Discussion in 'Amanda Knox' started by Harmony 2, Jan 30, 2014.
Owl read as you continue discussion here...
thread #1 thread #2 thread #3 thread #4 thread #5 thread #6 thread #7 thread #8 thread #9 thread #10 thread #11 thread #12 thread #13
Italian Supreme Court:
Galati -Costagliola Prosecution Appeal Supreme Court of cassation:
Conti- Vecchiotti report
Court of Appeals of Florence- Amanda Knox email
Stephanoni power point
lists of books about the case:
galleries of crime scene photos:
* if you have a problem with a post use the ALERT BUTTON (do not respond)
* use thumbnails for graphic crime scene photos
* copying and pasting verbatim from opinion sites or from blogs is not allowed
* linking to forums is not allowed
* treat opposing views respectfully
-Refrain from personalizing, name calling, mocking, or posting broad negative characterizations of opposing views
* add a link to all photos (including attached thumbnails), tweets, documents and facts or posts will be removed.
Amanda Knox on GMA
There was a post on the last thread I didn't get a chance to reply to.
This was said by Irish_Eyes:
"Rudy's footprints were bloody because with the amount of blood on the floor from 46 stab wounds it was almost unavoidable. Why no bloody footprints from Amanda or Raffaelle? Why was there no transfer of Kercher's blood anywhere on their persons? Why did they not have the expected bruises and cuts and scratches inflicted by someone attempting to fend off 46 stab wounds? Guede did"
There were not 46 stab wounds. There were 2 main stab wounds coming from 2 different directions on her neck. There were 40 something total wounds but that includes bruises and such. It has been said that RG (lone wolf) did not step in blood during the attack. He somehow would've managed to avoid stepping in blood (with only 1 shoe)until after a trip to the bathroom. So if its possible for RG to avoid the blood during the attack, why can the same not be said for AK and RS? RG had some wounds on his hands that's true but if his hands were bleeding that night where is the blood on the tossed cell phones, door knobs, or in the small bathroom? Also why would we assume AK and RS would have defensive wounds from a 3vs1 attack?
"Consider that the above major points don't include the bad interrogation for 43 hours in a foreign language with no access to an attorney. In the US, on that grounds ALONE we would say her rights were so violated the case would have to be thrown out."
There was no 43 hour interrogation, AK was questioned for no more than 2 hours before she accused Patrick Lumumba.
"This isn't including the record of this prosecutor and his behavior in this and other cases. In the US, conduct like his would have gotten him disbarred and he'd never have been in charge of this case in the first place. "
Mignini has not been convicted of anything, besides he did not prosecute the first instance trial alone it was a team including Comodi. Was she corrupt as well? The appeal to the SCC was handled by his boss Galati. This appeal in Florance was prosecuted by Crini. Are they all corrupt?
So really what happened is this appeal court upheld the original conviction of guilt?
Sollecito apparently left court yesterday to flee:
I have a question. I've followed this case since she was on trial the first time. I just ordered Rafaelle's book and one called Death in Italy from amazon for like 50 cents each before shipping. Has anyone read them? Also, I've been back and forth in my opinion on this case. What makes you guys see guilt or innocence? I've read the evidence, so I'm curious on your opinions.
Yes as this was an appeal on the same level as Hellmann, which was annulled.
I would suggest reading A Death in Italy before RSs book, perhaps you'll be able to catch some of RSs inconsistencies with the evidence.
The list is long for why I find them guilty.
Wow so he had headed for the border before the verdict was read? Proves his appearance in court that morning was just a show IMO.
Brought over from last thread.
The Kercher family have no control over the judicial process, or the verdict. Lashing out at them seems deeply unfair.
I have to admit that for quite a while I viewed RS more as just going along with AK. With the things that have come to light in the last week or two my opinion of him has changed. And not for the better.
:drumroll: Surprise . . . Surprise !
:seeya: Good Morning Y'all !
:twocents: The only book I've read so far is John Follain's book, Death In Perugia, which I found to be unbiased and accurate.
:twocents: I would never buy a book by Raf or Knox, or even read their books ... a "waste of time" IMO ...
I've been looking for some legal precedent as to whether Knox would be extradited or not. I found bloomfield vs. gengler, in which some Americans were initially accused of importing and exporting drugs from Canada. Their case was dismissed, the dismissal was then overturned and they were found guilty in absentia.
The convicted Americans fought their extradition, one of the grounds being double jeopardy, and the court did find that if they had been acquitted in the U.S. they couldn't be tried again. But they were convicted in Canada, and since their crime of importing drugs is a crime in America and there was sufficient evidence to criminality to have justified the trial, that is all the treaty requires. Double jeopardy doesn't come into play under extradition laws.
I find it disturbing how MSM has tried to twist the words of the Kercher siblings. IMO, they have tried to make it look like the family just wants this to end and that they aren't convinced of the guilt of the accused.
Lyle stated he wanted to see AK extradited.
They were also put in the position, once again, of turning down correspondence from AK. Does she think if they were to accept a letter from her it would make it look like they thought she wasn't involved? I think they've made their feelings pretty clear.
Just wanted to thank you for the adorable photos you post at thread starts. I look forward to them and these are just so freaking cute I can barely stand it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nothing has changed in Amanda's choice of words and how she says things.
This line stands out to me
" The evidence and accusatory theory do not justify a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, nothing has changed. There has always been a marked lack of evidence.
What innocent person says this? Why not simply say there's no evidence because I'm completely innocent, instead she says they couldn't prove their case BARD in her opinion. Blows my mind the things she continues to say.
Seems quite a few legal experts are adamant that Knox will be extradited, if (more like when) Italy ask.
Separate names with a comma.