write a comment to clarify what AK/RS "initially told investigators." I'm posting the link in case others want to comment too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...3fc8ce-8aaa-11e3-a760-a86415d0944d_story.html
 
The crux of the matter

As Machiavelli has generously and correctly conceded, Amanda was already 'strongly suspected' when she entered the questura on the night of the 5th. The other day I came across a short clip of an interview between Vogt and Mignini in which he asserted that she was questioned only as a witness. If Mach is right (which he is, for once) that makes Mignini a liar or an idiot, most likely the former IMO.

Now, Mach wants to place weight on what Amanda said in her 'interview' and, since she has finally lost the Italian phase of her case (forget about the ISC upsetting Nencini) we should forget about nice questions of admissibility and just chuck it into the pot and look squarely at it.

What I would like Mach to explain to a non-fascist is what, in his opinion, the safeguards normally afforded to suspects are actually for. Does he think having access to a lawyer is just a formal thing or is it an important and necessary right? If the latter, why is it important and necessary? What sorts of things does having a lawyer guard against? As someone who has advised many clients in police custody I am interested to know what Mach thinks I might have been there for.*

Bearing in mind the ECHR is quite capable of overturning this entire farce solely because of the deprivation of this one right, this question has profound importance. I would even suggest that, if he pretends to intellectual honesty, Mach should support the inevitable ECHR appeal even if he retains his irrational belief in guilt since a decent, intelligent, civilised person should be able to see that everybody, guilty and innocent alike, is entitled to a fair trial.

* to save time, my answer to this question is:

- to ascertain brief particulars of the offence of which my client is suspected and, if possible, gain some idea of the supporting evidence
- to take instructions (i.e. get the client's story)
- to explain to the client the nature of their situation
- to explain the client's rights, including the right to silence and the desirability (or otherwise) of exercising it
- to witness the interrogation
- to guide the client during the interrogation
- to ensure fair play and/or record and react to foul play
- to ascertain the intentions of the police after the interview
- to explain the further course of proceedings to the client, especially if detained
- to obtain contact details of friends and family to alert them to the client's status, if detained
- to maintain a record of all of the above and be ready to testify if necessary.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
No, she was never convicted of theft. I believe there was a charge for staging, but that was dropped with the Hellman reversal and it has never come back. Maybe someone else can confirm that. That is from memory.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were convicted of theft, it was charge D. Although charged with the credit cards and money as well, they were only convicted for the phones. I'd forgotten that. :o

Massei PMF 393 said:
The element of continuance together with the crimes of simulation [staging] and of unjustifiable carrying of the knife and of the theft of the cell phones determines, with regard to Raffaele Sollecito, an increase of the punishment of a further 1 year and thus Raffaele Sollecito is condemned to 25 years of imprisonment. In relation to the fact that in addition to the said crimes Amanda Knox is also answerable for the crime of calunnia, she must be condemned to a total punishment of 26 years of imprisonment (base penalty 24 years; increased to 24 years and 6 months for the simulation [staging]; to 24 years and 9 months for carrying the knife; to 25 years for theft and increased, finally, by a further year for calunnia).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
Does anyone know what happened to the theft conviction? My memory is AK was originally convicted for theft in addition to murder and callunia. Is that still the case?
Click to expand...

Yes, as well as sexual assault and staging. Back to square one. Her sentence is now more than Massei due to some extra time added to the callunia.
 
stilicho said:
Almost 150 people world-wide want Killer Knox safeguarded from serving her 28.5 year sentence.

:seroflmao:
Click to expand...
Stilicho, I have read a great number of your posts on PMF, and always wished to ask questions but clearly that is impossible there.
You are certain they killed, but can you explain the time of death given the cohesive meal still in the stomach, which people here swear is inconsistent with the computer evidence of Raffaele , 9 26 on computer, new evidence unchallenged by Crini, and Meredith dead definitely before 10pm?
I have seen many professionals besides Rolfe say a later death is scientifically precluded.
Usually this goes unanswered I must say, would you venture to answer here?
 
anglolawyer said:
As Machiavelli has generously and correctly conceded, Amanda was already 'strongly suspected' when she entered the questura on the night of the 5th. The other day I came across a short clip of an interview between Vogt and Mignini in which he asserted that she was questioned only as a witness. If Mach is right (which he is, for once) that makes Mignini a liar or an idiot, most likely the former IMO.

Now, Mach wants to place weight on what Amanda said in her 'interview' and, since she has finally lost the Italian phase of her case (forget about the ISC upsetting Nencini) we should forget about nice questions of admissibility and just chuck it into the pot and look squarely at it.

What I would like Mach to explain to a non-fascist is what, in his opinion, the safeguards normally afforded to suspects are actually for. Does he think having access to a lawyer is just a formal thing or is it an important and necessary right? If the latter, why is it important and necessary? What sorts of things does having a lawyer guard against? As someone who has advised many clients in police custody I am interested to know what Mach thinks I might have been there for.*

Bearing in mind the ECHR is quite capable of overturning this entire farce solely because of the deprivation of this one right, this question has profound importance. I would even suggest that, if he pretends to intellectual honesty, Mach should support the inevitable ECHR appeal even if he retains his irrational belief in guilt since a decent, intelligent, civilised person should be able to see that everybody, guilty and innocent alike, is entitled to a fair trial.

* to save time, my answer to this question is:

- to ascertain brief particulars of the offence of which my client is suspected and, if possible, gain some idea of the supporting evidence
- to take instructions (i.e. get the client's story)
- to explain to the client the nature of their situation
- to explain the client's rights, including the right to silence and the desirability (or otherwise) of exercising it
- to witness the interrogation
- to guide the client during the interrogation
- to ensure fair play and/or record and react to foul play
- to ascertain the intentions of the police after the interview
- to explain the further course of proceedings to the client, especially if detained
- to obtain contact details of friends and family to alert them to the client's status, if detained
- to maintain a record of all of the above and be ready to testify if necessary.
Click to expand...

I conclude that lawyers like to feel needed, and developed a whole body of law institutionalizing the expression of that need.
 
Nencini it seems is saying the motive is that they had nothing better to do. The question about Raffaelel's statements is addressed as well with the judge saying he has never been questioned and even his statements in front of Matteini are not usable.

http://goo.gl/e35HfV
 
As I mentioned yesterday Amanda's book is continuing to rise. Here are the rankings for the eBook...


Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #313 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#3 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Biographies & Memoirs > Specific Groups > Women
#4 in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Specific Groups > Women
#7 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Biographies & Memoirs > Memoirs
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom