• 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.
moodstream said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is pure, malicious slander. She said nothing about being drunk in her statements, and she said she wasn't sure if Raffaele was even present.

She has never said anything about consuming alcohol on the night of the murder.

Is he getting this crap from Mull's wiki?
 
This is the quality of legal reasoning in Florence which convicted two innocents.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Fnational_world&id=9415880

First, Nencini imp;lies that it was not the evidence which convicted Raffaele; that it was his lack of official testimony. Given that accused are expected to lie in Italian courts, and can make equally valid spontaneous statements, what is Nencini talking about?

Judge Alessandro Nencini also suggested in an interview with Corriere della Sera published Saturday that the decision of Knox's ex-boyfriend and co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, not to testify may have worked against him.

"It's the defendant's right, but it certainly deprived the process of a voice," Nencini was quoted as saying. "He limited himself to spontaneous declarations. He said only what he wanted to say without letting himself be cross-examined."
Click to expand...

You mean that prosecutors at cross examination were going to actually HELP Sollecito beat this rap? Think about this for a second.

******************

As the case has moved through Italy's court system, prosecutors have offered differing explanations for Kercher's killing, asserting in the first trial that Kercher was killed when an erotic game went awry and in the latest trial saying the violence was rooted in a longstanding disagreement over cleanliness. Both Sollecito and Knox deny involvement.

Nencino did not give a specific reasoning behind the verdict, saying the court settled on a motive that would be made clear in the written explanation, expected within three months.
Click to expand...

This is what all of us are waiting for. In guilterland, they say motive is not important. Now, Nencini suggests he's going to offer one. Will it be something completely new, like Crini offered but different from even Crini's? How is a defendant in Italy supposed to defend themselves if they only read about the crime they've been accused of committing 90 days after the close of the trial?

******************

Nencini said the court worked long and hard to process what he called a "half-room" worth of documentation in these months. Asked if the final verdict was unanimous after 12 hours of deliberations, Nencini hedged, saying it was a "shared" decision.
"I can say that in all these months, and in particular in the last meeting, we sensed the gravity of a sentence against young people and entire families," he was quoted as saying. "This is something that has affected many lives."
Click to expand...

Fair enough... that's how they do it in Italy. Still, why be coy?

*******************

Nencini hinted at what the court had found to be the most plausible explanation for what happened, saying that up until 8:15 p.m. on the night of the murder, Knox and Sollecito had other plans: In Knox's case, she was supposed to have gone to work at a bar, and Sollecito was supposed to have gone to a train station to pick up a friend's luggage.

"At the moment I can say that up until 8:15 of that evening, the kids had other plans, but they skipped them and an opportunity was created," Nencini was quoted as saying. "If Amanda had gone to work, probably we wouldn't be here."

While the changed plans that night have been well established by evidence presented to the courts, Nencini didn't explain how those details factored into a motive for the murder.
Click to expand...

He's left the door open for both premeditation and none. If he agrees with Crini, his timing suggests (remember Rudy's passenger was at the door at 8:34 pm) leaves little time to pick up Rudy, get him to crap in the toilet, and then have a totally uncharacteristic outburst from Meredith leading to her death.

*************

How many times does Italy get to reinvent this crime?
 
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...

I think Nencini will write with the ISC in mind, to bootlick the ISC is his goal.
He can blame the defense for not doing a good enough job.

This is the same approach Mignini used in the interview years ago, something along the line "hey its not my fault...I just presented the case, everyone else voted on it and continued with it."
Never admitting to any corruption or skullduggery.
 
Darth Rotor said:
That's the part that has always puzzled me: the impression that the two trials were not better linked ... given that it was the same murder. However, as I am not deeply familiar with Italian law, I can see any number of ways that various defendants might be advised by counsel to seek a separate trial in a related case ...
Click to expand...

Rudy's defense requested a separate trial as they expected Raffaele's and Amanda's defense would blame him for the crime, which is what all the physical evidence and the circumstances of there being a broken window and his being connected to several burglaries in the previous month suggests. There's a 'fast track' option in Italy which abbreviates the normal three trial process and makes it mostly one trial and a review from the Supreme Court to ensure Italian law was followed, which they must do for tens of thousands of cases per year, very much unlike how our Supreme Court works.

While Amanda and Raffaele were held in prison without being officially charged, Mignini tried Rudy separately in that abbreviated trial but as one of three 'involved' and argued that the break-in was 'staged.' That worked out wonderfully for Rudy's defense being as he couldn't deny being there, so obviously they didn't contest that others were there (and killed Meredith while Rudy was taking a dump) and he didn't break in. Thus when the Motivations report was released for his trial there was only arguments and evidence supporting that view, Amanda and Raffaele had no defense in that trial, they'd not even been legally charged with the crime, they were still in the 'investigation' phase.

The Supreme Court decided that decisions from that trial could be used against Raffaele and Amanda who had no representation in that court and despite the fact it was in the best interests of both parties to blame Amanda and Raffaele for as much of Rudy's crime as they could. It's like the Italian system cannot recognize just how corruptible that is, let us hope that other courts such as the ECHR can.
 
acbytesla said:
Very well said. I almost think you might be an American. This is one of those things that could be very simple or very complicated depending on the judge that oversees the extradition hearing. I can see a judge rubber stamping the process and also can see a judge wanting to delve into all the dirty details and really getting into every detail.

Grinder made a comment that a judge wouldn't say no to the Executive branch if he wanted to advance his career. But I strongly believe that Federal Court judges (as opposed to State or Municipal court judges) in particular are interested in "interesting cases" and since Federal judges are appointed for life and cannot be removed from office except by impeachment, retirement or death. The Constitution actually deliberately made them beholden to no one including the President so they have a great deal of freedom and discretion.

And Federal Court judges actually earn about the same amount of money.

So in this case. The lowest Federal court in Amanda's jurisdiction is the Western District Court in Seattle. So a judge would rule there and the loser could appeal on the next level which is the 9th circuit court in San Francisco and then they could appeal to the US Supreme Court.
But it is very possible that the present Executive Obama could pursue extradition and it could be in court until he left office and his replacement could deny it after the US Supreme Court said.."go ahead extradite her."
Click to expand...

You refuse to acknowledge what the law says, which is that it need not be a federal judge. If in fact it is a judge of a court of record they could be appointed to a federal judgeship.


I don't believe that I said what you implied about what a judge would do for the executive. You maintained that the district judges (Anglo another reason that the type judge might be important) liked these kind of cases and since they have lifetime appointments wouldn't care what the executive thought. To that I said that district judges wish to be appointed to the appellate court or even the supreme court or sometimes some other high position in D.C. so they often do care what the executive thinks.

Now if there are cases in the past where a country with a treaty asked for a citizen and they had all the paperwork in order and the court refused over the objections of the executive, I would like that example produced, not a court approved plea deal with heroin smuggles.

The law that has been quoted more than once here specifically states that the ruling on extradition MAY NOT BE appealed by either party. But you just claimed - "The lowest Federal court in Amanda's jurisdiction is the Western District Court in Seattle. So a judge would rule there and the loser could appeal on the next level which is the 9th circuit court in San Francisco and then they could appeal to the US Supreme Court."

According to the law it doesn't have to be a federal judge and see below.

From one of your posts:

A hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 (Federal law is adjudicated in a Federal courthouse) is scheduled to determine whether the fugitive is extraditable. If the court finds the fugitive to be extraditable, it enters an order of extraditability and certifies the record to the Secretary of State, who decides whether to surrender the fugitive to the requesting government. In some cases a fugitive may waive the hearing process.
OIA notifies the foreign government and arranges for the transfer of the fugitive to the agents appointed by the requesting country to receive him or her. Although the order following the extradition hearing is not appealable (by either the fugitive or the government), the fugitive may petition for a writ of habeas corpus as soon as the order is issued. The district court's decision on the writ is subject to appeal, and the extradition may be stayed if the court so orders.
 
Welshman said:
If Raffaele is offered a deal and still does not turn against Amanda, this raises an important question. Amanda and Raffaelle supposedly committed a brutal murder together after they had only been dating six days. The assumption is that a couple who barely know each other will not have much loyalty to each other and will turn against each other. Why did this not happen with Amanda and Raffaele? The only time Raffaele went against Amanda was under police pressure in the interrogation. In six years Amanda and Raffaele have remained loyal to each other, have stayed friends and have not turned against each other. Is it credible that a couple who committed a murder after knowing each other only six days would do this?
Click to expand...

I see it as credible. We are both just assuming. The euphemism " dating for 6 days", leads me to think they may have been spending those days in a hot rush of youth, passion, frenzy, and felt a bond of power, a connection making them feel invincible.
 
Grinder said:
According to the law it doesn't have to be a federal judge and see below.

From one of your posts:

A hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 (Federal law is adjudicated in a Federal courthouse) is scheduled to determine whether the fugitive is extraditable. If the court finds the fugitive to be extraditable, it enters an order of extraditability and certifies the record to the Secretary of State, who decides whether to surrender the fugitive to the requesting government. In some cases a fugitive may waive the hearing process.
OIA notifies the foreign government and arranges for the transfer of the fugitive to the agents appointed by the requesting country to receive him or her. Although the order following the extradition hearing is not appealable (by either the fugitive or the government), the fugitive may petition for a writ of habeas corpus as soon as the order is issued. The district court's decision on the writ is subject to appeal, and the extradition may be stayed if the court so orders.
Click to expand...


You need to read the next line. "The district court's decision is subject to appeal and may be stayed if the court so orders."

I also agree with you about the statute but said as a matter of practice, the case will be reviewed by a Federal judge.
 
wasapi said:
I see it as credible. We are both just assuming. The euphemism " dating for 6 days", leads me to think they may have been spending those days in a hot rush of youth, passion, frenzy, and felt a bond of power, a connection making them feel invincible.
Click to expand...

So invincible that they would do what?

That a computer geek and Catholic School girl would get together with a guy that they didn't know and with this stranger kill Amanda's roommate?

???????????????????
 
Pinning one's hopes on the Federal Courts is probably a fool's errand. The role of the court appears to be limited solely to whether the country seeking the fugitive has followed the correct procedure. The chances of Italy screwing that up -especially since they'll use American lawyers - is very low.
 
RoseMontague said:
From the appeals AK/RS filed in response to Massei



ETA, his full testimony can be found on Amanda's website or IIP
Click to expand...

Sorry to be such a dope, but I cannot find it on either website. Can I ask you for directions, if it is not too much trouble.
 
Kestrel said:
The Italian justice system was designed to uphold an authoritarian regime. Thus protecting the honor of the original prosecution team was the most important consideration. Keeping the actual murdrer off the streets and keeping innocents from being falsely punished was not a priority.

Perhaps someday the Italian justice system will change to fit Italy's status as a modern industrialized democracy. But as of today they are far from that standard.
Click to expand...

How amusing rationalizations. The principles and organs of the Italian justice system were established in 1948. The current criminal procedure core was established in 1989.
 
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...

What guilter posters?
I don't see guilters posting here.
 
Loss Leader said:
Pinning one's hopes on the Federal Courts is probably a fool's errand. The role of the court appears to be limited solely to whether the country seeking the fugitive has followed the correct procedure. The chances of Italy screwing that up -especially since they'll use American lawyers - is very low.
Click to expand...

I would think the extradition process would look at the ECHR. This is a Italy case but there is no clear verdict from many outside observers, simply put there is an Italian courtroom whose verdict was innocent, this alone would encourage a more thorough review.

Had it been a unanimous vote every trial, and a consistent prosecution case with clear evidence and intelligent motive, an extradition would be easy.

I would think the extradition could be in agreement of the ISC only after the post findings of the ECHR are determined.

If the ECHR says human rights were violated then extradition would be cancelled most likely, I would guess. (as most would agree for the interrogation and missing tapes and no-legal person present for Amanda who wasn't fluent in Italian, and asked to sign legal papers written in Italian under duress)

This case has included about every twist and turn imaginable, but I feel the root cause is still Mignini's fault and the dishonesty of the Perugia police. The list is long, but the burnt hardrives and missing interrogation tapes, are key pieces of the root cause of the confusion.

I would think the ECHR will agree the interrogation and events in the Questura are unfair, and the fact Edgardo Giobbi was hanging pictures of the girl on his wall-of-shame so early wont help the Prosecution.
 
Loss Leader said:
Pinning one's hopes on the Federal Courts is probably a fool's errand. The role of the court appears to be limited solely to whether the country seeking the fugitive has followed the correct procedure. The chances of Italy screwing that up -especially since they'll use American lawyers - is very low.
Click to expand...

I'm pinning my hopes on the public.

Over the past couple of days, a certain line of thinking has resurfaced... Amanda's case is a routine criminal matter and will be handled as such, and the public is indifferent. All the media coverage and apparent controversy have been artificially generated by her family, which has somehow managed to fund a PR campaign on the same scale as a major trade association. They also managed to buy off a judge in Italy and a couple of scientists engaged to review the evidence, but now the scales of justice have been righted and the authorities will follow through with sure-footed alacrity.

I don't think that is realistic. I think a lot of people care deeply about this, and the media coverage (like this interminable thread) is a reflection of that. A great many people realize this is an obvious wrongful conviction, and they will not sit back and allow the US gov't to extradite Amanda Knox under any circumstances.

We'll see, won't we?
 
GreyFox said:
You have a nack for rambling and repeating your ramble sentence after sentence to disguise your real answer.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem?

Fact is : A child that gives into his molesters demands because he feels he has no choice but to do so (trapped) is not a willing victim. I dont give a damn what any court or laws say. Regardless of how you want to twist it.
Click to expand...

The court of law in that child abuse case found out another story. I believe them and not you, not else because they dealt with the case and you did not, and for no reason a rational person would buy your doctrine over their findings.

Likewise a young woman stuck in a room full of authorative figures trying to convince her she has no hope other than to succumb to what they want is not a willing victim either.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this neither. Knox's accounts and expnanations about all this, as well as her writings, were changing m,urky and inconsistent, she is contradicted by consistent reliable witnesses and by her own words and she is lying all the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom