Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Planigale said:
Thank you. But definitely falls into the realm of not what I would want my children to read on the internet (If I had any). I need to look again at the evidence.
Click to expand...
The world needs more scientists, though ironically, there seem to be fewer opportunities here than for commerce graduates. Anecdotal only, I really don't understand why.
 
carbonjam72 said:
1. UNITED SESSIONS - My guess is that they refer it to a united sessions panel, on the basis that there are constitutional issues raised in using Guede's testimony for conviction, without allowing the opportunity to cross examine, and also for the binding of this case to the facts established in Guede's conviction where these defendants were not represented and the facts at tissue were agreed to by stipulation of the defense and prosecution in a fast track trial, and thus never tested on the merits. This gives them time to hear from the ECHR, and let the case cool for another year before doing anything.

2. DISMISSED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE - The other alternative I can see, annulling the Nencini conviction, and dismissing the charges on the basis that there is a lack of evidence to sustain a conviction 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So not reinstating Hellman's finding of actual innocence, but allowing those who still believe in guilt to think they got off on a technically but are actually guilty, and the honor of the judicial system in 'proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt' is more important than an unsafe conviction, even though 'they probably did it'.

3. NEW APPEAL TRIAL - A third possibility, would be annulling Nencini, and sending down for a third appeal, but setting ground rules over evidence, like clarifying what to make of Conti & Vechiotti, requiring that Guede be subjected to cross examination or his testimony excluded, and excluding the results of Guede's trial where these defendants were not represented.

I have to say, it hard to see this going back for another appeal, as what more could expect to be accomplished? It seems so unfair to drag it on forever, but apparently the time and expense of trials is not a priority in the Italian system, and its preferable to a guilty verdict.

4. CONFIRMED - Last outcome, of course is the guilty verdicts are confirmed, and Raf goes to jail immediately, and Italy requests extradition. I don't believe such a request will ever make it past the state department and into a courtroom, or that Amanda Knox will spend even one more day in jail for the rest of her life. No one believes this case has any merit, and that she has suffered enough out of courtesy to Italy. The extradition treaty has protections against double jeopardy, and this is a political case at this point.

In the end, the ECHR will address Knox's calunnia conviction, and if necessary this conviction if it is confirmed. Raf may spend more time in prison, but I really don't think that's going to happen.

Raf's recent appearance on TV sends a message that he is not going to be convicted. Too many people can see he's innocent at this point, in Italy and around the world. That's why all the pro-guilt folks are so histrionic in trying to redefine what was obviously a positive appearance and strong assertion of innocence for himself and Amanda, into some sort of abandonment of alibi or technical defenses. They twist and contort reality because they can't accept facing their own error.

I think at this point, everybody can feel the air going out of the balloon. They've had their fun, they've tormented two innocent young people for years, they've sold their newspapers and TV shows and ads, and now its time to let the two innocents pick up the pieces of their broken lives and move on. Not even the Italian judiciary is so cruel as to finally confirm this widely recognized farce.

None of us has a crystal ball of course. But I believe the case was always about what verdict was permissible at the time. At first an acquittal wasn't thinkable given the media coverage. Now, the hysteria has largely moved on, I think people are ready for the show to end.
Click to expand...

These all seem to be possibilities. What is interesting, if shocking, is that no one seems to know what terms such as "beyond a reasonable doubt", "burden of proof", "presumption of innocence", and "reliability of evidence" mean in the Italian judicial system. All they have are "compatibility" and "osmosis" as standards.
 
carbonjam72 said:
Very helpful to see this picture, and the streaks leading to the jacket suggest that it was used for clean-up, imo.

In that regard, I may be imagining it, but is that a right thumb and hand print in blood on the surface of the jacket? Wasn't Rudy injured on his right hand? Were any fingerprints or DNA from Rudy ever lifted from the jacket?
Of course its all part of Rudy's story. And I thought the explanation of Rudy getting towels to smother her, rather than comfort her, had the ring of truth.

Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher. He may have been loved once by his adopted family, but he was a murdering monster in that room. How crazy that Mignini and the pro-guilt people clamor to support him and lessen the burden of his guilt, by palming it off onto two innocent people.
Click to expand...


Off the top of my head, I think his DNA was found on the jacket, yes. On the cuffs IIRC.
 
carbonjam72 said:
Very helpful to see this picture, and the streaks leading to the jacket suggest that it was used for clean-up, imo.

In that regard, I may be imagining it, but is that a right thumb and hand print in blood on the surface of the jacket? Wasn't Rudy injured on his right hand? Were any fingerprints or DNA from Rudy ever lifted from the jacket?

Of course its all part of Rudy's story. And I thought the explanation of Rudy getting towels to smother her, rather than comfort her, had the ring of truth.

Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher. He may have been loved once by his adopted family, but he was a murdering monster in that room. How crazy that Mignini and the pro-guilt people clamor to support him and lessen the burden of his guilt, by palming it off onto two innocent people.
Click to expand...
Could well be - I was going to write that the blood on top of the jacket looks more like marks from being handled with bloody hands rather than having been transferred from the floor or the injuries directly. My guess would be that it was Meredith's blood rather than Guede's, but who knows?

I think they took samples from various patches of blood on the jacket (Guede's DNA was on one of the sleeves), but I don't know whether they took any specifically from there. Considering there's a later photo showing the jacket having been turned upside down and dumped back on the floor, and then later again they dump it in the laundry basket and turn it inside out, it doesn't seem like there was any careful analysis of the most likely places to find DNA!
 
lonepinealex said:
Off the top of my head, I think his DNA was found on the jacket, yes. On the cuffs IIRC.
Click to expand...

Do you see the "thumb and hand print" in blood on the jacket that I'm referring to in Katy's picture? (I'm not sure how to get that picture up or I'd repost it).

Am I imagining that?
 
MichaelB said:
I think it'll be confirmed and Raffaele will be arrested immediately if he doesn't run. The police will be waiting outside wherever he lives waiting for confirmation there's been a definitive conviction. A few weeks after that, Italy will request extradition and Amanda will be arrested immediately and taken to SeaTac. She'll apply for bail which has a small chance of being granted and her appeals will go on for years all the way up to the Supreme Court.

That is how I see it playing out.

Raffaele will get day release after 6 years and probably not have to sleep at the prison if he can find a job and a wife. So he'd be out by the time he's 36 and have 50 years ahead of him.
Click to expand...

What is the possible upside for Italy to request Ms Knox's extradition if the verdict is confirmed? With a looming application to the ECHR, multitudinous claims of rights violations and their own advisers assuring them that Article 6 violations are sure to be found by the court, I think it unlikely.

But, I now think it more likely than not that Cassation will not confirm in March.
 
Kauffer said:
I'm sure it's over the hurdle. You can read the admissibility criteria for yourself.
Click to expand...

Your confidence would appear to be without foundation. On another forum a poster has contacted the ECHR:

"Sent e-mail whether Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 24 November 2013 had been accepted?

Just got reply from ECHR:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email.

The case in question will be examined by the Court in due time. No decision as to its admissibility so far.

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit"
 
Oh I say, steady on.

Desert Fox said:
And eventually Italy will have to pay out millions along with the United States if they detain Amanda
Click to expand...


Oh no!
This on top of the big bag of money Italy will have give Britney when the ECHR ruling comes down. Throw in the fears of Greek contagion and the armies of cloned Wolly Mammoths massing on the Armenian border (headed for the Dardanelles apparently) and what do you get. Market tremors leading to Global economic meltdown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look, lots of decision makers and market analysts read this thread. Could you at least put predictions of this kind behind spoiler tags.
 
KarmaComing said:
Your confidence would appear to be without foundation. On another forum a poster has contacted the ECHR:

"Sent e-mail whether Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 24 November 2013 had been accepted?

Just got reply from ECHR:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email.

The case in question will be examined by the Court in due time. No decision as to its admissibility so far.

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit"
Click to expand...

This means that it hasn't been formerly admitted. But it does meet the criteria. There are a number of possibilities as to how the case might be handled at the ECHR including where the admittance of the application is not the first thing that happens. But it maybe.

I don't know whether what you quote came from a pro guilt site though I expect so. None of them has much of a clue as to how the ECHR works or of the case law of the court or the violations in this case.
 
KarmaComing said:
Your confidence would appear to be without foundation. On another forum a poster has contacted the ECHR:

"Sent e-mail whether Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 24 November 2013 had been accepted?

Just got reply from ECHR:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email.

The case in question will be examined by the Court in due time. No decision as to its admissibility so far.

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit"
Click to expand...

The poster on another forum wouldn't happen to be a quack who claims to be Jesus would it?
 
Kauffer said:
This means that it hasn't been formerly admitted. But it does meet the criteria. There are a number of possibilities as to how the case might be handled at the ECHR including where the admittance of the application is not the first thing that happens. But it maybe.

I don't know whether what you quote came from a pro guilt site though I expect so. None of them has much of a clue as to how the ECHR works or of the case law of the court or the violations in this case.
Click to expand...


The fact is that it hasn't jumped the "admissibility hurdle", which was the question. It can only be said to have done so when the ECHR makes a decision as to its admissibility. Sorry not to be able to relieve desperate hope but it really couldn't be simpler.
 
KarmaComing said:
The fact is that it hasn't jumped the "admissibility hurdle", which was the question. It can only be said to have done so when the ECHR makes a decision as to its admissibility. Sorry not to be able to relieve desperate hope but it really couldn't be simpler.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many currently-pending applications have been sitting at the admissibility stage for 15+ months? An even better question: what percent of cases that spend 15+ months before a decision on admissibility are ultimately declared inadmissible without a hearing? I think that as time goes by, the statistics are turning more and more in favor of communication and a hearing on the merits. And, once an Article 6 case gets to a hearing on the merits, the odds look very good that a violation will be found.
 
carbonjam72 said:
Very helpful to see this picture, and the streaks leading to the jacket suggest that it was used for clean-up, imo.

In that regard, I may be imagining it, but is that a right thumb and hand print in blood on the surface of the jacket? Wasn't Rudy injured on his right hand? Were any fingerprints or DNA from Rudy ever lifted from the jacket?

Of course its all part of Rudy's story. And I thought the explanation of Rudy getting towels to smother her, rather than comfort her, had the ring of truth.

Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher. He may have been loved once by his adopted family, but he was a murdering monster in that room. How crazy that Mignini and the pro-guilt people clamor to support him and lessen the burden of his guilt, by palming it off onto two innocent people.
Click to expand...

Where exactly do you think you see the print? I've been trying to note places where Rudy likely left blood from his fingers/hand. So far, these include: vagina, knife blade imprint, pillow, wall, door handle, bathroom, downstairs, his own apartment. It seems likely that it would be on her pants and jacket as well.
 
KarmaComing said:
The fact is that it hasn't jumped the "admissibility hurdle", which was the question. It can only be said to have done so when the ECHR makes a decision as to its admissibility. Sorry not to be able to relieve desperate hope but it really couldn't be simpler.
Click to expand...

You should read my post again. You haven't understood it.
 
KarmaComing said:
Your confidence would appear to be without foundation. On another forum a poster has contacted the ECHR:

"Sent e-mail whether Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 24 November 2013 had been accepted?

Just got reply from ECHR:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email.

The case in question will be examined by the Court in due time. No decision as to its admissibility so far.

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit"
Click to expand...

Kauffer's confidence would only be "without foundation" if you have evidence the application has been rejected. And nothing the idiot lunatic Ergon has concocted and proffered to the timorous fruits and nuts on PMF stipulates this, correct?
 
Kauffer said:
You should read my post again. You haven't understood it.
Click to expand...

The one where you agree it hasn't been "formerly" [I presume you mean formally] admitted? I understand it very well thanks and I'm glad you agree.
So we must still wait for it to jump the hurdle, n'est-ce pas?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom