• 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.
Grinder said:
It isn't just the arrest warrant. It is the extradition hearing. According to the law any judge of record can hear the extradition part and make an order. If that reading of the actual law is correct then a King County Superior Judge could theoretically hear the case.

I'm basing my opinion on reading the referenced law. It could be the case that the feds never let that happen.

I would be pleased to have a legal beagle make a comment.
Click to expand...

Geez I thought I had posted at length showing the decision whether to extradite a convicted person is made

by the *********** executive!​
 
“We convicted and we will explain it explicitly in our reasoning. For now, I can say that up until 20:15 of that evening, these young people all had different plans, then their commitments fell through and the occasion for this to happen was created. If Amanda had gone to work, we probably wouldn’t be here.”

Whoa - didn't Popovic stop by at 20:45? Now if the kids were off by 30 minutes in an article in the DM that would point to guilt.
 
RoseMontague said:
Wow, Raffaele's lawyers are really pissed.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/14_...se-a39caa28-8b36-11e3-bf44-9aaf223b3498.shtml
Click to expand...

The trouble with participating in an unjust process, that has resulted oin a wrongful conviction, is that eventually people within that process get a little cavalier about it...

.... and actually leak out the actual mechanics of how they wrongfully convicted someone.

This is what the two lawyers are pissed about. Nencini is saying that if the defence had taken a different strategy, and if Raffaele had, for instance, ratted out Amanda to save his own skin, then Raffaele may have been acquited.

Let's all think on that for a second.

I thought it was the evidence that convicted Raffaele!?

Apparently not. True to this behind the scenes judicial war - Nencini convicted on some other method, than a test of the evidence.

I hope these cracks continue. The political solution to this wrongful conviction might not only rest in Washington, D.C., in the eventual extradition request, it may also rest in Rome, with some sort of political interference in this unjest process.

Please note - this is not an indictment of Italy's judicial system in general. I am assuming that not all judges make the boneheaded comments Nencini just made.
 
anglolawyer said:
Geez I thought I had posted at length showing the decision whether to extradite a convicted person is made

by the *********** executive!​
Click to expand...

All right who taught you about type size? :p

Yes and I have made that point as well. I believe they will make a deal but others here (;);)) think that it will go to the Supreme Court on the basis of DJ or reasonable doubt.

I would very interested if there was some past cases we could look at. I'm waiting for HB as he has done well in this arena in the past.

ETA - For any extradition order to be certified under United States law, a judicial officer must determine that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the charge under the applicable treaty. The standard used by the judicial officer is that of a reasonable belief of guilt of the crime charged; whether the foreign court would likely convict the defendant is not taken into consideration by the judicial officer. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3184.
 
Last edited:
Ampulla of Vater said:
A very different translation of this from Vogt. She's probably correct.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's quite interesting. Nencini could have provided convincing reasoning for why the accused weren't involved, but he doesn't believe that to be the truth. So... he will have to come up with another report to explain a guilty verdict. His solution will be (1) don't mention the acquittal, and (2) use Massei as a template.

That means Guede decided to rape Meredith, and Amanda/Raffaele broke off their love-making to side with Guede. Choice of extreme evil exacerbated by smoking pot. Done and done.

Except for the matter of bringing the accused back into custody on the strength of this judicial finding. That will be non-trivial, I predict.
 
Dan Abrams seems to be a Quintaville fan. I remember reading that Quintaville testified or at least said that he first say Knox come into his store some time before her arrival in Italy. Does anyone have a link or can support/ deny this?
 
Strozzi said:
I would like Italy to seek extradition of Knox because I believe it will become a charged issue and public relations disaster for Italy in the US. The news coverage and publicity will inform more Americans of the case. Americans who have not paid much attention or even heard of it will learn of it.

The facts or "factoids" (I put that in for Grinder) that will come to public attention are the sorts of acts that anger the average Joe: physical abuse of a young American in police custody; midnight interrogation; withholding or destruction or tampering of evidence; corrupt police or prosecutor; dishonest political judges; double jeopardy.
Click to expand...

The current confusion within the United States, at least in the press, is two opinions. One says Amanda is stone cold innocent. The other is really testing - does Italy wrongfully convict?

Actually, being trusting of the court process in any country is a good thing. Yet even the skeptics in the United States (skeptics that the Steve Moores of the world have it right) are just now starting to trumpet out all the old evidence - unaware that mearly all, if not all, has been debunked at former trials. (They still have yet to connect the dots that it has taken four trials to arrive at where we are.)

It's good to be skeptical of the Steve Moores of the world, and his claims of wrongful conviction..... yet when someone says, "Well there WAS a clean-up," it is opportunity to say, ah, no, even Massei only posited one because he was stumped on another point, not because he had evidence of a clean-up.

When someone says, "Well, there was a staged break-in," it is opportunity to say, ah, no, even Massei only posited one because the prosecutors told him tyhere was one, and actually offered no forensics.

When someone says, "Well, she did implicate Lumumba," it is opportunity to say, ah, no, the police brought Lumumba into the interrogation room, and she, at best, simply caved in to their own claim.

And on and on it goes.

It's like "all the other evidence," that phrase which is trotted out when each prior bit of evidence falls - like the DNA, the knife... etc.

It will take time for the American skeptics to conclude for themselves (after going through "all the other evidence" one by one) that this emperor has no clothes.

see: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com, meaning the one that isn't from the anonymous "Edward McCall".

An Extradition attempt from Italy will have disasterous result for them in the USA... especially if an American court judges "all the other evidence" by American standards.

Regardless of how it's decided in other Italian cases, an American judge will see that nearly all the evidence made it to the courtroom, because a prosecutor asserted it, or a judge made it up in a motivations report, with no evidence backing it up.

If the battle is to be fought there, bring it on.
 
moodstream said:
Do you have a link to an article about what Nencini (sp?) said?
Click to expand...

I read it, too. Nencini also said that one of the lay jurors confessed to being confused and asked Nencini for advice for what to believe. She, apparently, said that she was hearing different things in the court than what she was seeing/hearing on TV.

What, there were 6 or 7 court days from Sept 30 to Jan 30? How many hours of prejudicial coverage did that juror see on TV in that span?

Is this a process to trust?
 
anglolawyer said:
Geez I thought I had posted at length showing the decision whether to extradite a convicted person is made

by the *********** executive!​
Click to expand...

Except when it's not Anglo. The State Department on behalf of the executive can refuse extradition and request extradition, it still requires compliance of the courts. Usually that is mostly a rubber stamp. Unless it isn't.

For example, in the case of Geisser Bauer v. United States. The courts refused extradition.

http://openjurist.org/627/f2d/745/geisser-bauer-v-united-states
 
Dan Abrams writes:
In one of those statements she claimed: "Yes we were in the house. We were drunk. ... Raffaele and I went into another room and then I heard screams. ... Patrick and Meredith were in Meredith's bedroom while I think I stayed in the kitchen. ... I can't remember how long they were together in the bedroom but the only thing I can say is that at a certain point I remember hearing Meredith's screams and I covered my ears."

In the other statement she offered a somewhat consistent account alleging that Lumumba and Meredith went together into Meredith's room while, "I think I stayed in the kitchen. I can't remember how long they were in the bedroom together, I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and I was so frightened I put my fingers in my ears. I don't remember anything after that, my head is really confused."

She said she had a lot to drink and fell asleep. In both statements she also said she recalled waking up at Sollecito's home and heading back to her house and finding the door open.

Putting aside the reliability (or lack thereof) of those statements, something important happened shortly thereafter. Knox was told Sollecito was not supporting her account of what happened. At that point, at 5:45 in the morning, after offering those different accounts through the night, she offered to write out a new statement in English. Knox seemed confused and uncertain about where she had been and what she had done.

I thought Knox was told Sollecito was not supporting him before her first confession, not after her declaration to Mignini. Is that wrong?
 
Caper said:
I'm more of a lurker on this topic... But it's amazing how little substance almost all of the proguilt posters add... Their whole argument usually revolves around character assassination.... and almost nothing else.
Click to expand...

I've asked 100 times for a proguilt person to give a brief description of how this crime went down, using known time-points as their guide. No one has done it.

From Mignini, to Judge Massei, to the ISC, to Prosecutor Crini, and (to be seen) Nencini, each one has given a different version of the crime.

It make it hard for a defendant to know what they're defending themselves from. One proguily person a while ago said, "from murder, you nitwit," which is all well and good....

But... are they defending themselves from the allegation that:

1) the murder was a premeditated Day of the Dead rite associated with Hallowe'en?

2) the murder was a dispute over rent money?

3) the murder was about Amanda being jealous of a morally superior Meredith?

4) the murder was a sex-game gone wrong?

5) the murder was a "brief choice for evil", made by AK and Rs at literally the last second when they heard Rudy attacking Meredith in the next room? (Massei's)

6) The murder happened for no known reason, really

7) the murder happened because Meredith suddenly went out of character and nagged at Amanda, for Rudy not flushing the toilet at the other end of the cottage? No one believes that Meredith had that kind of abrasive personality that would have unleashed murder in someone else.​

It's really hard to defend yourself from an allegation, when the first time you read about it is 90 days into your sentence after being convicted!

Caper - My view is that the reason you do not see proguilt people doing anything other than character assassinate, is because to put together a believable timeline, comprehensive - which explains things like stomach content analysis.... it cannot be done.

And.... it's just more fun to anonymously call people in the news names.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
What does it matter who or what he is? He is anonymous.

The relevant point is that that Italian Supreme Court is made up of child-rape apologists, degenerates who think it's understandable and acceptable for a 60-year-old man to gratify his lust with a pre-teen girl.

Which at this point does not surprise me in the least. It goes hand-in-hand with their disgraceful stance on the Kercher murder and the fact that their "honorary president" is a full-bore 9-11 truther. Andrea Vogt can screech about brave magistrates risking their lives against the mafia, but the facts speak for themselves. The Italian justice system is a refuge for fanatics, and it is a cesspool of depravity.
Click to expand...

Charlie you and others saw the way this was developing for a long time,I myself believed that in the spotlight that this case was fought that the judges would not dare be so corrupt,I think the Italian mafia have got it right there is only one way to deal with this shower of bastards
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Yes, it's quite interesting. Nencini could have provided convincing reasoning for why the accused weren't involved, but he doesn't believe that to be the truth. So... he will have to come up with another report to explain a guilty verdict. His solution will be (1) don't mention the acquittal, and (2) use Massei as a template.

That means Guede decided to rape Meredith, and Amanda/Raffaele broke off their love-making to side with Guede. Choice of extreme evil exacerbated by smoking pot. Done and done.

Except for the matter of bringing the accused back into custody on the strength of this judicial finding. That will be non-trivial, I predict.
Click to expand...

But they were in the plaza. I forgot, since they said they were home the Curatolo account can't be used for their defense.
 
acbytesla said:
Except when it's not Anglo. The State Department on behalf of the executive can refuse extradition and request extradition, it still requires compliance of the courts. Usually that is mostly a rubber stamp. Unless it isn't.

For example, in the case of Geisser Bauer v. United States. The courts refused extradition.

http://openjurist.org/627/f2d/745/geisser-bauer-v-united-states
Click to expand...

Shortly thereafter, the United States Attorney's Office in Florida concluded a plea bargain with Bauer and Lambert under which it was agreed that they would reveal all they knew about the conspiracy to smuggle heroin from France and Switzerland in which they were involved and that they would testify in the event there were trials of others involved in the conspiracy. In turn, the government promised that they would be reindicted for lesser offenses which would lead to sentences of no more than seven years, that they would be paroled after three years, and that the government would make its "best efforts" to avoid their "deportation" to France or Switzerland.

The US Attorney is part of the executive.
 
moodstream said:
Dan Abrams seems to be a Quintaville fan. I remember reading that Quintaville testified or at least said that he first say Knox come into his store some time before her arrival in Italy. Does anyone have a link or can support/ deny this?
Click to expand...

From the appeals AK/RS filed in response to Massei

The Motivations, furthermore, seem to have ignored this fundamental fact: that in his declarations Marco Quintavalle also affirmed having seen Amanda in his shop a couple of weeks before 2 November (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.76), this time in the company of Raffaele. In this regard it has to be noted that this fact cannot in any way be true, since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had known each other - and this fact is certain and conclusive - just a week before the murder. Nonetheless, the memory of the witness is so sharp as to enable him to describe even the clothes worn on that occasion by the two young people: "[Raffaele] had light clothing, a light coloured shirt, beige, some similar colour, also light trousers. Then I noticed that strangely he had no glasses on that evening (...). She was wearing jeans, then had a pair of boots let's say Timberland make (...) she had a sweater (...) of wool or heavy cotton (...) red or something similar" (transcription of 21 March 2009, p.77).
Click to expand...

ETA, his full testimony can be found on Amanda's website or IIP
 
quintavalle's interview

moodstream said:
Dan Abrams seems to be a Quintaville fan. I remember reading that Quintaville testified or at least said that he first say Knox come into his store some time before her arrival in Italy. Does anyone have a link or can support/ deny this?
Click to expand...
moodstream,

IIRC RoseMontague has posted some of the testimony here in the past two months. It seems to me that Injustice Anywhere also had a nice write-up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom