Your last sentence is beautifully apt; Sadly, this indeed is the general feeling in the US, that our laws and ways are the only correct ones. In your opinion, will the above strategy attain their aim regarding the treaty with Italy?
Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#3
- Thread starter wasnt_me
- Start date
- Status
Me, too
Well, she wouldn't ever leave US soil, (seeing as InterPol would speedily arrest her) and in fact many Americans never venture out of this huge country.
It would be no hardship, as she could trek from Los Angeles to New York to Boston to Atlanta, and travel widely without ever setting foot in Europe again.
But some questions: Any you can answer would be appreciated:
1. Is the double jeopardy argument actually valid?
2. Will the Italians take kindly to having the treaty broken?
3. Would they be satisfied with a verdict merely for the record?
4. How would the Kerchers feel?
5. How does anyone know Congress cares about the Knox case? (The State Department refused to get involved in 2010)
6. The briefing has a panel of 4 persons. That is a paltry sum compared to briefings for other issues. How do we know the issue will generate interest?
7. What of Sherlock's idea of Knox being arrested and jailed immediately in Seattle upon the verdict (assuming it is "guilty") and being extradited despite the howls of protest?
ETA: As when the State Dept. refused to get involved, criminal trials are not political and carry no human rights violations issues. Its not as though Knox was arrested for political reasons. These were my thoughts when Secretary of State Clinton refused to become involved, and basically said she trusted Italian justice with the issue; now I see others are having the same thoughts.
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
SMK
I think a lot of your questions can't be answered atm. I don't think the double jeopardy standard is valid at all. I think a lot can be said about Raffaele staying far away from Italy during this process. To me it says he's not feeling very confidant in an acquittal.
We will just have to wait and see what this "briefing" really is.
I think a lot of your questions can't be answered atm. I don't think the double jeopardy standard is valid at all. I think a lot can be said about Raffaele staying far away from Italy during this process. To me it says he's not feeling very confidant in an acquittal.
We will just have to wait and see what this "briefing" really is.
Yes, you're right, many cannot be answered at present. My feeling, though, is that Congress is not going to take much of an interest in the Knox case, as it is criminal and not political.
Actually, it was in 2009, after the guilty on all counts verdict in Perugia, that then-Secretary of State Clinton more or less dodged involvement in the issue:
And of course we know Clinton was never heard from again on the issue, and it was Hellman who made an end of the conviction ruling, temporarily.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...meet-senator-campaigning-for-Amanda-Knox.html
And of course we know Clinton was never heard from again on the issue, and it was Hellman who made an end of the conviction ruling, temporarily.
I think the U.S. should continue to stay out of it....how would we feel if we had, say, and Italian student here who was suspected of committing a murder, he went to trial, the jury convicts him, he puts in an appeal, etc. etc.. In the meantime, he goes back to Italy. The process here is not finished, so the process continues and a judge rules that the original conviction must be held. Would we want Italy butt-ing in and saying no, no, no, he's over here now....you can't have him back, even though you have gone through the entire process according to your country's laws, and even though the final decision is that he be convicted and imprisoned. And even though we have a treaty with you that says we respect and recognize your judicial process. But oh no....he's staying here, doesn't matter that he murdered someone in your country......
Snoods
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2013
- Messages
- 4,900
- Reaction score
- 9,581
Ahh okay you are probably right, aa. I think you know a lot more about this than I do, but thanks for your kindness! Honestly, this case has so much information and misinformation out there I never really know what to believe:scared: I read something one day and I think "maybe she is guilty" and then I read something the next day and think "okay, she's innocent."
I have gone through similar, and hope that the court comes out with a very clear, concise and strong ruling on the matter.
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
A great source is themurderofmeredithkercher.com
The section called "myths debunked" is great. Pretty much every argument I've heard for her innocence over the years is there. I've been arguing those points forever with people who are misinformed due to the American media spin on this case.
The section called "myths debunked" is great. Pretty much every argument I've heard for her innocence over the years is there. I've been arguing those points forever with people who are misinformed due to the American media spin on this case.
bbm
LOL! Ain't that the truth! It's because, unless it's inside the court, both sides can pretty much say whatever they want and twist any piece of evidence to suit their own needs.
I probably know less about this case than most on here, Snoods...mostly it's you all that have taught me about this case!
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 102
that site contains errors.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Prosecutionscase.html
Chris_Halkides
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 12
Let's take this site out for a test spin.
1. Myths debunked
TMoMK says (Myth 4) that it is a myth that AK quickly withdrew her statement. Quoting her handwritten note of 6 November, " "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik..." they leave out the rest of the sentence. "...but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." In addition they fail to mention her second handwritten note of 7 November, the key portion of which is a complete retraction of her accusation. PM Mignini quoted the key portion of it in his cross of AK, so there should not be any doubt of what she said.
2. Sollecito's supposed replica combat knife
This issue is important to Old Steve, IIUC. TJfMK wrote, <modsnip> The source for this claim is an anonymous commenter. The Daily Telegraph reported underneath a photo, "Amanda Knox is shown a knife which the prosecution used to help illustrate the murder of Meredith Kercher" Go to this link, and scroll to picture 7. To the best of my knowledge, a total of three knifes belonging to RS were confiscated. One kitchen knife and two folding knives. Thus TMoMK is advancing a plain falsehood.
3. Lividity
<modsnip> On page 121 of the translated Massei report Professor Bacci (a prosecution witness) "dismissed" a mark on Meredith as being livor mortis (it was a bruise).
These are not the only misleading or untrue statements at TMoMK. After taking a test drive, I won't be buying.
Chris_Halkides
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 12
I don't consider the stages of the Italian trial to be a violation of the principle against double jeopardy, and I am not sure that many people do. The procedural problems lie elsewhere. One the CSC is arguing facts, when it should be arguing law. This problem is not unique to the AK/RS case. Two, the criminal and civil cases should not have been allowed to run concurrently. Three, and perhaps most serious, the system is trying to use the result of one set of trials to circumscribe what can be argued at a different set of trials. Given that neither AK nor RS were part of RG's trials, this is very problematic. Both the prosecution and the defense at RG's trials had a reason to argue for multiple attackers. Why should that be binding on this trial? For commentary on the CSC's motivations report, see this link.Me, too
Thank you for this info.
I had already entertained the idea that the criminal and civil cases ought not to have been tried at the same time. But shouldn't this be the Italian Supreme Court which would oversee and rectify these litigation errors?
I would agree that the SC ruling that there were multiple attackers kills the Lone Wolf theory, which if true, ought to have finished the matter. This is where I get confused.
I was with Knox and Sollecito all the way through Hellmann. It was when I was on JREF, on the eve of this last ruling in March to review all, that I made the suggestion that Hellmann might be overturned. I was hooted at, and when I proved to be a prophet, I began to think that if JREF had been wrong about this, they might be wrong about other arguments as well. Hence, my current reversal and woeful quandry....
Chris_Halkides
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 12
There have been serious problems of discovery of the forensic evidence, and the CSC did not fix those, either. The forensic pathologists discussed in the Massei report did not rule out a single attacker. I have no reason to believe that they are wrong. I don't agree that the CSC had any business killing the lone wolf theory, for two or three reasons. One they are not supposed to try facts, but they do anyway. In 2000 Rachel Ann Fenton wrote in the The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (Volume 49, No. 3), "The Corte di cassazione has not criticised the motivazione on the basis that X plus Y cannot equal Z, but rather has declared that X plus Y must equal W. Such a judgment calls the very nature of the role of the Corte di cassazione into question, as clearly in this case it has acted as a court of third instance rather than in fulfilment of its nomothetic function." Two, they are using the results of a trial at which AK and RS had no representation against them. Three, the CSC itself has a poor command of the facts of this case, as well as of forensic science.
Yes, I understand and take all this well under advisement. The problem with my kind of thinking is that I tend to look at the broad picture thematically and am keenly interested in the psychology of the crime; I get bogged down and dizzy when presented with all the technical details and problems.
Why was Hellman overturned if all of this was brought up by him as well?
What gave the prosecution the power to overturn him? I thought the fact that the victim had the number of bruises and injuries that she did, and had signs of having been restrained, supported the several attackers theory? Why did the Supreme Court uphold the prosecution's theory of several attackers if the empirical data did not support this???
So, do I understand that there is some concern about the fact that, after Guede's trial, it was concluded that he did not act alone?
I suppose the evidence that was analyzed by the courts gave them no choice but to conclude that there was evidence of more than one culprit. That does present problems for Knox and Sollecito, but does that really mean that now the Supreme Court is also worthy of criticism? Is there any part of the Italian Judicial system that does not need to be criticized in order to paint Sollecito and Knox as victims?
I suppose the evidence that was analyzed by the courts gave them no choice but to conclude that there was evidence of more than one culprit. That does present problems for Knox and Sollecito, but does that really mean that now the Supreme Court is also worthy of criticism? Is there any part of the Italian Judicial system that does not need to be criticized in order to paint Sollecito and Knox as victims?
- Status