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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
Extradition question: Assume for the sake of argument that the Italian Supreme Court upholds the guilty verdict, and Italy chooses not to request extradition (maybe to avoid a confrontation with the U.S., maybe to avoid a judgment by a U.S. court that Amanda was abused, whatever). Do they have a limited amount of time to make such a request, or could this hang over her head forever? Suppose five years down the road, ten years, whenever, she travels outside the U.S. Could Italy whip up an extradition request and send it to Canada, the UK, or wherever they could find her? Would there ever be a time when Amanda would be safe (I'm assuming that Raffaele is pretty much screwed no matter what). Would any statute of limitations apply?
Click to expand...

I think it depends on what the European court of appeals does
 
Bob001 said:
Extradition question: Assume for the sake of argument that the Italian Supreme Court upholds the guilty verdict, and Italy chooses not to request extradition (maybe to avoid a confrontation with the U.S., maybe to avoid a judgment by a U.S. court that Amanda was abused, whatever). Do they have a limited amount of time to make such a request, or could this hang over her head forever? Suppose five years down the road, ten years, whenever, she travels outside the U.S. Could Italy whip up an extradition request and send it to Canada, the UK, or wherever they could find her? Would there ever be a time when Amanda would be safe (I'm assuming that Raffaele is pretty much screwed no matter what). Would any statute of limitations apply?
Click to expand...

I doubt that there would be a statute of limitations on a murder conviction. I actually thought about this question myself a bit. I don't have an answer for you. I'd say maybe.

I thought of something else also. Imagine that Italy requested extradition from the US and say the Obama administration turned them down. Would a future administration be able to grant extradition after it was previously turned down?

Would a US president be able to issue a pardon to a crime that took place in Italy to prevent this very scenario from ever happening? Or would that be overstepping his authority?
 
Ingrid Bergman

-

Bob001 said:
I think if cameras followed any of us continuously for hours and days any editor could pull out frames that would make us look like Rasputin. Sometimes Amanda doesn't look good in pictures because they are being selected by editors who don't want her to look good. But in sustained appearances (her interview with Diane Sawyer, for example) there's nothing sinister-looking about her at all. In her original trial testimony (link posted here a few pages back), she looks and sounds like an eager-to-please 14-year-old. I would judge Mignini by his looks, but not Amanda.
Click to expand...
-

I totally agree with almost all of that except the highlighted part and that's only because you (myself actually) would be hard pressed to pull it off with Ingrid Bergman, but that's me,

d

-
 
Last edited:
An Italian boy with black hair.

Chris_Halkides said:
Focus on the family? The only good parts of the documentary were the parts where Lyle and Stephanie were reminiscing about Meredith.

Mention of Rudy Guede? His lawyer got more time than almost anyone, and no one rebutted him. Rudy is still using the risible SODDI defense. It was a very slick, sympathetic portrayal of a murderer, and a very misleading one. Rudy has had more versions of his tale than Elizabeth Taylor had husbands. Yet the only time when he gave a version of events when he was not in custody, he says that Amanda was not there. Even now he has never been cross-examined.
<snip>
Click to expand...


Hi Prof. Halkides,
I was reading early Perugia Shock last night, found this interesting tidbit written by FS back on Nov. 24, 2007:
According to information coming from Coblenza, Rudy Guede is desperately trying to defend himself. And we have yet another wonderful version of events. Only just a bit modified with respect to previous accounts.

While he was in the bathroom after having made love to Meredith; a fifth man, an Italian, seemingly attacked Meredith, maybe raped her, for sure he stole some money (and who do we finally see…the moving, this un-known.)

Rudy, coming out of the bathroom, apparently bumped into him but he let him go, preferring to rush to Meredith’s aid and she apparently died in his arms while revealing the name of the Italian. But not his complete name. Only his initials. The victim thought better than to breach the “privacy rights” of her assassin. The initials were: no, not G.A. But A.F.

Rudy told judge Karl-Rudolf Winkler he will be able to recognize the guy, he's an italian boy with black hair.
<snip>
Click to expand...


Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080117...om/2007/11/rudy-e-il-suo-5-uomo-italiano.html


What?
Weird, I'd never heard Guede mention that Meredith's murderer had black hair.
Maybe because it was told to a German Judge?

But doesn't Raffaele have chestnut colored hair, correct?
Hmmmm...


Here's some other interesting Guede tidbits from early PS, back on Dec. 7, 2007:
This morning Pm Mignini and Gip Matteini met at the Capanne Prison to have a joined interrogation of Rudy Guede. SCO people and Squadra Mobile were present as well.

Rudy Guede's attorney, Walter Biscotti, came out of the interrogation (which lasted more than 7 hours) and said that Rudy claims to be innocent, he admits his presence, admits contacts with Meredith but he says he didn't kill her.
Biscotti specifies that "He didn't name anyone because there's no one to be named". He didn’t look the murderer well in the face, but an attempt of describing the person more precisely will be done on a meeting which is to be settled by judges for the purpose.
Walter specified that no pictures of suspects have been shown to Rudy.
And Rudy doesn't know Raffaele and knew Amanda just by sight.
<snip>
Click to expand...


Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080117...t.com/2007/12/theres-non-name-to-be-done.html


What?
"He didn't name anyone because there's no one to be named".

This from Guede's lawyer.

Why the heck doesn't Guede blame Raffaele and Amanda for murdering Meredith when he is visited by Judge Matteini and PM Mignini at the Capanne Prison after he was deported back to Italy and then interrogated for over 7 hours?!?
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Extradition question: Assume for the sake of argument that the Italian Supreme Court upholds the guilty verdict, and Italy chooses not to request extradition (maybe to avoid a confrontation with the U.S., maybe to avoid a judgment by a U.S. court that Amanda was abused, whatever). Do they have a limited amount of time to make such a request, or could this hang over her head forever? Suppose five years down the road, ten years, whenever, she travels outside the U.S. Could Italy whip up an extradition request and send it to Canada, the UK, or wherever they could find her? Would there ever be a time when Amanda would be safe (I'm assuming that Raffaele is pretty much screwed no matter what). Would any statute of limitations apply?
Click to expand...

I see this as a accumulative process. First they will imprison Raffaele, hard time, zombie prison pills, and solitaire (if they can swing it , hide it/create false reasons to put him in solitaire...happens all the time)

...then interrogate him, while in solitaire after a year or so.. no recordings due to budget cuts, of course.

....then come out and announce the Grand Failure Finale' Raffaele finally broke! He told us what we knew all along Amanda did it!!

The Daily Mail headline maybe is "Raffaele testifies Amanda did it all!! After only 18 short months in Solitaire!"

Then would come the easy extradition request.

Seriously, they want Raffaele to break, imo.
 
JREF2010 said:
I see this as a accumulative process. First they will imprison Raffaele, hard time, zombie prison pills, and solitaire (if they can swing it , hide it/create false reasons to put him in solitaire...happens all the time)

...then interrogate him, while in solitaire after a year or so.. no recordings due to budget cuts, of course.

....then come out and announce the Grand Failure Finale' Raffaele finally broke! He told us what we knew all along Amanda did it!!

The Daily Mail headline maybe is "Raffaele testifies Amanda did it all!! After only 18 short months in Solitaire!"

Then would come the easy extradition request.

Seriously, they want Raffaele to break, imo.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think so. I doubt that they will do that. People overestimate the importance of this. We're too close to have the proper perspective on some of this. I'm not saying that they won't file and extradition request for Amanda, but I doubt that they will put the screws to Raffaele in that way. I can see him breaking because he's facing a long time in prison...but hey...what do I know? ....maybe
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Prof. Halkides,
I was reading early Perugia Shock last night, found this interesting tidbit written by FS back on Nov. 24, 2007:



Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080117...om/2007/11/rudy-e-il-suo-5-uomo-italiano.html


What?
Weird, I'd never heard Guede mention that Meredith's murderer had black hair.
Maybe because it was told to a German Judge?

But doesn't Raffaele have chestnut colored hair, correct?
Hmmmm...


Here's some other interesting Guede tidbits from early PS, back on Dec. 7, 2007:



Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080117...t.com/2007/12/theres-non-name-to-be-done.html


What?
"He didn't name anyone because there's no one to be named".

This from Guede's lawyer.

Why the heck doesn't Guede blame Raffaele and Amanda for murdering Meredith when he is visited by Judge Matteini and PM Mignini at the Capanne Prison after he was deported back to Italy and then interrogated for over 7 hours?!?
Click to expand...

RWVBWL you are right, this is a logical bombshell. It was too soon for naming people, as they still might find alibis, making him a murderer and a liar. In fact they were convicted and sentenced I think before Rudy dared name them in connection with the crime.

ETA Rudy is another key prosecution witness who remembered the accused months to years after the crime. Truly remarkable.
Note also that Amanda could name Lumumba, because she could not KNOW it was untrue.
Rudy could not name Amanda and Raffaele because he KNOWS it to be untrue.
 
Last edited:
Interesting slightly late BBC may be attempting to rebalance things. Tonight on BBC radio 4 20.00 GMT 'The Report' "Amanda Knox has had her conviction for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher reinstated by an Italian court. She was convicted, along with her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, in 2009. Doubts about forensic evidence meant the couple were freed after a successful appeal in 2011. But in January 2014 an appeal court reverted to the original guilty verdicts."

For non UK readers radio 4 is the 'flagship' broadcaster for BBC, it is certainly more serious than BBCTV 3, and probably with a larger reach.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03vgr6x
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Extradition question: Assume for the sake of argument that the Italian Supreme Court upholds the guilty verdict, and Italy chooses not to request extradition (maybe to avoid a confrontation with the U.S., maybe to avoid a judgment by a U.S. court that Amanda was abused, whatever). Do they have a limited amount of time to make such a request, or could this hang over her head forever? Suppose five years down the road, ten years, whenever, she travels outside the U.S. Could Italy whip up an extradition request and send it to Canada, the UK, or wherever they could find her? Would there ever be a time when Amanda would be safe (I'm assuming that Raffaele is pretty much screwed no matter what). Would any statute of limitations apply?
Click to expand...

I think in any case that if the ISC confirms guilt it is a forgone conclusion that Knox will appeal to the ECOHR which will once again find Italy guilty of violating human rights by its courts. Something they hold the record for in the Western World...but don't take my word for it...feel free to look up their record of violations on the ECOHR web site.
 
Planigale said:
Interesting slightly late BBC may be attempting to rebalance things. Tonight on BBC radio 4 20.00 GMT 'The Report' "Amanda Knox has had her conviction for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher reinstated by an Italian court. She was convicted, along with her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, in 2009. Doubts about forensic evidence meant the couple were freed after a successful appeal in 2011. But in January 2014 an appeal court reverted to the original guilty verdicts."

For non UK readers radio 4 is the 'flagship' broadcaster for BBC, it is certainly more serious than BBCTV 3, and probably with a larger reach.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03vgr6x
Click to expand...

If I were Knox I wound be suing BBC/NBC (Vogt/Russell) for reporting false information about an ongoing case. Big major case against these slandering lying misinforming tabloid trash-masters.

Perhaps then someone might actually look into the details of this less than solid case...why maybe even BBC/NBC?
 
This is a BBC in-house production by reputable investigative journalists with a track record of looking in to cover ups and miscarriages of justice. This is to be taken seriously.
 
Mary_H said:
Point taken. Thank you for reading. :p



You are welcome. I think it is something we have all wondered. There is no use pretending we understand the defense teams' strategies. To paraphrase anglo, I know I am definitely missing something about their system.
Click to expand...


Really...ya think?

How about this...The defense are all incredibly inept and none are qualified to try a murder case! Least of all Bonjerko who was knocked up (and therefore distracted) at the time and too busy to work on the case when it mattered. She is simply an overrated political phoney who has had two or more government changes since she had her last success.

These were crap lawyers far out of their depth. Did any even ever defend in a murder trial before? Pretty sure they were all hired for their political connections which was stupid since in Italy they change governments more often than Toto changed underwear.
 
Planigale said:
This is a BBC in-house production by reputable investigative journalists with a track record of looking in to cover ups and miscarriages of justice. This is to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Well a lawsuit against BBC/NBC would be as serious as a heart attack IMHO. A radio report? Not so much.

But I remain ever hopeful. The whole world cant be fools forever, can it?
 
kwill said:
The Hellmann court wrote that A & K were innocent. Definitively innocent. They were innocent because they hadn't committed the crimes of which they'd been accused. The available evidence didn't just fail to convict them, it exonerated them.

How, then, could there not be reasonable doubt from the Nencini court? There was no new, compelling evidence. How could the Nencini court -- looking at the same exact body of evidence -- not be forced to conclude that their was at the very least reasonable doubt, by definition?

What am I missing about the Italian system here?
Click to expand...


Well off the top you are missing that they are not....

Logical
Honest
Law Based
Fair
Intelligent
Serious
concerned about legal rights

But that they are certainly

corrupt
dishonest
liars
willing fools
shameless morons
people with no capacity for introspection.
 
RandyN said:
If I were Knox I wound be suing BBC/NBC (Vogt/Russell) for reporting false information about an ongoing case. Big major case against these slandering lying misinforming tabloid trash-masters.

Perhaps then someone might actually look into the details of this less than solid case...why maybe even BBC/NBC?
Click to expand...

That's a dangerous game Randy. You only want to play if it you know you can win and win enough.

There is an old newspaper maxim. Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. I'd have no problem going after Vogt and Russell if you can do it in the US or UK....I'd be much more hesitant to target BBC and or NBC.

Not saying that it shouldn't be done...just a lot needs to be considered.
 
Dan O. said:
Is it possible to find out when the environmental intercepts were placed in Patrick's bar?

It would be pointless while he was under arrest. And after his release the bar was still kept closed so the only time anyone would have access would be under police escort. Are they still running bugs many months later when Patrick gets he's bar back after he's been officially exonerated?

If you reject all the above, how about after Amanda's "confession" before Patrick is arrested? But they didn't even remember to record the 5:45, how could they think of installing more bugs? That finally leaves the period from November 2 through the 5. If that's the case, where did they get Patricks name?
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!
 
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Is it possible to find out when the environmental intercepts were placed in Patrick's bar?

It would be pointless while he was under arrest. And after his release the bar was still kept closed so the only time anyone would have access would be under police escort. Are they still running bugs many months later when Patrick gets he's bar back after he's been officially exonerated?

If you reject all the above, how about after Amanda's "confession" before Patrick is arrested? But they didn't even remember to record the 5:45, how could they think of installing more bugs? That finally leaves the period from November 2 through the 5. If that's the case, where did they get Patricks name?




anglolawyer said:
Tapping his phone? Checking out people he called or texted or who called or texted him? Pretty easy I would have thought.
Click to expand...

Bugging his bar....try to keep up Anglo. This is serious business.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
That's a dangerous game Randy. You only want to play if it you know you can win and win enough.

There is an old newspaper maxim. Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. I'd have no problem going after Vogt and Russell if you can do it in the US or UK....I'd be much more hesitant to target BBC and or NBC.

Not saying that it shouldn't be done...just a lot needs to be considered.
Click to expand...

Hummm...unless some others, who also buy ink by the barrel and are in direct competition with BBC/NBC and who just may wish to look into the story that their competition may well have been reporting incorrect and provably false information...then it may be worthwhile.

But sure doing nothing has worked out quite well for the wrongly accused so far so maybe they should go with that continued strategy. Ya think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom