Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 234
  1. #201

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    I'm turning what????
    Age
    44
    Posts
    9,316
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1143
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    Different country, different rules, different judges, different lawyers.....same essential issue. Was justice served?



    I'm sure it was, as it was confusing for me, too.

    Try this:

    A defendant is tried and convicted of criminal charges.

    The defendant's lawyer can file an appeal, citing some sort of judicial error in the trial. The prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict.

    An appeals court takes the argument on judicial error and reviews the trial; the prosecution and defense both get to make arguments about the judicial issue (not the entire trial). The appeals court can:

    *Reject the appeal--no finding if prejudicial error
    *Reverse the conviction completely--something very wrong happened during the trial; the defendant goes free
    *Reverse and remand--throw out the conviction and order a new trial

    If the defendant believes that the appeals court made a judicial error in their decision, there are other appeals, but they work the same way--there is no new trial, but a review of the trial and the legal issues involved.

    No one has any contributions to make about the evidence? I find criminal cases very interesting--there is always conflicting evidence, always the element of coincidence, and there is often doubt about what occurred. I'm not interested in bashing Italy's legal system; I think it's interesting to look at evidence--and not just in criminal cases. That's what really interests me about argument and rhetoric--what is the evidence? What part of it is persuasive and what part is not? How do you take that evidence and create a coherent argument out of it?

    No?
    I practice appellate law and just to clarify something in Prancer's post. She said you can appeal if there is judicial error. That suggests that appeals only lie if the judge erred. However, there are a lot of different grounds for appealing from a ruling in a trial court and different types of alleged errors are evaluated using different standards. It is possible to appeal just arguing that the evidence does not support the conviction. That is usually a difficult standard to meet in the US because even a little evidence is often enough; the reviewing court will generally assume the jury or judge (if there was no jury) was in the best position to weigh the evidence and assess credibility.

    Because that is such a difficult threshold, most appeals assert legal errors. That might be that the judge gave the jury wrong instructions on what the legal standards are, that it misintrpreted the law in rendering a decision on some point in the case, or that erred in admitting evidence. Evidentiary decisions are usually considered discretionary so unless the defendant can show that the trial court got the law wrong when it admitted or excluded the evidence, the reviewing court will again usually defer to the trial court's decision.

    There also are other grounds for appeal like prosecutorial misconduct (e.g., withholding evidence, making improper argument to the jury), juror misconduct (jurors are only supposed to decide the case after all the evidence is heard and based only on what is introduced at trial, but sometimes violate those standards), newly discovered evidence (this usually has to be brought to the trial court first), and ineffective assistance of counsel.

    Also, Prancer used the phrase "prejudicial error." That means that it is not enough to just identify some error that was made in the trial court. The error has to be shown to be "prejudicial," i.e., the defendant has to show that if the decision had gone the other way, the outcome of the case would likely have been different. Appellate courts often will acknowledge that a trial court made a mistake, but will deem it "harmless error."

  2. #202

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    2,490
    vCash
    483
    Rep Power
    0
    I have no idea if Knox and Sollecito are guilty or not. I was reading several sites about the evidence and specifics of the trial and I fail to see the motive for Knoxs and especially Sollecito. If all 3 of them are guilty (that Rudy's DNA was inside Meredith and all over her room so he is locked with that) - but how is Rudy connected with Knox and Sollecito? For the two of them to be apart of the way Kertcher was killed - there had to be motive which goes beyond the girls not liking each other and not being friendly and I am sure there would have been more physical evidence.

    I know from personal experience how you can be lead to give statement with the police guiding you there and having you imagine things that later show up in the written statements. I dont claim Knox was confused or was covering her tracks or somebody else, I just know this happened more often than it is known and more people implicate innocent people in the story in situations where there is no brutal murder.

    The way this was covered in Italy in the media was disgusting. The story about satanic sex ritual under the drugs is the one that was sold to the media. I dont remember any evidence of Knox & Sollecito being druggies. I know they admitted smoking joint in his apartment but no tests were done for alcohol or drugs on them because they were being questioned but were not suspects(?).
    As of March 2013 - no longer scared of TAHbKA or Andrey aka Pushkin

  3. #203
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,240
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    The statements she made to her mother were very confused and vague. And mostly about Lumumba. She certainly didn't tell her mother that she killed Knox or any incriminating details.
    Here's something I'd like to know: How were they able to secretly record Knox's conversations with her mother, yet unable to record a word of her interrogations?

    Quote Originally Posted by reckless View Post
    There also are other grounds for appeal like prosecutorial misconduct (e.g., withholding evidence, making improper argument to the jury), juror misconduct (jurors are only supposed to decide the case after all the evidence is heard and based only on what is introduced at trial, but sometimes violate those standards), newly discovered evidence (this usually has to be brought to the trial court first), and ineffective assistance of counsel.
    I mentioned this up thread. But, I seem to remember that the prosecutor, in this case, had prior misconduct issues. Am I remembering this right?

  4. #204
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ontari-ari-ari-o!
    Posts
    110
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    132
    [QUOTE=kosjenka;4138182]I have no idea if Knox and Sollecito are guilty or not. I was reading several sites about the evidence and specifics of the trial and I fail to see the motive for Knoxs and especially Sollecito.

    Why is a specific motive necessary to establish guilt? It may have been a more spur of the moment killing than one that involved a lot of pre-planning.

  5. #205
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,240
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    [QUOTE=Sk8ngCat;4138336]
    Quote Originally Posted by kosjenka View Post
    I have no idea if Knox and Sollecito are guilty or not. I was reading several sites about the evidence and specifics of the trial and I fail to see the motive for Knoxs and especially Sollecito.

    Why is a specific motive necessary to establish guilt? It may have been a more spur of the moment killing than one that involved a lot of pre-planning.
    True, but neither have a history of violence. They were smoking pot. They weren't doing crack. Short of a psychotic break (simultaneous, in both of them), what would make them commit such a hideous crime? We are not talking about an impulsive shove that causes a person to accidentally hit their head and die. We are talking about a brutal murder. It just doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but…?

  6. #206
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,825
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    24455
    It makes no sense and there was no physical evidence really.

    To believe they did it means you believe they had some sort of psychic break, committed a terribly violent crime while doped up on pot (which tends to make you sleepy and/or passive), and yet were savvy enough to clean up all traces of their involvement. While leaving all traces of Guede's involvement. Even though they were high. Which does not tend to make one savvy. If even a savvy person could have done such a thing.

    It just defies common sense to me.

    I can buy one or both of them walking in on the murder and freaking out and lying about it later leading to strange behavior which was misunderstood by the cops. (The evidence supports this.)

    I can buy them being friends with someone who lead them into a murder that they were reluctant participants in and then all 3 cleaning up so there was no evidence of any of them or some evidence of some of them. (The evidence does not support this as there is no evidence they knew Guede and there is no evidence they cleaned up and there is evidence only of Guede's presence, not none of them or all 3 of them except for the bra strap which is tainted evidence and not evidence of Knox's involvement.)

    I can't buy the whole satanic ritual story (no evidence of satanic rituals at all).

    I don't buy the whole sex game gone wrong (again no evidence of this).

    I can sort of see that the two roommates didn't get along and had tension over different standards of cleanliness as that is very common in roommate relationships. It doesn't often lead to murder though. Especially after 5-6 weeks of rooming together. Generally one or the other moves out. Amanda had a boyfriend and was spending all her time with him. That's a perfect solution to living with a slob so no murder was necessary. It does somewhat explain some of her reactions afterwards though. If she seemed cold afterwards maybe it's because she barely knew her roommate and didn't like her much. On top of being in shock.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  7. #207
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,860
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    To believe they did it means you believe they had some sort of psychic break, committed a terribly violent crime while doped up on pot (which tends to make you sleepy and/or passive), and yet were savvy enough to clean up all traces of their involvement. While leaving all traces of Guede's involvement. Even though they were high. Which does not tend to make one savvy. If even a savvy person could have done such a thing.

    It just defies common sense to me.
    If you read the evidence linked to earlier, you'd see they did leave physical evidence including DNA. It wasn't just traces of Guede's present--Amanda's DNA and physical evidence was there too.

    I did read the transcript of Amanda's phone call to her mom, and the court transcript too. The issue with the phone call to her mom was that she called her frantically before Meredith's body was found. And her mother acknowledged she was in a state when they talked. Even the mom questioned Amanda why she was so worked up when the body hadn't officially been discovered yet. Amanda couldn't give a response to that, and only said she didn't remember calling and talking to her mom.

    That I believe is the incriminating evidence with the taped phone call.

  8. #208
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    561
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    If you read the evidence linked to earlier, you'd see they did leave physical evidence including DNA. It wasn't just traces of Guede's present--Amanda's DNA and physical evidence was there too.
    It's important to keep in mind that particular site is one of the most prominent sites trying to show Knox and Sollecito's guilt - honestly it's just about impossible to find a summary of the evidence online that isn't biased one way or the other. The list of evidence linked to did hit the prosecution's main points but also includes things that had been abandoned by the prosecution even before the first trial for being too problematic/unreliable as well as bits that were incorrectly reported in the media and not included in court documents, and it omits points that would be favorable to Knox/Sollecito. But when people say there's no physical evidence, I think they're generally referring to the room where the murder took place, since that room had a large amount of physical evidence from Guede and nothing but the bra clasp from anyone else. That physical evidence from Knox could be found in other areas of the apartment isn't really in dispute, but the interpretation of it gets messy since she lived there.

  9. #209

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    2,490
    vCash
    483
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sk8ngCat View Post
    Why is a specific motive necessary to establish guilt? It may have been a more spur of the moment killing than one that involved a lot of pre-planning.
    I guess it is a need to understand. I remember way too many times when the behavior of the accused of being very worried and sad. In that case - such behavior was portrayed they were worried about getting caught.

    This is very violent way to kill somebody and to deal with the immediate consequences - huge amount of blood and the victim dying in her own blood.
    and like crusine says - neither of them has history of violence. There is large enough research of what pot does to your brain and thats what they say they were using. Cops didnt do any other testing and I think more serious drugs leave trace in the system for a longer period of time so this guessing they were two druggies who were having sex orgies is very biased & was "well played" buy the persecution. I read now that the prosecutor denise making statements of a satanic sex rituals. Interesting how I remember reading his quotes in the italian press when the case was opened. This was the time I was diligently reading everyday news in italian in hopes to improve my italian reading skills so I remember. It was just the start of the academic year so I was persistent

    I've never been in any similar situation but I was a witness of a person being coerced (or "lead to") by the police to support the theory they had in mind as the most plausible. This person had first hand knowledge of an event she couldnt have known was important for a completely different situation and was made to consider different scenarios and ended up saying she cannot be sure of her knowledge. Two hours after this - she broke down and realised she just ruined her credibility and possibly made other people suspects of not so legal things. This is as far as I can talk about it, but I cannot not remember it and keep it in mind.

    Things in life happen in many ways. The lack of real motive, supported by evidence or testimonies makes this case against Knox and even more so against Sollecito weak to build.
    As of March 2013 - no longer scared of TAHbKA or Andrey aka Pushkin

  10. #210
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,860
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zippy View Post
    That physical evidence from Knox could be found in other areas of the apartment isn't really in dispute, but the interpretation of it gets messy since she lived there.
    I thought finding Knox's blood on the murder weapon was a major point.
    Last edited by agalisgv; 02-04-2014 at 03:16 AM.

  11. #211
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,825
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    24455
    It wasn't the murder weapon. They found her blood on a knife in her boyfriends apartment that didn't match the knife used to kill Meredith. They then claimed that Meredith's DNA was on it as well and speculated that two knives might have been used in the crime. But Meredith's DNA was found in a minuscule sample that didn't really meet reasonable standards for credible DNA sampling -- there wasn't enough to do a B sample for example -- and there was no evidence whatsoever that a second knife was used in the killing. Plus why would he show up at the apartment with a large bread knife for an unpremeditated murder? (The knife was a bread knife -- bread crumbs were found on it as well.)
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  12. #212
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    561
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    I thought finding Knox's blood on the murder weapon was a major point.
    They didn't find that. They found Knox's DNA (not blood) on the handle of a knife found in a drawer in Sollecito's kitchen. In the first trial the prosecution claimed Kercher's DNA (again not blood, no blood was anywhere on the knife) was on the tip of the blade, but the sample was so small it couldn't be reproduced for this latest trial. This knife also didn't match a bloody imprint of a knife or the victim's wounds, so it seems unlikely to be the murder weapon.

    ETA - sorry MacMadame, you beat me to it!

  13. #213
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ontari-ari-ari-o!
    Posts
    110
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    132
    [QUOTE=MacMadame;4138442]
    To believe they did it means you believe they had some sort of psychic break, committed a terribly violent crime while doped up on pot (which tends to make you sleepy and/or passive), and yet were savvy enough to clean up all traces of their involvement. While leaving all traces of Guede's involvement. Even though they were high. Which does not tend to make one savvy. If even a savvy person could have done such a thing.

    People don't have to have a "psychic" (or psychotic) break to commit violent crime. We only have Knox's and her ex-boyfriend's words that they were high on pot anyway.

  14. #214
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ontari-ari-ari-o!
    Posts
    110
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by zippy View Post
    It's important to keep in mind that particular site is one of the most prominent sites trying to show Knox and Sollecito's guilt - honestly it's just about impossible to find a summary of the evidence online that isn't biased one way or the other.
    A biased summary of the evidence or not, neither of these 2 defendants seem to me to have been railroaded by the Italian judicial system.

  15. #215
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,709
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    Signing an extradition treaty does not mean forfeiting constitutional protections of basic rights. Thus, Italy, for example, which has no death penalty, will not extradite a criminal defendant to a jurisdiction in which he might face the death penalty. Instead, Italy would require the prosecution to waive the death penalty.

    If you don't like this, and think Italy should be extraditing people to face the death penalty, go tell your own government, not ours.
    I'm well aware Italy doesn't extradite if death penalty is on the table. Everyone is.

    Italy made it clear (in advance) that the country despises death penalty, does not convict anyone to death penalty, will not extradite anyone that risks death penaly, because that's a principle the country feels they cannot give up.

    If the US feels like they will never extradite anyone unless
    1) all interrogations are recorded (even if the person in question is not a supect at the time),
    2) interrogations can only happen with a lawyer present (even if the person in question is not a supect at the time),
    3) prosecutor cannot appeal,
    they should state so, before rather then after would be nice.


    You should carefully consider what principles you are in no case willing to give up: a justice system is complicated set, with balances and counter balances, that is (hopefully) built to work at best as a whole, also considering, for example, the size of the country or its cultural heritage.

    Unless one has studied the subject very seriously, it might suprises how rules can be more than fare, how defendants can be well guaranteed, even if, say, the double jeopardy rule is not in place.
    Well maybe it wouldn't surprise you, you're very sure.


    The US don't really have to state clearly their agreements with Italy, though.
    Italy is more than willing to spare US citizenships, even when italian victims are involved.
    Silently, like filthy secrets are kept.


    I would link english pages, but they I'm not seeing them report what's relevant in here.


    Cermis

    Il 3 febbraio 1998 alle ore 15:13 un Grumman EA-6B Prowler,[1] aereo militare statunitense del Corpo dei Marines al comando del capitano Richard Ashby, decollato dalla base aerea di Aviano alle 14:36 durante un volo di addestramento a bassa quota, tranciò le funi del tronco inferiore della funivia del Cermis. La cabina, al cui interno si trovavano venti persone, precipitò da un'altezza di circa 150 metri schiantandosi al suolo dopo un volo di 7 secondi. Il velivolo, danneggiato all'ala e alla coda, fu comunque in grado di far ritorno alla base.

    Nella strage morirono i 19 passeggeri e il manovratore, tutti cittadini di stati europei: tre italiani, sette tedeschi, cinque belgi, due polacchi, due austriaci e un olandese.
    1998. A US military airplane cuts the ropes of an aerial railway in Italy. 19 people die: three Italians, seven Germans, five Belgians, two Polish, two Austrians, one from the Neetherlands.

    Solo la prontezza dei magistrati trentini, che sequestrarono immediatamente l'aereo incriminato nella base di Aviano, ha permesso di chiarire le responsabilità. In effetti l'aereo era già pronto per essere smontato e riparato.
    It's only thanks to italian judges that the truth could be established. They impounded the military airplane, that was about to be disassembled and repaired in the US military base.

    I pubblici ministeri italiani richiesero di processare i quattro marines in Italia, ma il giudice per le indagini preliminari di Trento ritenne che, in forza della Convenzione di Londra del 19 giugno 1951 sullo statuto dei militari NATO, la giurisdizione sul caso dovesse riconoscersi alla giustizia militare statunitense.
    Italian prosecutors request to have four marines on trial, but an italian judge states that it's US jurisdiction.

    Nel gennaio 2012, un'inchiesta di National Geographic fa luce su alcuni retroscena della vicenda grazie alla testimonianza inedita degli investigatori americani che tentarono invano di far condannare i responsabili e di Joseph Schweitzer, navigatore dell'aereo, che per la prima volta parla e descrive il video turistico distrutto per impedire che si arrivasse alla verità (e per la cui distruzione fu accusato di intralcio alla giustizia): «Ho bruciato la cassetta. Non volevo che alla CNN andasse in onda il mio sorriso e poi il sangue delle vittime.
    2012: National Geographic sheds light on what happened. Thanks to the testimony of some american investigators that tried invain to get the people responsible convicted, for the first time we can hear Joseph Schweitzer, airplane navigator, that says: "I destroyed the tape (a tape some turists hade made). I didn't want CNN to air a tape where you could see me smiling (he was having fun) and then the victims blood".
    Last edited by loulou; 02-04-2014 at 10:42 PM.

  16. #216
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,709
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Nicola Calipari

    In base alle comunicazioni di Mel Sembler a Washington, rivelate a fine 2010 da Wikileaks e dal Guardian[5], appare come il rapporto italiano, almeno nella parte in cui definiva l'omicidio Calipari come "non intenzionale", fosse stato appositamente costruito per impedire ulteriori inchieste della magistratura, ed evitare che la vicenda danneggiasse i rapporti bilaterali Italia-USA e l'impegno militare italiano in Iraq. Il governo Berlusconi III si sarebbe impegnato a bloccare i tentativi di ulteriori indagini da parte delle commissioni parlamentari, così come già richiesto dall'opposizione di centrosinistra, sostenendo la tesi del "tragico incidente".
    2010. Wikileaks and Guardian reveal that US ambassador in Rome Mel Sembler writes to Washington that italian government report was intentionally wrote to stop further investigations from the italian judges; so that the good understanding between Italy and the US wouldn't be compromised, and that Italy would keep sending troups to help the US in Iraq. Berlusconi's government is determined to stop further inquiries in the parlament, that its opposition requires, supporting the theory that it was just a tragic accident.

    Nel 2011 Wikileaks ha pubblicato un cable risalente al 9 maggio 2005 (redatto dopo che il premier aveva riferito del caso in parlamento) in cui l'ambasciata americana a Roma conferma l'amicizia fra Italia e Stati Uniti e, per evitare problemi, il presidente del consiglio fa capire agli americani che li "lascerà fare" nel mostrare la loro versione, senza fornire alcun contraddittorio. L'ambasciatore inoltre fa notare che per gli investigatori americani era una cosa ovvia chiedersi come mai di 30 auto che avevano attraversato il posto di blocco solo una è stata presa a mitragliate
    2011. Wikileaks leaks a cable from the US ambassy in Rome to Washington, from 2005: the understandment between Italy and the US is confirmed. The prime minister (Berlusconi) let us know the he will let us free to carry our version, without contesting any of it. The ambassador notes that for US investigators was only natural to wonder why they only shot one car out of the thirty that passed.
    Last edited by loulou; 02-04-2014 at 10:36 PM.

  17. #217
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,709
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Abu Omar

    Su richiesta degli inquirenti è stata trasmessa richiesta di estradizione per i cittadini americani al Ministero della Giustizia, allora Roberto Castelli, affinché la trasmettesse agli Stati Uniti. Il Ministro Castelli si è sempre rifiutato di inoltrare la richiesta di estradizione entrando in conflitto con la procura di Milano.
    Italian judges requested extradition for american citizens (26 CIA agents, I believe) and trasmitted the request to Italian Minister of Justice, Castelli. Castelli has always refused to pass the extradition request to the US, starting a conflict with judges in Milan.

    Nel dicembre 2010 Wikileaks ha però pubblicato dei cablogrammi inviati dalla sede romana dell'ambasciata Usa al quartier generale (headquarter) di Washington che rivelerebbero pressioni degli Stati Uniti sul Governo Italiano per evitare il coinvolgimento degli agenti della CIA nell'inchiesta italiana sul sequestro di Abu Omar
    2010. Wikileaks, leaks cablos sent from the US ambassy in Rome to headquartes in Washington, that would reveal the US pressured the italian government to avoid CIA involement in the abduction of Abu Omar.

    ---

    As you can see, US pressures tend to be effective in Italy.

    Since the US public opinion feels so strongly about this case that US politics cannot ignore it, since the US diplomacy in Italy is reported to be very active, Knox is very likely to have a strong ally in the italian government, rather than the other way around.

    No one has yet explained me - but maybe it's my weak mind fault - why would judges put themselves in such a difficult position, if not for their work ethics.
    A not guilty verdict would be such an easy way out of this wasp's nest.
    Last edited by loulou; 02-04-2014 at 09:56 PM.

  18. #218
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Herot
    Posts
    3,489
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    To be edited.
    Don't bother.

    The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

    The U.S. won't extradite someone to be tried for an offense for which she has already been acquitted.

    The fact that Italy doesn't regard the acquittal as final doesn't alter the fact that the U.S. does. End of story.

  19. #219
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    561
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sk8ngCat View Post
    People don't have to have a "psychic" (or psychotic) break to commit violent crime. We only have Knox's and her ex-boyfriend's words that they were high on pot anyway.
    But here's what I and I think others can't get past. I agree a person doesn't necessarily have to have a psychotic break to commit a violent crime; there would be a lot less murders if that were so. As for the prosecution's latest theory about the murder resulting from anger over cleaning a toilet, well, people have been murdered for stupider things (parking spaces at the mall, etc.). I could believe any of the three suspects might singularly be capable of such a rage if the evidence supported it (as it does for Guede). But three near strangers coming together to commit a spontaneous violent crime of a sexual nature? Raffaele and Amanda had only known each other for a week, Amanda had apparently met Rudy Guede briefly once, and Rudy and Raffaele had never met. I would need some really compelling evidence to get there. Are there other crimes where this has happened? Even two near strangers working together to commit a spontaneous murder with no apparent motive seems farfetched to me. Some kind of drug-induced group hallucination? Too bad they apparently didn't drug test the suspects. I'd need some evidence of PCP use or something to even begin to make sense of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sk8ngCat View Post
    A biased summary of the evidence or not, neither of these 2 defendants seem to me to have been railroaded by the Italian judicial system.
    I'd say "railroading by the Italian judicial system" is a strongly worded phrase that invites emotional arguments on either side. I don't think any judicial system on earth is 100% safeguarded against wrongful convictions. In the US, we've seen cases where the whole system worked together to produce a wrong result (see Cameron Todd Willingham). The Italian justice system is interesting - I do like how the judges are required to publish a motivation statement following a verdict. I've seen some really interesting blogs suggesting the Italian courts are a little behind the times when it comes to forensic science and this was a factor in the decision to overturn the appeal that acquitted Knox and Sollecito. Another factor, as I understand it, is a lot of things that just aren't done in US courts can be seen as acceptable in an Italian court because of their reliance of professional judges on the jury - the system puts a lot of stock in their ability to reason appropriately and consider reasonable doubt in ways that the US system doesn't. Here's an academic PDF article that addresses that (I just gave it a quick read, so forgive me if I don't have that aspect of the Italian justice system right). I am interested in how the cross-cultural elements and unfair media characterizations played a role in this case, though. I don't doubt the professionalism of judges; I just think some of these elements are interpreted subconsciously and may not lead to as objective an overview of the evidence as one would think. I do remember being struck by some of the leaps of logic made in the Massei report following the first trial, after outlining a pretty systematic review of the evidence - I think at one point they wrote they were skeptical that Knox actually took a shower the morning following the murder because she had taken one the day before and it was cold, for instance. That seems like a case of judges being out of touch with what would be seen as very plausible behavior of a young American female, and a small example of ways that cultural perceptions could interfere.

  20. #220
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,240
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    The U.S. won't extradite someone to be tried for an offense for which she has already been acquitted.

    The fact that Italy doesn't regard the acquittal as final doesn't alter the fact that the U.S. does. End of story.
    They will extradite if the original verdict was guilty. Don't forget Knox was acquitted on appeal, not the original trial.

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •