Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hate to revisit this; but I would still like to know what is the status of the other crimes RS and AK were convicted of (in contrast to RG) i.e. theft, transport of knife, sexual assault and staging the break in. All I have heard is they have been reconnected of murder, were these other charges dropped? Or does the innocence finding on these stand? Or have they been found guilty on these also? Seems paradoxical to have a longer sentence for fewer offences?
 
Vibio said:
Part III

"The enormous prison population in the United States partly reflects harsh sentencing practices contrary to international law, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2013. The sentencing practices include disproportionately long prison terms, mandatory sentencing without parole, and treating youth offenders as adults. The US maintains the world’s largest incarcerated population, at 1.6 million, and its highest per capita incarceration rate.

Human Rights Watch research in 2012 found that the massive overincarceration includes a growing number of elderly people whom prisons are ill-equipped to handle, and an estimated 93,000 youth under age 18 in adult jails and another 2,200 in adult prisons. Hundreds of children are subjected to solitary confinement. Racial and ethnic minorities remain disproportionately represented in the prison population.

"The United States has shown little interest in tackling abusive practices that have contributed to the country’s huge prison population,” said Maria McFarland, deputy US program director at Human Rights Watch. "Unfortunately, it is society’s most vulnerable – racial and ethnic minorities, low-income people, immigrants, children, and the elderly – who are most likely to suffer from injustices in the criminal justice system."


http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/31/us-injustices-filling-prisons
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The United States incarcerates FAR TOO many people. About half of them are in prison on drug related charges and we need to do something about that. One of the big problems in the US is that we treat drug addiction as a crime and not a health issue.

Also politicians play down to a lot of people's fears and have set draconian sentences that don't fit the crime. The use of plea bargaining also puts many innocent but indigent people at risk of being incarcerated unfairly because frequently they are unable to make bail and they end up pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit because it is expedient .

The US is absolutely NOT perfect and I'm the first to criticize wrongful prosecutions and flaws in our system. We wrongfully convicted Ryan Ferguson, Debra Milke, The Memphis three to name just a few.
 
lionking said:
A noble and rational suggestion, which we can see has been immediately rejected by some.....
Click to expand...

There is nothin noble about that suggestion. The system deserves every bit of bashing it gets. How you could argue otherwise is pathetic.
 
Vibio said:
Oh boy.... I love the way you've worded that.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand the calunnia laws in Italy nor in other countries of Europe.

Mach has done a very good job of addressing this issue a number of times on this thread.
Click to expand...

I am asking for your honest opinion, Vibio. I have heard Mach's. Do you think that defamation and slander belong in the criminal arena, or should they be addressed by civil law? IMO, freedom of speech in Italy is unreasonably limited by current laws and the way they are implemented. What do you think?
 
Planigale said:
I hate to revisit this; but I would still like to know what is the status of the other crimes RS and AK were convicted of (in contrast to RG) i.e. theft, transport of knife, sexual assault and staging the break in. All I have heard is they have been reconnected of murder, were these other charges dropped? Or does the innocence finding on these stand? Or have they been found guilty on these also? Seems paradoxical to have a longer sentence for fewer offences?
Click to expand...

x2. I have not followed this in detail, but struggle to find much about the other charges. Indeed, what are the other charges as I have seen them reported as "break-in, slander, sexual violence"?
 
Wattson said:
Does anyone have the list of experts that testified to the number of attackers the wounds indicated?
Click to expand...


At the first full trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in 2009, supervised by Judge Massei, only one expert witness, Professor Norelli, consultant to the civil party (the Kercher family) argued that there were multiple attackers. None of the other expert witnesses agreed with him. Of the others, Dr Lalli, Dr Liviero, Professor Bacci and Professor Cingolani believed that there was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on whether there was more than one attacker. Professors Torre and Introna unequivocally argued that Meredith was killed by a single assailant. So six out of seven experts either believed that there could have been only one attacker or that there was definitely only one attacker.
Click to expand...

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/the-prosecutions-theory-of-multiple-attackers/
 
Kestrel said:
Public preasure for a conviction drives many of these cases. Along with systems that reward prosecutors for successful convictions and look the other way when shortcuts are taken. Here in the US, being a prosecutor for the state is a well trodden path to higher political offices. The pressure to get convictions trumps the search for the truth or justice.

The public believes the system almost always gets it right, but that isn't really the case. Miscarriages of justice are far more common than we like to admit.

What makes the Knox case interesting is that it combines so many of the errors that can lead to a miscarriage of justice. A forced confession, contamination of evidence, investigator tunnel vision, defamation of the defendants by the police and prosecution, forensic pseudo science, tampered witnesses, and intimidation of critics.
Click to expand...

Well said and true. But in common law systems, career prosecutors are checked by the powers of police, discovery rules, judges, juries, civil rights laws, ethics and regulatory rules. These aren't foolproof, and there are obviously injustices, but they are also effective checks in many instances. For example, mike Nifong was found out and busted.

Italy, a single cabal controls virtually every one of these checks, and if that cabal wants a result it is impossible to correct, with maybe the exception of extra national authority, eg ECHR.
 
Planigale said:
I hate to revisit this; but I would still like to know what is the status of the other crimes RS and AK were convicted of (in contrast to RG) i.e. theft, transport of knife, sexual assault and staging the break in. All I have heard is they have been reconnected of murder, were these other charges dropped? Or does the innocence finding on these stand? Or have they been found guilty on these also? Seems paradoxical to have a longer sentence for fewer offences?
Click to expand...


All original convictions in Massei stand and Amanda's sentence for accusing Patrick was increased.
 
LondonJohn said:
Nencini's post-verdict remarks - if reported correctly - appear to show the root cause of the convictions. They also appear to have massive relevance to any upcoming ECHR application.

What Nencini appears to have said is along these lines: the SC tells us that two other people were involved in the murder (in addition to Guede). We (Nencini's court) accept this unconditionally. Our job was therefore to establish whether these two other people were Knox and Sollecito, or whether there was credible evidence of two other people being involved. If we had decided that two other people (i.e. other than Knox and Sollecito) were the two other assailants, we would have had to show compelling evidence to support that hypothesis. We had no such evidence. We could only therefore conclude that the only reasonable conclusion is that two other assailants were Knox and Sollecito.

If that's a correct interpretation of Nencini's remarks, then it looks like exceptionally strong grounds for a successful ECHR application right there. And I believe that this actually was the guiding oversight upon which Nencini and his court operated. It's exactly how I and others interpreted the SC's instructions to the new appellate court: if you're going to find that Knox and Sollecito were not involved, you'd better have a damn strong set of evidence that others (i.e. not Knox and Sollecito) were involved, since we already "know" that the murder was the work of multiple attackers.

It ought to go without saying that the reliance upon any "finding" of multiple attackers from a totally separate trial process is an egregious abuse of Knox's/Sollecito's right to a fair trial. It also ought to go without saying that this multiple-assailant "finding" in Guede's trial process was fundamentally flawed, since all parties had a vested interest in finding for multiple assailants, meaning that the possibility of a sole assailant was never properly tested and examined.

In addition, it appears highly likely that the defence teams would have actually damaged their case significantly in the eyes of Nencini's court by arguing for a sole attacker (Guede): if Nencini's court had already decided, via the SC ruling, that there were multiple assailants, then it almost certainly would have viewed all defence "sole-assailant" arguments as invalid on their faces. It sounds like Nencini somehow expected the defence teams to say something like: "The two other assailants were not Knox or Sollecito, and here's evidence that instead they were Mr X and Mr Y". I suspect therefore that the defence arguments - correct in fact - for Guede as sole assailant not only fell on deaf ears (which would be bad enough), but also probably served to destroy the defence's credibility in Nencini's eyes.

To me, it seems abundantly clear that this prior "finding" of multiple assailants, which appears to have been a cornerstone of the Nencini appeal, constitutes immediate and strong grounds for an ECHR application regarding the right to a fair trial. I think there are also multiple other grounds for application to the ECHR, but I think that the multiple-assailant issue is perhaps the most significant and most serious one of all.
Click to expand...

Thanks, LJ. I was going to respond to your post previously by remarking that I wondered if it was not the Massei court where they'd lost the case, but Rudy's trial before Michaeli. I erased it as I still have trouble believing that could be possible, as I did the entire time the bunnies were telling us that, starting with the supreme court confirmation of Rudy's trial back when Amanda and Raffaele's appeal before Hellmann was just getting underway.

I still have difficulty believing any justice system could work like that: Rudy and Mignini find Amanda and Raffaele guilty of Meredith's murder and Rudy walks the streets soon and they get decades in prison.
 
When does Rudy get out? If he does get out, can he tell the real story and not be punished?
 
Also, does he leave Italy? The only way I could see getting the real story out of Rudy is via the Mr Big technique, that is often used here in Canada.... A little contraversial, but it seems to work.
 
Vibio said:
LOL! LOL! Oh my sides!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
Click to expand...

Note Vibio, that in the first list these people were exonerated. What is notable is that we catch and admit our mistakes while much of the rest of the world, these remain hidden.

Earlier you mentioned the high crime rate in the US. But what you didn't mention is that the US has the highest by far of reported crimes in the world.

People actually call and report crimes in the US because of a high degree of confidence in the police. In fact too high a confidence. Also, there are many checks and balances in our system which makes "accurate" reporting much more common than elsewhere in the world.

It has long been recognized that crime statistics for example are often not reliable because in many countries crimes are not reported by the population and also manipulated for political purposes.

The US is not perfect, but if there is one thing that is good about the US is our willingness to put our dirty laundry right out front. That doesn't mean we always deal with our flaws, but the fact that they are in the open means we are much more likely to address them.

If you are constantly defending and hiding your flaws, you will NEVER get around to addressing them.
 
Last edited:
RandyN said:
Sorry but I am confused by this. I have all along contended that the Italian courts and police have been corrupt. They and the witnesses they presented have lied and been caught lying. The "experts" Stefanoni for example were caught lying and trying to introduce false documents into the record.

How much judicial corruption does it take in order to require an investigation? Prosecutors are lying, witnesses are lying, judges are lying. Meanwhile, the SC makes rulings and they are side stepped and even they ignore that. What am I missing here?

As I have said all along. The Italians are corrupt, shameless liars. I am not prejudiced or even making things up. These are irrefutable facts. They will say and do anything to confirm a conviction of innocent persons when they have no evidence and in fact there is a great deal of evidence that the prosecutor and police lied and created and also hid critical evidence in this case!

Witnesses have been allowed to lie in court without sanction. The prosecution has been caught trying to introduce false documents into the record...who knows what did they not get caught sneaking in?

These are not honorable people and the courts are a joke. They make themselves a joke by allowing scandalous behavior in the court and yet provide no sanction against such behavior...which has to mean they condone it and accept being made a mockery of.

This case proves that beyond all doubt! The Italians are willing to reveal to the world that they consider their courts to be only a joke. And the courts allow themselves to be made a joke by the behavior they allow to to go unchallenged inside their doors. Shameful corrupt dimwits.

Please feel free to present an argument that I am wrong about this. I will gladly debate the facts of this case with anyone.

Meanwhile, I contend the SC acted illegally when overturning the first appeal decision. They never ruled on errors of law, rather they decided to return the case based on evidence...something not in their remand. That makes them criminals. No surprise.

The ECOHR finds Italian courts to be chronic violators against world standard human rights. This happens in non democratic countries regularly.

Italy has no clue what a democracy is! They are a pretend Democracy. The people cant get off their asses to protest a 60 year old pedophile freed by the ISC because there may have been love between a 60 year old and a 11 year old mentally challenged girl that he was treating???? Are Italians retarded?

Apparently that is unquestionably answered as yes! Yes they are! Who is so foolish to ignore these suspicious facts? A whole country apparently.

Put Raffaele Sollecito in jail them...you stupid stupid people you. Knox is staying here and she will get a fair review of your "facts" which are a joke BTW! Do you ever look in the mirror? You should...cuz you look stupid! Dumb illogical people!

Italy is dragging the European union down with its 16th century witch hunts. How is that going to work out for you Germany et al? Proud of your partners? You should be ashamed. Partners with criminals makes you criminals equally. Or are you missing that?
Click to expand...

Great post Randy.
 
Some thoughts:

I was interested in our esteemed Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz in this recent TV interview about the AK matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKAriMz-zNc

I take special interest because he is a high profile commentator at a powerful and reputable school and his voice carries weight. In this case certainly by the guilt crowd.

I was struck by the false start of the interview where the interviewer states that under US law double jeopardy doesn't exist. Obviously not true. But Dershowitz, being a seasoned speaker picks up and addresses the meaning behind the question and goes on to give explanation why AK should be extradited, and finishes the interview with the conclusion that “based on this evidence if presented in the US she would be in prison or even facing the death penalty”.

He repeats that there is “very, very, considerable evidence” against Amanda Knox. His list of items of evidence, which he counts on his fingers, are the following:

1. She falsely accused somebody of committing the crime.
2. She created a false alibi.
3. She first admitted to she was at the scene of the crime.
4. They found forensically that multiple people had to commit the murder.
5. The person who was convicted in the murder said she did it.

As we know, items 1 through 3 are largely one item evolving out of the interrogation where she was not afforded counsel after being a suspect, which our main guilt arguer has pretty much stated recently. Correct me if wrong. Machiavelli recently said that there were elements of the charge for which she was suspected. And I have not heard argument against her being a suspect after Raffaele's “retraction”. Anyway, these few reasons have been hammered in this blog. (Why someone of Dershowitz's credentials can make the conclusion of guilt based on those listed items is rather dumbfounding. OK, list them in discussion about extradition, but to pronounce guilty?)

His point apparently being that, as he says, if you were to listen to the American media, they have repeatedly been telling us that there is <no> evidence. While I am not sure that his statement is correct that we are being told there is <no> evidence against her, I think it would be more accurate to say <no credible> evidence. This of course makes me think of all of the Mach. discussions that Curatolo (sp?) etc did offer “evidence”. The issue of course is what weight to attach to the so-called evidence. Evidence is evidence even if completely false in fact. On this point I would concede Dershowitz is correct that there is “evidence” against her. And probably also correct as regards application to the extradition process. My understanding is that the US DOJ will not second guess determinations of fact and guilt therefrom made by a foreign court. Unlike Italy's SC recent review of facts and rejection of the acquittal.

Of interest: The interviewer brings up Julian Assange as an example of an extradition request by the US. What goes around comes around etc. They state this as a given that the US seeks his extradition. My understanding is that Assange fears that Sweden will cooperate with the US and allow his extradition. But no such request has been made by the US especially in that they have not (yet) filed any criminal action against him. My understanding is that a grand jury was convened, but have appeared to drop pursuing the case out of First Amendment issues. Am I missing more recent news? LMK.

And it is noteworthy that Lyle Kercher was quoted as saying much the same as a reason why AK should be extradited. If I am not off base or late with developments, it makes me wonder if Lyle's quoted statement was political in itself, or does he really not know the extradition status of Assange?

Second item of interest: Dershowitz makes reference to the perception that Amanda was “being railroaded by justice system not unlike Iran, and that's not fair”. Words to that effect. Two questions: ONE: Is that comparison not fair? From my seat it looks like science is being ignored, and you have a supreme court dictating a guilty verdict in spite of factual findings by a trier of fact to the contrary. My reading of Stephanie Kercher's face before the reading was of smug confidence of the decision, known ahead of time. Given the amount of shady goings-on in this case the level of suspicion is high.
TWO: What does that mean anyway, like an Iranian court? Definition please. Then we can see if basic rights to a fair trial have been followed which is what I think it means.
THREE: So the US is a signatory to a treaty with Italy that allows extradition. So are we just stuck because we signed it? We have to give up one of our citizens in spite of overwhelming doubt at minimum about her guilt? To be a political pawn for the hopes of getting Julian Assange or others brought back here?

The interviewer leads a question with “a lot of people in Italy believe their justice system is being criticized unfairly”. I have made my point before that the Italian justice system, at least in Perugia and now out of Florence, is under review and in a sense under trial. Please review and suggest changes to the US justice system all day. But don't use it as a reason to excuse the conviction of AK and RS. That is intellectually feeble in my book.

Last point of observation: Dershowitz falls into that very dull witted trap. He states,

“Moreover, who are we to lecture Italy about our criminal justice system. We treat poor people and minority people much worse in the United States by our criminal justice system than they do in Italy, so we really have no standing to tell other countries that their system's unfair.”

Not only is that a morally vapid response to this case, but is it really true? Do we (in the US) treat minorities and poor much worse than Italy? What is that based on? Anything? Or is it just accepted political correctness or dogma du jour?
 
Diocletus said:
Well said and true. But in common law systems, career prosecutors are checked by the powers of police, discovery rules, judges, juries, civil rights laws, ethics and regulatory rules. These aren't foolproof, and there are obviously injustices, but they are also effective checks in many instances. For example, mike Nifong was found out and busted.

Italy, a single cabal controls virtually every one of these checks, and if that cabal wants a result it is impossible to correct, with maybe the exception of extra national authority, eg ECHR.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the Italian judiciary operates much like a medieval guild. The guild decides who can join, controls the training, legal procedures and promotions. On these matters it can even overrule the Italian legislature.
 
moodstream said:
Dan Abrams is asking on twitter for people to point out the errors in his recent abcnews article .

Anybody want to help out?
Click to expand...


The idiot Abrams says Rudy was taking a crap in the bathroom next to Meredith's room. Which orifice did he pull that out of?

PS: I don't tweet so somebody else will have to tell him. I saw no point in reading his artlcle past that error.
 
Caper said:
When does Rudy get out? If he does get out, can he tell the real story and not be punished?
Click to expand...

That wouldn't matter Caper. I'd be shocked if Rudy is owned up to killing Meredith to the general public and told the truth about what happened that night. In fact, he has consistently placed the blame elsewhere. In the Skype call from Germany he says that Amanda DEFINITELY wasn't there and didn't recognize the man who came in off the street and killed Meredith while he was sitting on the toilet. That he got in a fight with this man and the man fled.

After he was arrested, he never admitted is own involvement but then began to blame Amanda and Raffaele.

Imagine just how bad Rudy would look to the world today if he said. " I did it, and I did it alone" And Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with it."

First the authorities would say that he is lying and he is now only interested in protecting Amanda and Raffaele and Rudy is doing it for publicity. One of the things that all the judges have said consistently is that Rudy is a liar..that he is not credible.

So from a legal stand point of view, I doubt it would make a bit of difference.

But what's more, Rudy would be even more of a pariah having held out while Amanda and Raffaele were wrongfully incarcerated and had to suffer through 3 trials.
 
With his comment that Amanda first admitted to being at the scene of the crime, Dershowitz shows a profound misunderstanding of what actually happened. Both Amanda and Raff claimed to have spent the night at his apartment. Only several days later did Amanda say otherwise, and that was during a coercive interrogation clearly intended to force a confession.

Most guilters don't seem to mind. They probably grew up in cultures where beating the truth out of someone is seen as proper and justified. Dershowitz should know better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom