Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


Last visit was: Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:17 am
It is currently Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:17 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30, 13 - JULY 31, 14

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 20 of 30 [ 7308 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 30  Next
Author Message

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Thanks G. That is the dumbest thing I ever heard him say, and he has said some dumb stuff :) Good thing is that he admits to have crossed the border. Also note that Nencini mentions he will reconsider the precautionary measures if there are other developments later. Well done!


he came back as soon as he had discovered this country is not Australia, but just Austria

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Pelerine wrote:
max wrote:
Thanks G. That is the dumbest thing I ever heard him say, and he has said some dumb stuff :) Good thing is that he admits to have crossed the border. Also note that Nencini mentions he will reconsider the precautionary measures if there are other developments later. Well done!


he came back as soon as he had discovered this country is not Australia, but just Austria


The typo was mine. Sorry for that. I couldn't believe it when I saw it. I have already corrected it. :D
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sollecito came back only as soon as he knew he wasn't going to be thrown in jail. He knew fully well that he was going to be convicted, hence why he made himself scarce. If he'd truly believed different he'd have stayed in Florence so he could make his victory speech to the media. His confidence in acquittal was zero and there was no way he was going back to jail.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hellmann needs to be censured by the High Court. He is deliberately interfering in the case in the knowledge that Knox's lawyers will be reading out his statements in a US court in the upcoming extradition battle. Hellmann is desperate to rescue his legacy.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Okay, I'm going to make a rare prediction. They are going to get Hellmann to write out a formal letter to be presented to US courts during the extradition battle. Hellmann will be only too happy to oblige, thinking nothing of sabotaging the process.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Meredith process, storm the court. CSM and Anm: inopportune his sentences. Lawyers for Sollecito: reopen all
Controversy erupts after the interview of the judge Nencini al Messaggero
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/UMBRIA/omici ... 3792.shtml
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Judgment Mez, suffered storm on Nencini
The judge interviewed by Corriere della Sera. The CSM: intervene. The ANM: it was inappropriate. Sollecito's lawyers: they are very serious allegations
http://www.giornaledellumbria.it/articl ... 51326.html
Top Profile 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Hellmann needs to be censured by the High Court. He is deliberately interfering in the case in the knowledge that Knox's lawyers will be reading out his statements in a US court in the upcoming extradition battle. Hellmann is desperate to rescue his legacy.


Reading out Hellmann's statements would be as effective as just reading nursery rhymes into the record. Extradition is automatic until the very last step. The media will want to make it seem like extradition can go either way because that is how you get people invested in the outcome and consuming your content but the reality if that extradition in doubt.

Because extradition is going to be sought on the basis of a conviction. That means that the court will not look at any of the evidence. The required standard for extradition is probable cause and a conviction is sufficient to establish probable cause by itself. The court is actually barred from looking at the evidence or second guessing the Italian legal system by the doctrine of non-inquiry. To expect Knox to be successful at her extradition hearing requires accepting that the court will abandon 50 years of established precedence and treat Knox as special. I'm sure the Groupies see it that way but no court is going to change our legal system for Knox. If by some strange reason the court did Italy could just start the process again with a different court.

There is absolutely nothing Knox can do in the legal arena to avoid extradition. She can delay extradition by requesting judicial review but any delays just means Knox spends more time in a Washington prison which may or may not count toward her sentence. Knox's only hope would be that after the legal process is done the Secretary of State refuses to sign the surrender warrant. If that happens Knox would have a reprieve but she would always be at the risk of future extradition. We need Italy more than they need us. The United States requests a lot of suspects from foreign countries and Italy is high on the list of European countries we ask people for. Extradition works on reciprocity so the second the States refuses to extradite someone who has been convicted the requesting country will also stop honoring our requests. How crazy does someone need to be to believe the States is willing to give up all future extraditions from Italy to save Knox? Not to mention the spillover into other European countries that will see this as typical American boorish behavior.

There is no inclination that the State Department is at all sympathetic to Knox. Andrea Vogt has released the embassy wires and they voice no concerns. Clinton who was Secretary of State during Massei and Hellmann made it absolutely clear that State was not going to get involved. Cantwell is the only political support Knox has and Cantwell is irrelevant outside of Washington. Also, Cantwell is sending out mixed messages about her support. Her explicit statements are in support of Knox but her higher level messaging is that she is staying out of it. I think Cantwell realizes that affluent Seattle soccer moms matter to her political career so she wants to be seen doing something but at the same time she is making it clear to the politically savvy that her involvement is just an appeasement exercise. It makes no difference junior senators from Washington state have no influence on foreign policy. Likewise a bunch of rednecks and racists tweeting at Obama is not going to accomplish anything. The Groupies started a We The People petition and last I checked they had less than a thousand signatures. They have absolutely no hope of getting the 100,000 they need in four weeks. A We the People petition would accomplish nothing even if they met the goal but that they are going to fail so colossally shows how little support Knox has.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Okay, I'm going to make a rare prediction. They are going to get Hellmann to write out a formal letter to be presented to US courts during the extradition battle. Hellmann will be only too happy to oblige, thinking nothing of sabotaging the process.


For the media maybe but this can't happen during an extradition hearing. Knox will not get a traditional extradition hearing since her extradition request is based on a conviction but even if she did the extraditee is never allowed to present evidence. The scope of extradition hearings is set by the requesting party. The extraditee can only rebut evidence presented against them. They can't introduce any exculpatory evidence of their own.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Okay, I'm going to make a rare prediction. They are going to get Hellmann to write out a formal letter to be presented to US courts during the extradition battle. Hellmann will be only too happy to oblige, thinking nothing of sabotaging the process.


You certainly cannot call him ungrateful!

Indeed, the real truth can be different!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Michael wrote:
Okay, I'm going to make a rare prediction. They are going to get Hellmann to write out a formal letter to be presented to US courts during the extradition battle. Hellmann will be only too happy to oblige, thinking nothing of sabotaging the process.


For the media maybe but this can't happen during an extradition hearing. Knox will not get a traditional extradition hearing since her extradition request is based on a conviction but even if she did the extraditee is never allowed to present evidence. The scope of extradition hearings is set by the requesting party. The extraditee can only rebut evidence presented against them. They can't introduce any exculpatory evidence of their own.



Well, perhaps it would have little or no value in court phase of the extradition process, but I can see it being sent on to the State Department in the final phase to "help them" make their political decision.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

chami wrote:
Michael wrote:
Okay, I'm going to make a rare prediction. They are going to get Hellmann to write out a formal letter to be presented to US courts during the extradition battle. Hellmann will be only too happy to oblige, thinking nothing of sabotaging the process.


You certainly cannot call him ungrateful!

Indeed, the real truth can be different!!



Yep, he certainly can't be accused of not earning his brown paper bag wrapped gift.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mylady007


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:21 am

Posts: 50

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It's not just Italy or the US, it is the UK that has a vested interest. The motivation report will slow the posters down. I wish Massie's report was required reading for all reporters.

She has been empowered to lie; encouraged and rewarded to lie. Prison is where she needs to be. Perhaps in six months she will see the inside of a US prison and eagerly exchange it for an Italian one.

It is strange times indeed, when you can be convicted of murder and then be treated like a wounded star.

All my thoughts on Meredith: the battle started that night in November 2007. And for the love of God she is still having to ward off her attackers.


Last edited by mylady007 on Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

DON'T KNOX THIS 'SERIOUS NETWORK'
April 3, 2013



ANN COULTER


(oldie but goodie)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The National Association of Magistrates (ANM)
Supreme Council of Magistrates (CSM)

Seems like they are not so happy with the Nencini interview. Maybe a yellow card for Nencini. Cancelling the verdict is nonsense.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Actually, I don't see anything that Nencini said that breaks Italian rules. All he said was that it was a difficult ruling and people need to wait for the Report to see the detail.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yah not much. Few words about Sollecito that he probably shouldn't have said. Tomorrow they will look into it or not.

Quote:
MEREDITH / Zanon (MSM): 'Grave interview after the ruling of the judge, intervene'

"The case is definitely serious. Monday will decide whether to request the opening of a practice before the Commission. " It is the director of the CSM Nicolò Zanon, secular Forza Italy, to announce that his group intends to mobilize on the issue date of the interview to some newspapers by Alessandro Nencini, President of the College who sentenced Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher, in the aftermath of the judgment. Nencini "had shut up 'for an intervention of the CSM" the elements are all there, even given the international attention on the case, "said Zanon. And the fact that this took place after the analogous case of Judge of the Supreme Court Anthony Edwards-who gave an interview on the sentencing of Silvio Berlusconi, prior to the filing of the judgment given by the college which he presided-'aggravates' the position of magistrate Florentine.

http://www.online-news.it/2014/02/01/me ... erverremo/
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Meredith process, storm the court. CSM and Anm: inopportune his sentences. Lawyers for Sollecito: reopen all
Controversy erupts after the interview of the judge Nencini al Messaggero
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/UMBRIA/omici ... 3792.shtml


Thanks Max for the new links. I'll try to post translations of those articles published in the Italian press later today.

Sollecito's lawyers are certainly making a lot of noise, even asking for an annulment of the verdict. I predict nothing will come of it; perhaps a disciplinary procedure will be initiated and Nencini admonished for giving an interview, but that will be it. I've re-read his interview (Andrea Vogt's translation) and can't see anything damaging in it. He didn't disclose how the judges voted, only that they had to read a huge pile of documents before coming to a decision, etc Bongiorno and Maori are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

In the meantime, here's Part 2 of the La Repubblica article (yesterday's online edition) on the same subject:

Controversy after the interview of the President of the Court of Appeals

Sollecito’s lawyers: "Judgments should be respected, no interviews." "Fashion of the interviews on the council chambers discredits the entire judiciary, but an interview after a sentence is simply unacceptable ." With these words entrusted to a joint statement, Sollecito's lawyers , Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori , have accused the President of the Court of Appeal of Florence , Nencini, of behavior " very serious, indeed unacceptable." That is, he "publicly commented on what happened in the secret chamber of the board and was compelled to criticize the defensive strategy of Sollecito ." […]

Luca Maori has gone even further, saying that the words of Nencini are "solid proof " that the conviction of Amanda and Raffaele in the appeal has matured on an "obvious bias by the courts against the defendants , and in particular Sollecito."

Maori called for "the intervention of the CSM and the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court to consider carefully the statements, in order to consider not only disciplinary action but also the legality of the (court’s) decision ." "I remember - added Sollecito’s lawyer - an interview by Dr. Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, President of the Assize Court of Appeal of Perugia ( now retired) that acquitted Amanda and Raffaele; he was denied the presidency of the court in Perugia despite being in possession of all the formal requirements to fill that spot ."

Among the hypotheses that would be examined by the defense of Sollecito would be to apply to the CSM or the Attorney General of the Supreme Court . According to lawyers Bongiorno and Maori, "giving an interview after a sentence is simply unacceptable ."

ANM and CSM. "I won’t go into the merits of the interview - said the ANM president Rodolfo Sabelli - but the fact that the presiding judge releases statements prior to the filing of the motivations and on the day after a ruling when public interest is high, is inappropriate " . "The case is definitely serious ," said the director of the CSM Nicolò Zanon , secular Forza Italia . "Monday - he added - will decide whether to request an opening of a (disciplinary) procedure before the Commission."

Knox defense : silence is golden. The defense of Amanda Knox, however, has not commented on the words of President Nencini . "Never is silence more golden than in this case" - has limited himself to saying the lawyer Luciano Ghirga.


LA REPUBBLICA

ANM – Associazione Nationale dei Magistrati – National Association of Magistrates

CSM - Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura – Magistrates governing body, Superior Council of Judges (Judiciary)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The defence are truly grasping at straws now.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DoctorRadias


Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jaybee51 wrote:


Well after reading some of that, we can safely say the Ockham's razor falls on the Nigerian guy and/or there were demons and witches involved. the prosecutor is mad, and knox is never going to be found guilty.

The level of ignorance is astounding

_________________
I'm not a doctor, I'm a very naughty boy
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sometimes it helps to look back:
No-one of the now so concerned defense-teams hat anything to complain here: 06-Oct-2011


Speaking just two days after he and his fellow judges handed down a full acquittal on appeal, Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, said the court's verdict "is the result of the truth that was created in the proceedings. But the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but the evidence is not there."

The 69 year-old judge was speaking to the Corriere della Sera newspaper in the latest of several interviews he has given to media organisations since reading out the verdict on Monday night. On Wednesday, he had already begun to muddy the waters, telling another interviewer: "This will remain an unsolved truth. No one can say how things went."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/06/amanda-knox-judge-responsible

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Okay, here's a 'Google + me' translation of the Il Messaggero article (see one of max's posts above):

Meredith process, onslaught against Judge (Nencini). CSM and ANM: his words are inopportune. Lawyers for Sollecito: reopen all (the whole process)

Controversy erupts after the interview of the judge Nencini with Messaggero

Set aside the judgment of conviction and [initiate] disciplinary action against the magistrate. The interview with Il Messaggero of Alessandro Nencini , President of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence, who sentenced Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher, has offered a pretext not just to defense lawyers. For Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, Raffaele‘s lawyers , it is "serious and unacceptable" that Nencini "has commented publicly on what happened in the council chamber and is driven to criticize the defensive strategy of Sollecito ." The chairman of the court [Nencini] is hiding behind a "no comment." But the storm which struck around him, reminds me so much of the one that last summer hit Antonio Esposito, the president of the working section of the Supreme Court who, after declaring Silvio Berlusconi guilty of tax evasion, gave an interview to Il Mattino.

Without making the necessary distinctions between the high rate of "political" statements that concerned the trial of former Prime Minister and the explanatory tone used by Nencini on the reasons which led the court to lean towards the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele , the current controversy did not have to wait long . The president of the National Magistrates, Rodolfo Sabelli , called "inappropriate per se the fact that the presiding judge releases statements prior to the filing of the motivations on the day after a ruling when public interest is high ." The gist (script) of the reactions is more or less the same as it was with Esposito.

THE CSM
The Superior Council of Magistracy will soon be interested in Nencini. "The case is definitely serious. Monday will decide whether to request the opening of a disciplinary action before the Commission, " announced the director of the CSM Nicolò Zanon , secular Forza Italia . This committee is in charge of the office relocation for environmental or functional incompatibility of the judiciary, and is the same that was also interested in Esposito . The disciplinary measure, however, is a power that can be exercised only by the Attorney General of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice. For Esposito were active both, but in the end it was the PG Gianfranco Ciani to initiate disciplinary action .

THE MINISTER
On the case of Nencini the Minister Annamaria Cancellieri at this time would not be inclined to carry out investigations. "I do not comment on judgments ," was her only reply to those who, on the occasion of a conference of criminologists in Florence, asked for an interview. Most likely, at this point, that the investigation is initiated by the PG of the Supreme Court , which, unlike the Chancellors has an obligation and the right not to intervene.

LAWYERS
What fires up (inflames) Sollecito’s lawyers is that in the interview Nencini not only entered into the merits of the motive for the crime (murder on impulse, "born on a boys night out"), but also criticized the choice of the defense of Raffaele not to submit to an adversarial questioning.
"We ask first - fought back Bongiorno and Maori - if the President Nencini speaks on behalf of all the jurors and whether his words on the non-interrogation (lack of testimony) of Raffaele Sollecito mean that, if he had accused Amanda Knox, he would have been acquitted. " The fact that Raffaele was not heard in the courtroom is an ‘anomaly' detected the other day by the same Bongiorno . Who, however, had pointed out , that the interrogation must be requested by the prosecutor. Raffaele had subsequently made voluntary statements ." Armed with the utterances of Nencini, lawyers now will aim to question even the "legitimacy" of the guilty verdict.


IL MESSAGGERO

Anybody know what happened to Esposito as a result of disciplinary action against him?
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Regarding extradition, can Knox introduce anything to the proceedings? A brief statement of facts would include that the Hellman appeal was justifiably annulled and that a new hearing was held. Wouldn't any statement from Hellman fall into the category of "annulled" and be excluded from the extradition considerations, if it was even eligible in the first place?

"Yet the U.S.-Italy extradition treaty only protects Americans who face prosecution again in Italy for an offence that has already been dealt with by the U.S. “This is not applicable in this situation,” said Prof Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University in New York.

For extradition candidates such as Knox, who have already been convicted, the treaty states that Italy must merely produce “a brief statement of the facts of the case,” as well as the text of the laws governing the crime committed, the punishment the person would receive, and its statute of limitations.

The Obama administration could find some reason to decline a request. However, it would need to weigh this against the potential blow to cooperation on organized crime and other areas between the two governments."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/31 ... -to-italy/
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
max wrote:
Meredith process, storm the court. CSM and Anm: inopportune his sentences. Lawyers for Sollecito: reopen all
Controversy erupts after the interview of the judge Nencini al Messaggero
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/UMBRIA/omici ... 3792.shtml


Thanks Max for the new links. I'll try to post translations of those articles published in the Italian press later today.

Sollecito's lawyers are certainly making a lot of noise, even asking for the cancellation of the sentence. I predict nothing will come of it; perhaps a disciplinary procedure will be initiated and Nencini admonished for giving an interview, but that will be it. I've re-read his interview (Andrea Vogt's translation) and can't see anything damaging in it. He didn't disclose how the judges voted, only that they had to read a huge pile of documents before coming to a decision, etc Bongiorno and Maori are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

In the meantime, here's Part 2 of the La Repubblica article (yesterday's online edition) on the same subject:

Controversy after the interview of the President of the Court of Appeals

Sollecito’s lawyers: "Judgments should be respected, no interviews." "Fashion of the interviews on the council chambers discredits the entire judiciary, but an interview after a sentence is simply unacceptable ." With these words entrusted to a joint statement, Sollecito's lawyers , Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori , have accused the President of the Court of Appeal of Florence , Nencini, of behavior " very serious, indeed unacceptable." That is, he "publicly commented on what happened in the secret chamber of the board and was compelled to criticize the defensive strategy of Sollecito ." […]

Luca Maori has gone even further, saying that the words of Nencini are "solid proof " that the conviction of Amanda and Raffaele in the appeal has matured on an "obvious bias by the courts against the defendants , and in particular Sollecito."

Maori called for "the intervention of the CSM and the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court to consider carefully the statements, in order to consider not only disciplinary action but also the legality of the (court’s) decision ." "I remember - added Sollecito’s lawyer - an interview by Dr. Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, President of the Assize Court of Appeal of Perugia ( now retired) that acquitted Amanda and Raffaele; he was denied the presidency of the court in Perugia despite being in possession of all the formal requirements to fill that spot ."

Among the hypotheses that would be examined by the defense of Sollecito would be to apply to the CSM or the Attorney General of the Supreme Court . According to lawyers Bongiorno and Maori, "giving an interview after a sentence is simply unacceptable ."

ANM and CSM. "I won’t go into the merits of the interview - said the ANM president Rodolfo Sabelli - but the fact that the presiding judge releases statements prior to the filing of the motivations and on the day after a ruling when public interest is high, is inappropriate " . "The case is definitely serious ," said the director of the CSM Nicolò Zanon , secular Forza Italia . "Monday - he added - will decide whether to request an opening of a (disciplinary) procedure before the Commission."

Knox defense : silence is golden. The defense of Amanda Knox, however, has not commented on the words of President Nencini . "Never is silence more golden than in this case" - has limited himself to saying the lawyer Luciano Ghirga.


LA REPUBBLICA

ANM – Associazione Nationale dei Magistrati – National Association of Magistrates

CSM - Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura – Magistrates governing body, Superior Council of Judges (Judiciary)



Somebody PLEASE forward this to Ghirga's client.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It's not right to say there is ‘no evidence’ in the case against Amanda Knox. There's plenty

The DNA alone is enough to raise questions

Leila Schneps

Sunday 2 February 2014


THE INDEPENDENT

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Maori, Sollecito Jr. and Aunt Sara on the Quarto Grado program last Friday.

Quarto Grado: Amanda Knox will not return to Italy?

Maori looks crushed:

Attachment:
Maori on Quatro Grado Jan 31, 2014.jpg


After the reading of the verdict for the death of Meredith Kercher, Raffaele Sollecito went to see his girlfriend near Treviso and fled to Austria. His passport was withdrawn. Amanda Knox, however, gave an exclusive interview to the American network ABC News announcing she doesn't not want to go back to Italy.


Attachment:
Raffaele Sollecito on Quarto Grado Jan 31, 2014.jpg


Sollecito: My life and Amanda's life have taken two different paths (i.e. they go their separate ways now.)

Attachment:
Aunt Sara on Guarto Grado Jan 31, 2014.jpg


CRIMEBLOG

Full Jan.31 episode of Quarto Grado is online:

VIDEO MEDIASET

I haven't watched it yet, so can't say whether Sollecito was present in the studio, or appeared via video-link.

----------------------
I need to pop out briefly; will be back later with more translations. wg-))


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile 

Offline Admire


Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:13 am

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
It's not right to say there is ‘no evidence’ in the case against Amanda Knox. There's plenty

The DNA alone is enough to raise questions

Leila Schneps

Sunday 2 February 2014


THE INDEPENDENT



Holy Press Brief Batman! The media is actually showing a bit of critical thinking......Im shocked.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Admire wrote:
Michael wrote:
It's not right to say there is ‘no evidence’ in the case against Amanda Knox. There's plenty

The DNA alone is enough to raise questions

Leila Schneps

Sunday 2 February 2014


THE INDEPENDENT



Holy Press Brief Batman! The media is actually showing a bit of critical thinking......Im shocked.



Hi Admire. Well, that Independent article was written by our very own Leila Schneps, a.k.a "Thoughtful", hence the waves of sanity wafting from it :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Admire


Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:13 am

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Admire wrote:
Michael wrote:
It's not right to say there is ‘no evidence’ in the case against Amanda Knox. There's plenty

The DNA alone is enough to raise questions

Leila Schneps

Sunday 2 February 2014


THE INDEPENDENT



Holy Press Brief Batman! The media is actually showing a bit of critical thinking......Im shocked.



Hi Admire. Well, that Independent article was written by our very own Leila Schneps, a.k.a "Thoughtful", hence the waves of sanity wafting from it :)



Ahhhhhh that's explains it.....Thanks.. Was worried I would have to abandon my pessimistic view of the media:p

Although I was very happy about a recent ABC article that actually was slightly sane after Robin Roberts disgusting interview.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox case judge lambasted by Raffaele Sollecito's lawyers for remarks
Alessandro Nencini, who reinstated murder convictions of American and former boyfriend, could face disciplinary action
Lizzy Davies in Rome
The Guardian, Sunday 2 February 2014 20.00 GMT
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... rs-remarks


Bongiorno also faulted Nencini for hinting that the fact that Sollecito had not officially testified – and had not been cross-examined – during the second appeal had possibly not worked in his favour. The computer science graduate had spoken to the court only in statements.
The option"is a right, but it deprives the subject of a voice", Nencini was quoted by one newspaper as saying.
Bongiorno said this was unfair as her client had not been asked to submit to cross-examination. Moreover, she claimed, there was an ambiguity in Nencini's words that stunned her more.
"I would not like the judge to be implying something else: that perhaps Raffaele, in order to have his innocence recognised, should have accused Amanda of the killing of Meredith Kercher," she told La Stampa.

But that' outrage was not shared by all. The chairman of the Florence appeals court, Fabio Massimo Drago, was quoted as saying his colleague's remarks were "within the boundaries of propriety".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Admire


Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:13 am

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

They are REACHING!


This will lead to nothing but Nencini was a bloody idiot for doing any interviews what so ever.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox Case: US, UK Can’t Agree
5:05PM Sunday, February 2, 2014
http://www.630wpro.com/common/more.php? ... 40A&mode=2

(On news headlines)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks Ava.

Ava quoting the Guardian quoting Bongiorno wrote:
Moreover, she claimed, there was an ambiguity in Nencini's words that stunned her more. "I would not like the judge to be implying something else: that perhaps Raffaele, in order to have his innocence recognised, should have accused Amanda of the killing of Meredith Kercher," she told La Stampa.



Strange, the complaint seems to be that Nencini spoke about her client when he shouldn't have. The next moment, her complaint is that what he said about him was ambiguous. She needs to make her mind up.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Admire wrote:
They are REACHING!


This will lead to nothing but Nencini was a bloody idiot for doing any interviews what so ever.



Yes, especially as the defence seem to be desperately trying to put words and intent in Nencini's mouth in order to support their clutching at straws.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Admire wrote:
They are REACHING!


This will lead to nothing but Nencini was a bloody idiot for doing any interviews what so ever.



Yes, especially as the defence seem to be desperately trying to put words and intent in Nencini's mouth in order to support their clutching at straws.


Yes. It's Bongiorno who suggests RS should have accused AK of the murder, not Nencini. That's what she wants to tell us.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I must say, I don't understand what exactly is the problem with Nencini granting an interview.

Is it generally forbidden for a judge to do that? In that case they are in the right criticising him. I understood that when Judge Hellmann made his declarations after his controversial ruling, it was the content of the message that raised eyebrows, not the fact that he spoke to the media.

So either both judges need to be admonished for giving interviews or their critics have to shut up.

That's my view.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
Michael wrote:
Admire wrote:
They are REACHING!


This will lead to nothing but Nencini was a bloody idiot for doing any interviews what so ever.



Yes, especially as the defence seem to be desperately trying to put words and intent in Nencini's mouth in order to support their clutching at straws.


Yes. It's Bongiorno who suggests RS should have accused AK of the murder, not Nencini. That's what she wants to tell us.



...AND blame Nencini for it.

This is never going to go anywhere.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox is a broken woman, fearing she may yet pay for her crime

SHE HAS become one of the most notorious murderers in recent history.

By: Marco Giannangeli, Mike Parker

Published: Sun, February 2, 2014



SUNDAY EXPRESS

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
I must say, I don't understand what exactly is the problem with Nencini granting an interview.

Is it generally forbidden for a judge to do that? In that case they are in the right criticising him. I understood that when Judge Hellmann made his declarations after his controversial ruling, it was the content of the message that raised eyebrows, not the fact that he spoke to the media.

So either both judges need to be admonished for giving interviews or they have to critics have to shut up.

That's my view.



It's not forbidden, but there are limits on what he's allowed to say.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
Amanda Knox Case: US, UK Can’t Agree
5:05PM Sunday, February 2, 2014
http://www.630wpro.com/common/more.php? ... 40A&mode=2

(On news headlines)



Sigh. It seems to me that there are certain people desperately trying to make this about the UK V USA (and likewise, Italy V USA), rather then about three people that raped and murdered an innocent girl. Of course, it is in the interests of Knox and by extension Sollecito, that this is politicised and made about flags.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

And, totally off topic, this would be the latest addition to the family ... along with my daughter's humorous observation.
Top Profile 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

What a beautiful granddaughter, Jester. Congratulations!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Congratulations Jester!

That is a great photo.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

How ADORABLE!! Blessings.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Congratulations on the bambino :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

She's beautiful, Jester! She already looks like she knows what's going on. I think you've got yourself a handful there!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
I must say, I don't understand what exactly is the problem with Nencini granting an interview.

Is it generally forbidden for a judge to do that? In that case they are in the right criticising him. I understood that when Judge Hellmann made his declarations after his controversial ruling, it was the content of the message that raised eyebrows, not the fact that he spoke to the media.

So either both judges need to be admonished for giving interviews or they have to critics have to shut up.

That's my view.



It's not forbidden, but there are limits on what he's allowed to say.



If you ask me, I think it's just a bunch of noise, misdirecting the headlines away from the Austria jaunt.
Best defense is a good offense, or something like that. But how would I know? I picked Denver.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Pandemonium at my house! Half-time. Thank God all of the performers have all of their clothes on. Children are watching.

ETA: Spoke too soon. Off came the shirts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks ... if this little grand daughter is anything like my daughter, then it's karma. When my daughter was 15 years old, she and a friend sneaked out of their rooms at boarding school, stuffed their beds with pillows, hopped a train from Leysin to Lausanne, where they booked a hotel, went clubbing, and returned to school the following day, only to discover that they'd been caught. They didn't kill anyone. They didn't get arrested. They didn't commit any crimes. They didn't get stoned out of their minds. They didn't get so drunk they couldn't function. They didn't even lie to me about what happened. In fact, at 15, they conducted themselves far more honourably than Knox has ever done.

Every step of the way, Knox has made the wrong choice, and she's still making the wrong choices. Knox should have repaid her debt to Patrick. She requested an appeal, and she should have had the decency to attend the hearings. Her parents should have escorted her if she was afraid. Now that she is a convicted murderer, she makes the wrong decision and pretends that she is a celebrity. She creates media opportunities so she can get more money for telling more lies. What a disgrace.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Thanks ... if this little grand daughter is anything like my daughter, then it's karma. When my daughter was 15 years old, she and a friend sneaked out of their rooms at boarding school, stuffed their beds with pillows, hopped a train from Leysin to Lausanne, where they booked a hotel, went clubbing, and returned to school the following day, only to discover that they'd been caught. They didn't kill anyone. They didn't get arrested. They didn't commit any crimes. They didn't get stoned out of their minds. They didn't get so drunk they couldn't function. They didn't even lie to me about what happened. In fact, at 15, they conducted themselves far more honourably than Knox has ever done.

Every step of the way, Knox has made the wrong choice, and she's still making the wrong choices. Knox should have repaid her debt to Patrick. She requested an appeal, and she should have had the decency to attend the hearings. Her parents should have escorted her if she was afraid. Now that she is a convicted murderer, she makes the wrong decision and pretends that she is a celebrity. She creates media opportunities so she can get more money for telling more lies. What a disgrace.


Ah, karma. I have only one child. I used to pray every day for God to fill my house with children. I guess it takes 20 years for a prayer to reach God's ear sometimes. I can't throw a shoe without hitting one of them!

As for Knox, she certainly has had a good deal of help in following the path she has chosen. Even now, the hand-holding interviewers and the supportive tones gently egg her on. While it was and always will be HER choice to tell the truth, it's obvious that there are far too many people surrounding her who have a vested interest in maintaining the innocent story line. Mentally and emotionally, I don't see how she will be able to keep this up forever.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

She's a pyscopath. And totally empty. Her truth is that Meredith deserved it :(

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Looks like Amanda was in New York for the Super Bowl with her 'boyfriend'! Wonder how much he gets paid for each appearance he makes with her? Did he have to sign a contract like the one Kasey Kay didn't sign!?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ew-3106838
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Howdy! Outstanding addition to the Family, Jester.

IMO, not extraditing would not only affect Italy relations, but UK, too.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Jester wrote:
Thanks ... if this little grand daughter is anything like my daughter, then it's karma. When my daughter was 15 years old, she and a friend sneaked out of their rooms at boarding school, stuffed their beds with pillows, hopped a train from Leysin to Lausanne, where they booked a hotel, went clubbing, and returned to school the following day, only to discover that they'd been caught. They didn't kill anyone. They didn't get arrested. They didn't commit any crimes. They didn't get stoned out of their minds. They didn't get so drunk they couldn't function. They didn't even lie to me about what happened. In fact, at 15, they conducted themselves far more honourably than Knox has ever done.

Every step of the way, Knox has made the wrong choice, and she's still making the wrong choices. Knox should have repaid her debt to Patrick. She requested an appeal, and she should have had the decency to attend the hearings. Her parents should have escorted her if she was afraid. Now that she is a convicted murderer, she makes the wrong decision and pretends that she is a celebrity. She creates media opportunities so she can get more money for telling more lies. What a disgrace.


Ah, karma. I have only one child. I used to pray every day for God to fill my house with children. I guess it takes 20 years for a prayer to reach God's ear sometimes. I can't throw a shoe without hitting one of them!

As for Knox, she certainly has had a good deal of help in following the path she has chosen. Even now, the hand-holding interviewers and the supportive tones gently egg her on. While it was and always will be HER choice to tell the truth, it's obvious that there are far too many people surrounding her who have a vested interest in maintaining the innocent story line. Mentally and emotionally, I don't see how she will be able to keep this up forever.


I have three children, and two have offspring, so I'm in perpetual disguise, hoping no one will ever take me for a grand mother.

Knox has had a good deal of help, especially from those that profit by portraying her as a child who was wrongfully convicted abroad. The tone is set by finances rather than truth, so myth and half truths are welcome. I think Knox will keep it up as long as she profits, but it's already taking it's toll. She talks in circles. We heard what she had to say when she was released from prison. She repeated herself in her book. Now, she's repeating herself again. One would expect that her perspective, or a detail, might be added at some point during the past three years, but nothing has changed. It's the same story, over and over again. People tune in because they expect something new, but that will soon stop for those few that are still interested in the woe is me, you can't make me rant.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Emerald wrote:
Howdy! Outstanding addition to the Family, Jester.

IMO, not extraditing would not only affect Italy relations, but UK, too.


It does sound like the UK has stepped up to the plate by stating expectations in terms of honouring extradition treaties. If Canada voices an opinion, which of course only happens when the Prime Minister is in a singing/piano playing mood, it will be impossible for the US to refuse without suffering consequences. I don't think the Prime Minister is in a piano mood these days, so nothing to worry about for now.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aranavachi wrote:
Looks like Amanda was in New York for the Super Bowl with her 'boyfriend'! Wonder how much he gets paid for each appearance he makes with her? Did he have to sign a contract like the one Kasey Kay didn't sign!?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ew-3106838


On again, off again, no real seriousness and future to the relationship? I'm happy to know that she has a friend that is male. Does Mad Pax live in the apartment downstairs from Knox? Did I hear that right in the pre-verdict interview. Perhaps Knox discovered that she prefers the company of women after her jail stint.

I'm pretty sure that Kelsey Kay was offered money, as there is no other reason for her to have met Sollecito's banker in the two days that they were together. I think the musician probably remains silent because he's sees himself as a musical poet, and it's unbecoming for a poet to gossip.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
She's a pyscopath. And totally empty. Her truth is that Meredith deserved it :(


In Knox's own words:

"She fucking bled to death"
"Yah, shit happens"
Top Profile 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
capealadin wrote:
She's a pyscopath. And totally empty. Her truth is that Meredith deserved it :(


In Knox's own words:

"She fucking bled to death"
"Yah, shit happens"


Congratulations jetser. Though I haven't commented often, I enjoy reading your comments.

The 'best truth' she could think of!

Analyze the statement - This says it all: 'everything I have said about my involvement with Meredith's murder' Amanda knox bricks-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hey everybody,

here's my last translation for today. Not much new in this story; we have already heard it all.

Judgment Mez, storm unleashed on Nencini

It's a real storm that was unleashed on Alessandro Nencini following an interview published yesterday by Corriere della Sera. The President of the Second Chamber of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of the Court of Florence retraced with the Via Solferino newspaper a few ‘hot’ moments that preceded the ruling on Wednesday (sic) when Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were sentenced to 28 and 25 years for the murder of Meredith Kercher .

"I have children myself, it was a painful conviction," said Nencini, without, however, giving anything away about the reasons for the sentence or revealing details about what happened in closed session. In the interview, Nencini accentuated the idea that the Court has formed about what might have happened that night in Via della Pergola . "We have a conviction and the sentence in the process of being explained - the judge said to the newspaper - At the moment , I can say that until 20:15 that night , the young people had different plans , then the commitments are skipped and it has created an opportunity ." The murder would then have matured by almost a coincidence . "It was a thing between young people , there have been coincidences and on this we have developed a line of reasoning . I am aware that it will be the most controversial. "

"The case is definitely serious. Monday (tomorrow, ed) will decide whether to request the opening of a (disciplinary} procedure in the First Committee . " To say so is an adviser to the Supreme Judicial Council [SCM], Nicolò Zanon , secular Forza Italia , announcing that his group intends to mobilize. Nencini needs to “shut up" - said Zanon , who adds: "For the involvement of the CSM , I think there are all the elements , also considering international attention on the case." And the fact that the episode of the interview took place after the similar case of the Supreme Court Judge Antonio Esposito , who gave an interview on the sentencing of Silvio Berlusconi prior to the filing of the judgment given by the college that he himself presided over, 'aggravates' the position of the judge in Florence.

"I’ll not go into the merits of the interview, but the fact that the presiding judge releases statements prior to the filing of the motivations and the day after a ruling … is inappropriate ." This harsh criticism at President Nencini by ANM , Rodolfo Sabelli. "I realize now that the information is dictated by the age of the Internet and that there is an urgent need for immediacy, but justice has its time and should be respected , especially by judges," says Sabelli. According to the ANM leader, the danger is " that it creates confusion ." Sabelli reminds that the ANM has repeatedly reiterated that "it is unfortunate for the holder of a trial, a judge, to give interviews, comments and explanations relating to the facts of the process, especially prior to the filing of the reasons" and did so again in the analogous case of Judge of the Supreme Court Antonio Esposito . We say, he adds, " let's put a stop to the spread of a habit of immediate intervention by the magistrate , which is not to say that judges should sew their mouths shut, but that, when it comes to the contents of the trials, they deal with it with maximum caution."


GIORNALE DELL'UMBRIA

My opinion: it will lead to nothing. It's an obvious attempt by the Sollecito defense team to discredit the judge, and their critique of his interview is hard to follow.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yes.......Maddie lives downstairs. As Guermantes said: The holding hands was a bit much. I mean..I don't care if she's gay. I adore my gay friends. They're the best. But..it goes a long way to explaining Maddie's move to Italy...her total denial that Knox isn't a paragon of virtue.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Emerald wrote:
Howdy! Outstanding addition to the Family, Jester.

IMO, not extraditing would not only affect Italy relations, but UK, too.


Good to see you again!
I haven't met the young lady yet, but perhaps after dad goes back to work.

Not extraditing could get all sorts of international attention. Either the international treaty laws are followed, or they are not, but it's not optional to refuse when all criteria are met:

- Knox is not facing prosecution again in Italy for an offence that has already been dealt with by the U.S.,
- provide a brief statement of the facts of the case,
- provide the text of the laws governing the crime committed,
- provide the punishment the person would receive, and;
- provide its statute of limitations.

All documents will be provided. There is no grounds for refusal, and the UK seems to be pointing that out.
Top Profile 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I'm hearing a new message from Knox to her followers . Good morning America and now her blog ,it seems she is asking them to look beyond herself and see the bigger picture of injustice. A call to arms for the cause of all those wrongly convicted. This way those nagging doubts about evidence can be eased with a bigger crusade with Knox joining well known wrongfully convicted like Ryan Ferguson. So help to fix a broken system rather then discover the huge cracks in her story. Distract with a cause is her hope for gathering support.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Okay, here's a 'Google + me' translation of the Il Messaggero article (see one of max's posts above):

Meredith process, onslaught against Judge (Nencini). CSM and ANM: his words are inopportune. Lawyers for Sollecito: reopen all (the whole process)

Controversy erupts after the interview of the judge Nencini with Messaggero

Set aside the judgment of conviction and [initiate] disciplinary action against the magistrate. The interview with Il Messaggero of Alessandro Nencini , President of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence, who sentenced Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher, has offered a pretext not just to defense lawyers. For Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, Raffaele‘s lawyers , it is "serious and unacceptable" that Nencini "has commented publicly on what happened in the council chamber and is driven to criticize the defensive strategy of Sollecito ." The chairman of the court [Nencini] is hiding behind a "no comment." But the storm which struck around him, reminds me so much of the one that last summer hit Antonio Esposito, the president of the working section of the Supreme Court who, after declaring Silvio Berlusconi guilty of tax evasion, gave an interview to Il Mattino.

Without making the necessary distinctions between the high rate of "political" statements that concerned the trial of former Prime Minister and the explanatory tone used by Nencini on the reasons which led the court to lean towards the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele , the current controversy did not have to wait long . The president of the National Magistrates, Rodolfo Sabelli , called "inappropriate per se the fact that the presiding judge releases statements prior to the filing of the motivations on the day after a ruling when public interest is high ." The gist (script) of the reactions is more or less the same as it was with Esposito.

THE CSM
The Superior Council of Magistracy will soon be interested in Nencini. "The case is definitely serious. Monday will decide whether to request the opening of a disciplinary action before the Commission, " announced the director of the CSM Nicolò Zanon , secular Forza Italia . This committee is in charge of the office relocation for environmental or functional incompatibility of the judiciary, and is the same that was also interested in Esposito . The disciplinary measure, however, is a power that can be exercised only by the Attorney General of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice. For Esposito were active both, but in the end it was the PG Gianfranco Ciani to initiate disciplinary action .

THE MINISTER
On the case of Nencini the Minister Annamaria Cancellieri at this time would not be inclined to carry out investigations. "I do not comment on judgments ," was her only reply to those who, on the occasion of a conference of criminologists in Florence, asked for an interview. Most likely, at this point, that the investigation is initiated by the PG of the Supreme Court , which, unlike the Chancellors has an obligation and the right not to intervene.

LAWYERS
What fires up (inflames) Sollecito’s lawyers is that in the interview Nencini not only entered into the merits of the motive for the crime (murder on impulse, "born on a boys night out"), but also criticized the choice of the defense of Raffaele not to submit to an adversarial questioning.
"We ask first - fought back Bongiorno and Maori - if the President Nencini speaks on behalf of all the jurors and whether his words on the non-interrogation (lack of testimony) of Raffaele Sollecito mean that, if he had accused Amanda Knox, he would have been acquitted. " The fact that Raffaele was not heard in the courtroom is an ‘anomaly' detected the other day by the same Bongiorno . Who, however, had pointed out , that the interrogation must be requested by the prosecutor. Raffaele had subsequently made voluntary statements ." Armed with the utterances of Nencini, lawyers now will aim to question even the "legitimacy" of the guilty verdict.


IL MESSAGGERO

Anybody know what happened to Esposito as a result of disciplinary action against him?


I checked with my sources, guermantes, and Esposito was admonished by the Cassazione Special Magistrate as a result of their own internal action, not a complaint by Berlusconi's defense lawyers.

Giulia Bongiorno has a history of making these threats but not following up with them. In this case she's complaining not that he said he'd have acquitted RS if the two were separated, but, revealing that the defense tried to have a separate trial and throw Amanda under the bus. His comment, that RS should then have spoken up in court, was perfectly understandable under the circumstances. Still, it was naïve of him to say what he did. I expected him to be a little more circumspect, but this will not have any impact on Cassazione's eventual ruling.

What interests me is his revealing (or implying anyway) it was not a unanimous decision. Again, so what? A majority is ll that's required for conviction, and I expect the report will now be even more carefully written. Some time in April, I think.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
...In this case she's complaining not that he said he'd have acquitted RS if the two were separated, but, revealing that the defense tried to have a separate trial and throw Amanda under the bus. His comment, that RS should then have spoken up in court, was perfectly understandable under the circumstances...


I would interpret Nencini's comments as an indication that, without benefit of seeing Raffles take the stand and face cross-examination, the court had nothing upon which to draw the inference that Raffles played a minor role (that nevertheless resulted in his lies to police, the presence of his DNA inside the "murder room", the presence of Meredith's DNA on the blade of a knife in his kitchen, a bloody bathmat print with the dimensions of his foot, etc.).

To wit, the triers didn't hold his silence against him but, rightfully, they also didn't use it as an opportunity to 'imagine' scenarios wholly unsupported by any testimony/evidence.

A reasonable doubt is not an 'imaginary' doubt.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Some info on the Esposito case:

Justice ministry opens probe into Berlusconi judge interview

I believe the case against him has been archived in the meantime (I'm still searching the web for an article in English, on how it ended.)

Berlusconi, the Committee asks the CSM to close the procedure against Judge Esposito
November 7, 2013

Quote:
The first committee of the High Council of the Magistracy (CSM ) has proposed to close the file open in the summer on statements made in a newspaper by the President of the working section of the Supreme Court which sentenced August 1 last year , former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for tax evasion.
..
"The first committee of the High Council of the Judiciary unanimously resolved in its meeting today , to propose to the plenum to close the case of transfer for environmental and functional incompatibility of Dr.Antonio Esposito, initiated following an interview given to the newspaper Il Mattino , without prejudice to the powers of the holders of the disciplinary action already invested in the story," says the press release .

The decision is now up to the plenum of the CSM , the self-governing body of judges , chaired by the President of the Republic. If the procedure was archived, the Chairman of the Board of the Supreme Court , therefore, would not transfer Esposito's office.

Instigated the issue was the request for disciplinary assessment advanced by three lay members - that is, not the courts - the PDL share in the CSM, after the publication of an interview of Esposito with Il Mattino.

The statements of Esposito - who had denied having responded to specific questions on the former prime minister and entered into the merits of the verdict - had provoked a strong reaction on the part of Berlusconi's lawyers and the PDL and were deemed " inappropriate " by the first President of the Supreme Court , Giorgio Santacroce .


REUTERS (ITALY)

It's interesting to note that the disciplinary action against Esposito was initiated by members of the PDL faction in the CSM; in other words, members of the Berlusconi party.

In the case of Nencini, it seems that members of Forza Italia are going to take the lead. I'm just wondering, is Giulia Bongiorno a member of that party by any chance? (I'm a bit ignorant and don't know anything about her political affiliations.)
Quote:
...an adviser to the Supreme Judicial Council [SCM], Nicolò Zanon, secular Forza Italia , announcing that his group intends to mobilize.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
I'm hearing a new message from Knox to her followers . Good morning America and now her blog ,it seems she is asking them to look beyond herself and see the bigger picture of injustice. A call to arms for the cause of all those wrongly convicted. This way those nagging doubts about evidence can be eased with a bigger crusade with Knox joining well known wrongfully convicted like Ryan Ferguson. So help to fix a broken system rather then discover the huge cracks in her story. Distract with a cause is her hope for gathering support.


It's all a bit confusing about fixing a broken system if one system has nothing to do with the other. Ferguson was wrongfully convicted on the basis of eye witness testimony - a bit like Knox accusing Patrick. In the Ferguson US case, investigators did not seek the truth. In the Knox Italy case, investigators did seek the truth and Patrick was released. Upon further investigation, Knox was arrested.

The US system might need some fixing, but so far the Italian systems doesn't seem broken.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

No comment :mrgreen:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ew-3106838
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Is he radical Mormon, disguised as an orthodox Jew without the hair, Rasputin, does he pluck his eyebrows?
And what is she, the matronly hausfrau?
Halloween forever?

The strange behaviour first recognized by the prosecutor is still evident today.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
I'm hearing a new message from Knox to her followers . Good morning America and now her blog ,it seems she is asking them to look beyond herself and see the bigger picture of injustice. A call to arms for the cause of all those wrongly convicted. This way those nagging doubts about evidence can be eased with a bigger crusade with Knox joining well known wrongfully convicted like Ryan Ferguson. So help to fix a broken system rather then discover the huge cracks in her story. Distract with a cause is her hope for gathering support.


I think media interests are looking to create some sort of marketing synergy between Knox's underperforming book and Ryan's yet-to-be-published story (a cute pair of "wrongfully convicted" college kids that soccer moms will love - read how Knox's book kept Ryan going during his darkest days - you know the shtick).

I'm not at all sure Ryan will be able to sue the state in his case, so this may be his best (if not his only) option. Pity.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jackie wrote:
Ergon wrote:
...In this case she's complaining not that he said he'd have acquitted RS if the two were separated, but, revealing that the defense tried to have a separate trial and throw Amanda under the bus. His comment, that RS should then have spoken up in court, was perfectly understandable under the circumstances...


I would interpret Nencini's comments as an indication that, without benefit of seeing Raffles take the stand and face cross-examination, the court had nothing upon which to draw the inference that Raffles played a minor role (that nevertheless resulted in his lies to police, the presence of his DNA inside the "murder room", the presence of Meredith's DNA on the blade of a knife in his kitchen, a bloody bathmat print with the dimensions of his foot, etc.).

To wit, the triers didn't hold his silence against him but, rightfully, they also didn't use it as an opportunity to 'imagine' scenarios wholly unsupported by any testimony/evidence.

A reasonable doubt is not an 'imaginary' doubt.



"A reasonable doubt is not an 'imaginary' doubt."

What a great line! Hampikian is asking the court to have reasonable doubt because the DNA could have been contaminated, but never mind about even one clear explanation , or example, of this hypothetical contamination. Instead, the court was asked to imagine - Imaginary Doubt. It's not surprising that Hellman was annulled. He imagined that each piece of evidence should be individually evaluated and if it was possible to concoct an explanation for each piece of evidence, then it was reasonable to toss first each piece of evidence, and then the case.

If Hampikian is the basis for the DNA can't really be sorted out opinion, and Halkidies is the basis for the DNA Flies opinion, and the request for reasonable doubt means that anything is possible, it's not surprising that the verdict was affirmed.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester..I'm going with Al Qaeda. ( shiver)....

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jackie wrote:
malvern wrote:
I'm hearing a new message from Knox to her followers . Good morning America and now her blog ,it seems she is asking them to look beyond herself and see the bigger picture of injustice. A call to arms for the cause of all those wrongly convicted. This way those nagging doubts about evidence can be eased with a bigger crusade with Knox joining well known wrongfully convicted like Ryan Ferguson. So help to fix a broken system rather then discover the huge cracks in her story. Distract with a cause is her hope for gathering support.


I think media interests are looking to create some sort of marketing synergy between Knox's underperforming book and Ryan's yet-to-be-published story (a cute pair of "wrongfully convicted" college kids that soccer moms will love - read how Knox's book kept Ryan going during his darkest days - you know the shtick).

I'm not at all sure Ryan will be able to sue the state in his case, so this may be his best (if not his only) option. Pity.


I hope Ryan figures it out sooner than later. Ryan was falsely accused of murder by his friend. Patrick was falsely accused of murder by Knox. In Ryan's case, investigators failed to do the job and he spent 10 years in prison. In Patrick's case, investigators did their job and Patrick was released. Knox spent four years in prison for her other conviction.

Ryan has more in common with Patrick than Knox. What is he thinking!
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
Jester..I'm going with Al Qaeda. ( shiver)....


The Middle East look ... Muslim hadn't even crossed my mind as a Halloween Costume, or disguise. You might be right.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
"A reasonable doubt is not an 'imaginary' doubt."

What a great line! Hampikian is asking the court to have reasonable doubt because the DNA could have been contaminated, but never mind about even one clear explanation , or example, of this hypothetical contamination. Instead, the court was asked to imagine - Imaginary Doubt. It's not surprising that Hellman was annulled. He imagined that each piece of evidence should be individually evaluated and if it was possible to concoct an explanation for each piece of evidence, then it was reasonable to toss first each piece of evidence, and then the case.

If Hampikian is the basis for the DNA can't really be sorted out opinion, and Halkidies is the basis for the DNA Flies opinion, and the request for reasonable doubt means that anything is possible, it's not surprising that the verdict was affirmed.


"A reasonable doubt is an actual and substantial doubt ... as distinguished from a doubt arising from mere possibility, from bare imagination, or from fanciful conjecture."

This instruction to jurors was endorsed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Victor v. Nebraska (92-8894), 511 U.S. 1 (1994).
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jackie wrote:

"A reasonable doubt is an actual and substantial doubt ... as distinguished from a doubt arising from mere possibility, from bare imagination, or from fanciful conjecture."

This instruction to jurors was endorsed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Victor v. Nebraska (92-8894), 511 U.S. 1 (1994).


Thank you!
A substantial doubt would not allow for "anything is possible" when responding to questions about how contamination occurred.

Anything is possible is "bare imagination".
Top Profile 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jackie wrote:
Ergon wrote:
...In this case she's complaining not that he said he'd have acquitted RS if the two were separated, but, revealing that the defense tried to have a separate trial and throw Amanda under the bus. His comment, that RS should then have spoken up in court, was perfectly understandable under the circumstances...


I would interpret Nencini's comments as an indication that, without benefit of seeing Raffles take the stand and face cross-examination, the court had nothing upon which to draw the inference that Raffles played a minor role (that nevertheless resulted in his lies to police, the presence of his DNA inside the "murder room", the presence of Meredith's DNA on the blade of a knife in his kitchen, a bloody bathmat print with the dimensions of his foot, etc.).

To wit, the triers didn't hold his silence against him but, rightfully, they also didn't use it as an opportunity to 'imagine' scenarios wholly unsupported by any testimony/evidence.

A reasonable doubt is not an 'imaginary' doubt.



Thats exactly what I think! I am also wondering how Sollecito father and son are reacting to this comment. Does he feel that he should have taken the stand? Did his lawyers advise him against it? If I were him, I would not be happy. Just saying....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aranavachi wrote:
Jackie wrote:
Ergon wrote:
...In this case she's complaining not that he said he'd have acquitted RS if the two were separated, but, revealing that the defense tried to have a separate trial and throw Amanda under the bus. His comment, that RS should then have spoken up in court, was perfectly understandable under the circumstances...


I would interpret Nencini's comments as an indication that, without benefit of seeing Raffles take the stand and face cross-examination, the court had nothing upon which to draw the inference that Raffles played a minor role (that nevertheless resulted in his lies to police, the presence of his DNA inside the "murder room", the presence of Meredith's DNA on the blade of a knife in his kitchen, a bloody bathmat print with the dimensions of his foot, etc.).

To wit, the triers didn't hold his silence against him but, rightfully, they also didn't use it as an opportunity to 'imagine' scenarios wholly unsupported by any testimony/evidence.

A reasonable doubt is not an 'imaginary' doubt.



Thats exactly what I think! I am also wondering how Sollecito father and son are reacting to this comment. Does he feel that he should have taken the stand? Did his lawyers advise him against it? If I were him, I would not be happy. Just saying....


Did the Judge say: "A reasonable doubt is not an 'imaginary' doubt."?

I don't think that Sollecito could take the stand. His position at the outset was that he would protect Foxy Knoxy first, that he would account for himself second. He couldn't have presented a clear viewpoint if his objectives were unclear to himself. When the US citizenship contract marriage to Knox (Plan B) was refused by Knox (on the basis of having a band playing master of disguises by her side), Sollecito understood that although he'd stood beside his co-conspirator for 6 years, she didn't have his back.

Perhaps an appeal can be made on the basis that the trials should have been separated at the beginning? Perhaps this is what Bongiorno means by "ping pong".
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
...Did the Judge say: "A reasonable doubt is not an 'imaginary' doubt."?.


The Supreme Court endorsed jury instructions phrased thusly:

"Reasonable doubt ... is not mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs ... is open to some possible or imaginary doubt."

Adding that RD is doubt which is "substantial" in the sense that it is "not seeming or imaginary".
Top Profile 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It really is too late for them to separate the trials. Should have been done from the beginning, but knife boy objected, bongiorno ends up having to defend two clients, they deny knife boy's book saying that Luca Maori tried to throw Knox under the bus, and now they're complaining that Nencini let slip they were indeed trying to do just that?

I don't see that argument getting very far at the Supreme Court.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

JT does indeed look like the very young Osama Bin Laden. Not the best image for Middle America to get behind, somehow. Though I can imagine him getting just a little bit nervous if she came near him with a razor :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aranavachi wrote:
Jackie wrote:
Ergon wrote:
...In this case she's complaining not that he said he'd have acquitted RS if the two were separated, but, revealing that the defense tried to have a separate trial and throw Amanda under the bus. His comment, that RS should then have spoken up in court, was perfectly understandable under the circumstances...


I would interpret Nencini's comments as an indication that, without benefit of seeing Raffles take the stand and face cross-examination, the court had nothing upon which to draw the inference that Raffles played a minor role (that nevertheless resulted in his lies to police, the presence of his DNA inside the "murder room", the presence of Meredith's DNA on the blade of a knife in his kitchen, a bloody bathmat print with the dimensions of his foot, etc.).

To wit, the triers didn't hold his silence against him but, rightfully, they also didn't use it as an opportunity to 'imagine' scenarios wholly unsupported by any testimony/evidence.

A reasonable doubt is not an 'imaginary' doubt.



Thats exactly what I think! I am also wondering how Sollecito father and son are reacting to this comment. Does he feel that he should have taken the stand? Did his lawyers advise him against it? If I were him, I would not be happy. Just saying....


1) I think the right to remain silent is often a defendant's greatest weapon against the state; 2) In light of Raffles' tendency to offer up a litany of apparent lies, contradictions & inconsistencies when attempting to address the inculpatory evidence in this case, I think there is a distinct possibility that he would have been his own worst enemy under cross-examination; & 3) I think at least one of his lawyers is quite smart. Accordingly, I highly doubt that RS was advised to take the stand.

I suspect that, at this point, his lawyers are just trying to make the most of any straw they can grab at.
Top Profile 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jackie wrote:
Aranavachi wrote:
Jackie wrote:
Ergon wrote:
...In this case she's complaining not that he said he'd have acquitted RS if the two were separated, but, revealing that the defense tried to have a separate trial and throw Amanda under the bus. His comment, that RS should then have spoken up in court, was perfectly understandable under the circumstances...


I would interpret Nencini's comments as an indication that, without benefit of seeing Raffles take the stand and face cross-examination, the court had nothing upon which to draw the inference that Raffles played a minor role (that nevertheless resulted in his lies to police, the presence of his DNA inside the "murder room", the presence of Meredith's DNA on the blade of a knife in his kitchen, a bloody bathmat print with the dimensions of his foot, etc.).

To wit, the triers didn't hold his silence against him but, rightfully, they also didn't use it as an opportunity to 'imagine' scenarios wholly unsupported by any testimony/evidence.

A reasonable doubt is not an 'imaginary' doubt.



Thats exactly what I think! I am also wondering how Sollecito father and son are reacting to this comment. Does he feel that he should have taken the stand? Did his lawyers advise him against it? If I were him, I would not be happy. Just saying....


1) I think the right to remain silent is often a defendant's greatest weapon against the state; 2) In light of Raffles' tendency to offer up a litany of apparent lies, contradictions & inconsistencies when attempting to address the inculpatory evidence in this case, I think there is a distinct possibility that he would have been his own worst enemy under cross-examination; & 3) I think at least one of his lawyers is quite smart. Accordingly, I highly doubt that RS was advised to take the stand.

I suspect that, at this point, his lawyers are just trying to make the most of any straw they can grab at.


I dont disagree with you, however I think if he took the stand he would have had a fighting chance to convince the jury. His lawyers could have seen that the evidence was staked against him and should have advised him to speak. They could have co-ordinated some answers and given it a shot! At this level of appeal it was the better of the two evils. Especially as the appeal progressed and they could see how things were not unfolding the way they should. h-)) When he announced he would be there on the last day, I half expected him to make a go of talking about the actual crime time and what he claims he was doing (instead of whining about how his life was taken away v-)) ). Not even cross examination, but in his own words an explanation of what he was doing that evening! Is this not what an innocent person would do?! Clarify what happened that evening and let his lawyers dismiss the physical evidence, that to me is a winning combination.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Kelsey Kay was offered money, as there is no other reason for her to have met Sollecito's banker in the two days that they were together. I think the musician probably remains silent because he's sees himself as a musical poet, and it's unbecoming for a poet to gossip.



One has to laugh. With normal people, when a relationship gets serious, one meets the parents. With Sollecito, one instead meets his banker.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aranavachi wrote:
I dont disagree with you, however I think if he took the stand he would have had a fighting chance to convince the jury. His lawyers could have seen that the evidence was staked against him and should have advised him to speak. They could have co-ordinated some answers and given it a shot!


Do you recall Sollecito's disastrous "practice run" online question and answer sessions on AskFm? Now, could you imagine him under cross examination by savvy prosecutors, lawyers and judges? Enough said.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
JT does indeed look like the very young Osama Bin Laden. Not the best image for Middle America to get behind, somehow. Though I can imagine him getting just a little bit nervous if she came near him with a razor :)



No, he certainly doesn't look very "apple pie", does he?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Aranavachi wrote:
I dont disagree with you, however I think if he took the stand he would have had a fighting chance to convince the jury. His lawyers could have seen that the evidence was staked against him and should have advised him to speak. They could have co-ordinated some answers and given it a shot!


Do you recall Sollecito's disastrous "practice run" online question and answer sessions on AskFm? Now, could you imagine him under cross examination by savvy prosecutors, lawyers and judges? Enough said.


That's why I am saying he could have simply spoken about the day of the crime and what he was doing - without being questioned. I mean if a person is innocent and appealing a guilty verdict which is going against him as it was - would said person not need to get up and explain what was happening?!? If he can't even come up with a coherent story and put it together - one which doesn't contradict the evidence - then why should a jury imagine what he may have been doing?!? It's a lost cause. If I were advising him, I would have urged him to consider this option instead of keeping his fingers crossed. p-)) this is just my opinion...

Unless I misunderstand and he was not allowed to make such a spontaneous statement... In that case with the benefit of hindsight he would have had a better chance.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Without being questioned? Then it's a spontaneous declaration and as it's not subject to cross-examination it carries very little legal weight. For his statements to the court to have actually counted in any meaningful way he would have had to have submitted himself to cross-examination. Otherwise, the judges, with grounds, would have reasoned that if his statements were suddenly truthful why then not submit himself to cross? Cross-examination is a court's primary means of testing the veracity of statements. In refusing to submit to cross-examination, one is refusing to have the truth of their statements tested. That means that their statements carry little or no legal value at best and at worst, is suggestive that they're not speaking the truth.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Seems to have no affect on this case, but still sad that they go after Nencini for saying 3 words in an interview.

Quote:
Meredith bis: Judge Nencini will be tried before the CSM for being 'not fair'

Legal storm for Alessandro Nencini, President of the Assize Court of Appeal of Florence who was in charge of the 'appeal on a' murder of Meredith Kercher: the judge, only 24 hours after reading the device with which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were sentenced for the second time for the murder of a student in Perugia, released statements 'hot' about the dynamics of the proceedings that had characterized the re-evaluation of the case after the postponement of the Supreme Court and, in particular, on the fact concerning the refusal to undergo new questioning by Sollecito.

Well, in reference to his behavior deemed "not fair", Nicolò Zanon-lay member of the CSM-announced that tomorrow will be the promoter of the initiative formally charged Nencini opening a practice before the First Committee of the CSM , in support of its request, Zanon will bring a judgment of the Court of Human Rights in which it was previously sanctioned the lack of impartiality in relation to the conduct of a judge, a process still in progress, expressed views on the conduct of the case of a defendant . In his discharge Nencini, however, could bring another ruling where, for the same reason, the MSM had filed the case as presented discipinari profiles.

Nencini could go against, if the CSM uphold the initiative of Zanon, a transfer due to incompatibility with the office of Florence or its functions; Nencini also may be exposed to further proceedings before the CSM for violation of Article . 6 of the code of ethics for judges who impose measure and balance the courts in issuing statements and interviews.

http://www.theblazonedpress.it/website/ ... ale/102468
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I think that is still the news from yesterday by the way. Nothing new today. I thought that Zanon guy was some leading figure but seems like he is just an adviser. Where is Zorba by the way? Busy?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Well, the vultures are certainly going to circle as this is such a high profile case...and the defence is running screeching to the media. It would be strange if there was no response to it at all.

Zorba does tend to go off for holidays. I'm sure he'll be back soon enough.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

RS in an interview.
http://www.lastampa.it/2014/02/03/itali ... agina.html
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ted Simon is now Amanda Knoxs' own personal state department attorney, according to the Daily Express yesterday:

Knox has been allocated her own state department attorney Ted Simon, while Italy's interests (which can only be declared after this latest ruling is bureaucratically confirmed) are in the hands of the Justice Department.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/457504/She-is-a-broken-woman-fearing-she-may-yet-pay-for-her-crime
Top Profile 

Offline DoctorRadias


Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Ted Simon is now Amanda Knoxs' own personal state department attorney, according to the Daily Express yesterday:

Knox has been allocated her own state department attorney Ted Simon, while Italy's interests (which can only be declared after this latest ruling is bureaucratically confirmed) are in the hands of the Justice Department.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/457504/She-is-a-broken-woman-fearing-she-may-yet-pay-for-her-crime


its a rehash of an express story from a few weeks back
"her lawyer Ann Bremner told the Sunday Express."

the words "salt, complete, pinch, bollocks" spring to mind.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox writes letter to convince Italian court of her innocence
Her plea went unheeded by the courts,
By Harry Alsop
1:34PM GMT 03 Feb 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... cence.html

Mandy's eight-page letter to the court in full length (yawn).
I agree with her on the kitchen knife though. It wasn't carried from Raffaele's flat to the cottage for self-protection but probably for other reasons.

"I didn’t fear the streets of Perugia and didn’t need to carry around with me a large, cumbersome weapon which would have ripped my cloth book bag to shreds."


Last edited by Ava on Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   



Thanks for the link, max. I think I haven't read this before:

"And Meredith’s brother Lyle Kercher joined the calls for American Knox to be put behind bars in her homeland while she fights moves to be returned to Italy to serve her 28-year sentence.
Lyle said: “She should be locked up while the process goes on.
“I don’t understand why a convicted criminal is not in custody. America needs to practise what it preaches."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Okay, it seems he definitely said good-bye to his orange pants. Osama jr. now...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rdict.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Seems to have no affect on this case, but still sad that they go after Nencini for saying 3 words in an interview.

Quote:
Meredith bis: Judge Nencini will be tried before the CSM for being 'not fair'

Legal storm for Alessandro Nencini, President of the Assize Court of Appeal of Florence who was in charge of the 'appeal on a' murder of Meredith Kercher: the judge, only 24 hours after reading the device with which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were sentenced for the second time for the murder of a student in Perugia, released statements 'hot' about the dynamics of the proceedings that had characterized the re-evaluation of the case after the postponement of the Supreme Court and, in particular, on the fact concerning the refusal to undergo new questioning by Sollecito.

Well, in reference to his behavior deemed "not fair", Nicolò Zanon-lay member of the CSM-announced that tomorrow will be the promoter of the initiative formally charged Nencini opening a practice before the First Committee of the CSM , in support of its request, Zanon will bring a judgment of the Court of Human Rights in which it was previously sanctioned the lack of impartiality in relation to the conduct of a judge, a process still in progress, expressed views on the conduct of the case of a defendant . In his discharge Nencini, however, could bring another ruling where, for the same reason, the MSM had filed the case as presented discipinari profiles.

Nencini could go against, if the CSM uphold the initiative of Zanon, a transfer due to incompatibility with the office of Florence or its functions; Nencini also may be exposed to further proceedings before the CSM for violation of Article . 6 of the code of ethics for judges who impose measure and balance the courts in issuing statements and interviews.

http://www.theblazonedpress.it/website/ ... ale/102468


First, I am told that Judge Nencini's interview was within the parameters of what he's allowed to say, according to Art. 6, sec 109 of the judge's code of ethics, that relating to the public interest.

Then, the complaint brought against him was by a lay member of the CSM, Nicolo Zanon, of Forza Italia, which is Berlusconi's political party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forza_Italia so it's just political or personal, much like Dr. David Anderson filing a complaint against the 'expensive' video.

Judge Nencini might be admonished at best, but I think the CSM is more likely to see it for the political theater the complaint is. I can also see why Mario Spezi was rummaging around the court room, he and Sfarzo are bankrolled by Forza Italia, through Berlusconi's media outlets.

But I also see it as part of their long term strategy, to attack the Italian judicial system through the process of this court's actions. Theoretically, an adverse ruling from the ECHR might compel the constitutional court at Cassazione to look into and see if there were irregularities in the process, and a change to the system is required. That's why I'm waiting to see if Amanda Knox's appeal to ECHR is accepted. By the time any thing happens, of course, Cassazione may already have finalized her conviction.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Of course he ditched the orange pants, they read PMF you know. Next, young Osama might go infidel :) and ditch the beard, who knows?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Seems like it is now official that they opened a case against Nencini. Pretty sad political games.
http://www.ilsitodifirenze.it/content/1 ... o-intervis
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

'She is the Ice Maiden': Amanda Knox has reinvented herself as a teary American TV star but she was cold and unemotional when in an Italian jail, says prison guard

* Angela Antonietti - a favourite guard of Knox's at Capanne prison, Perugia
* Claims her charge never cried or showed remorse during her time inside
* Would 'sing and dance around cell' in day, and 'sleep like a baby' at night
* Amanda Knox made a defiant appearance on ABC's Good Morning America
* Refused to return to Italy after being found guilty again of murder
* Could face detention in US federal prison while contesting extradition
* Spoke of her shock at the verdict and her fears for Raffaele Sollecito

By Amanda Williams

PUBLISHED: 12:30, 1 February 2014 | UPDATED: 17:40, 1 February 2014



DAILY MAIL

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I hope it is allowed that Nencini gives an interview about the interview :)

Quote:
"Meredith process, the court Nencini reply to the accusations: "I did not intend to anticipate the motivations"

"In relation to the press articles that reported my statements on trial for the death of Meredith Kercher I intend to point out that there has been no interview organized or intended. I ran into some journalists in the corridors of the courthouse who have told me of rumors and speculation that circulated on the duration of the session. I then had a brief conversation with their intended, in my intentions, to clarify possible misunderstandings. I take responsibility for this, reaffirming that I did not in any way intended to anticipate the reasons for the sentence.

In particular, I have not expressed any opinion on the trial strategy of the defense of the accused. Indeed the only reference, however, reported in the article appeared in the Messenger, is one in which I stated that the accused were defended in the process as 'very high level'. If my words have generated misunderstandings on this point and on the absolute legality of the choice of an accused to make spontaneous statements I regret it.

These details were dutiful to the respect I owe to the people who participated in the process with me and I am proud to belong to the Order, as well as for consistency with my professional history, with over thirty years of work done without reflectors and without interviews."

http://www.gonews.it/2014/firenze-proce ... tivazioni/
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox judge faces possible disciplinary action for comments on trial
The Associated Press
Published Monday, February 3, 2014 10:14AM EST
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/amanda-knox ... -1.1668022


MILAN, Italy - The judge who announced the guilty verdicts against Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito for murder is facing allegations of impropriety.
Members of the magistrate's governing body said Monday they will request an inquiry into Florence Judge Alessandro Nencini for comments made to Italian media following Thursday's guilty verdict.
The news agency ANSA said the magistrates seeking the inquiry said Nencini had violated the secrecy of deliberations and that comments on Sollecito's trial strategy suggests "partiality." An inquiry can result in disciplinary action.

(Requesting an inquiry doesn't mean anything yet, does it?)


Last edited by Ava on Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Seems like it is now official that they opened a case against Nencini. Pretty sad political games.
http://www.ilsitodifirenze.it/content/1 ... o-intervis


As announced a few days ago , the four lay advisers of the center of the CSM (Nicolo Zanon, Alberto Albertoni , Filiberto Palumbo and Bartolomeo Romano) have asked the Executive Committee of the Superior Council of Magistracy to open a procedure in the magistrate Alessandro Nencini , President of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence, which delivered its judgment in the process of the death of Meredith Kercher , condemning Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito respectively to 28 years and six months her, and him 25 , because of the interviews the day after the reading of the sentence in which Nencini expressed opinions poorly adapted to Sollecito's behavior and motivations of the judgment .

REQUEST ACCEPTED 'UNANIMOUSLY' - And it turns out the First Committee of the CSM has unanimously decided to ask the Committee to chair the opening of a case on the judge Alessandro Nencini, President of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

If Nencini now says that it wasn't an official interview, and a journalist misinterpreted his words then what is the case really?
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox Conviction Won't Force Michael Winterbottom to Change 'Face of an Angel'
2:05 PM PST 1/31/2014 by Stuart Kemp
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/a ... rce-676041

"The latest court decision -- making headlines around the world -- is sure to generate additional interest in the film, which the London-based West End Films will shop to foreign buyers at Berlin's upcoming European Film Market. Winterbottom, who recently signed with UTA, is currently editing the movie, which he shot last fall."


Last edited by Ava on Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Seems to me the investigation is into the activities of Judge Nencini is after the fact of the verdict. Two separate acts. So, Nencini supposedly misbehaved after the secrecy of the deliberation. Should not affect the verdict.

Is that right?
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Knox has posted a "thank you" note to her supporters on her blog (still whining about 'persecution'.)

Knox on the front page of the Daily Mail ('Shameless in Seattle')l:

Image
Top Profile 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Heartiest welcome to the recent arrival, Jester!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Lovely g-child Jester. Congrats.

I know plenty that would never suspect you are a grandmother. Hehe. Take care my friend.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I expect nothing less from Lawyers for the Defense. It's what they are paid to do.... discredit the Prosecution. Truth or not is to be determined. It's their job.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Knox trial judge apologises for remarks
Updated: 04:42, Tuesday February 4, 2014
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/ar ... ?id=947258

'I am sorry if my words led to misunderstandings on this point or on the absolute right of a defendant to make spontaneous declarations,' Nencini said.
Sollecito responded to the apology in a subsequent interview with La Stampa, another Italian newspaper.
'If my testimony could have really changed the course of the trial, why did (no-one) feel the need to question me?' he asked.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Oh Raffaele, as you well know you don't have to wait for them to ask to question you, you can take the stand in your own defence whenever you like. It is not for the judges and prosecutors to organise your defence for you, that's down to you and your lawyers. Instead, you chose to fall back on your right to opt not to take the stand. That was fully your choice alone. And you've now made that choice in one trial and two appeals. It's not as though you never had the chance.

The little weasel opts not to take the stand and blames judges and prosecutors for his not doing so. This is exactly what we've come to expect from these two...everything is always the fault of someone else.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Looks like this will be their strategy going into their appeal to Cassazione.

Claim bias on the part of the court.

Now he's been warned, expect Judge Nencini to add another twenty pages to his motivations report, to cover against that eventuality.

Another end goal for the Sollecitoholics.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Since both levels of the court have found GUILTY, isn't it likely the Supreme Court will uphold the verdicts? The Defense must grasp at anything for a life line.

In US, there is virtually no coverage of AK. I expected it on the day of the verdict. However, today we have SuperBowl replay ad nauseum, the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman and weather perils throughout.

It was extremely irritating over the weekend for the various 'news' commentators to make the sweeping comments that ALL of the US is on the side of AK's innocence. Media seems to live in their own little bubble only listening to one another.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The High Court will uphold the verdicts because Nencini's verdicts and sentences are little more than an endorsement of Massei and Massei has already been found to have been legally correct by the High Court. This is why we are now looking at these sorts of defence dirty tricks, like trying to impeach Nencini.

As for the US media, you need to parse their language to get the correct interpretation. I shall translate: By "ALL of the US", what they really mean is "ALL of the US mainstream media", which in their arrogance, are the self-appointed arbitrary spokespersons for the American people. The fact that the American people may not always agree with what the media says is not taken into consideration.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It is probably difficult to stand up in court and shout out you are innocent... especially when you are not. What facts or proof could he use to show this? Nothing.

Now there is fussing about this... and AK being a suspect when she wasn't even ASKED to come in with RS. Jeez.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks Michael.

dgfred, IMO it would not have been in Raff's best interest to be questioned by the court. Since Nencini made the statement, Raff can project the blame on the court. Doesn't make any sense, but what else does the Defense have? I'm still in awe of AK's team submitting the statement written by her. She already submitted greatly detailed outlined statements of her GUILT!
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

OK... what would he answer?

What were you doing during the time period of the murder?

What proof do you have to have been doing 'this'?

Why have you continued to lie both in your book and on the internet?

Have you anything else to say???
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Well, of course, Sollecito would have had a hard time surviving cross-examination, but that's because he's guilty. Were he innocent, he wouldn't have. It's really that simple. And this is why he never submitted himself to cross.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Would the declarations be subject to cross? But he doesn't have proof of anything. It would just be - 'I didn't do that' or 'I am innocent'. That is really all he/they have.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yes, but something has the ring of truth about it or it does not. If it's not self-contradictory, doesn't contradict the known facts and evidence, is logical, provides satisfactory answers and clears up discrepancies, and is asserted with certainty, all under the pressure of cross-examination, then such testimony can be a powerful aid to the defence. Otherwise, it can be fatal.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sollecito still getting donations from suckers at GoFundMe, around $100 a day. Do they look like candies to a kid to shut him up? Hmm.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   



Thanks max. Is Greta a flight attendant? RS sounds like a robot, repeating defense talking points.

Google translation:

"If an interrogation an excuse why he could not ask?"
Sentenced for the murder of Mez: baffled by the words of the judge
By Guido Ruotolo

Talking to each other quietly, Greta and Raffaele. They ask me: do you like Indian [food]? It's raining, and just a few minutes [walking] distance from it as if it were a curfew in force in Treviso. A large desert. Greta is discreet and silent. Spectator. Hostess, why? "I like to fly. And it's a way of life. Four days in flight, as many on the ground, resting ... ". Only comment that you can tear out of her.

Raffaele Sollecito, the ever silent, eyes downcast, whispering voice, fragile, seen up close, and six years after the murder of Meredith, having spent four years in prison, attended dozens of trial hearings, is a completely different person.

"After six years, I can not afford to see a future. Why won't they give me a chance?" Camel-colored wool cap, tries not to get noticed. "It's hard to be optimistic in this situation. I'm unconnected with the facts. I did not kill anyone." His polemic when it explodes is as a lightning rod attracting electrical shock, the accusation that he had never agreed to being questioned. Controversy in these hours over the considerations of the President of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence, Alessandro Nencini, on his silence in the courtroom that could have affected a different outcome of the trial process: the magistrate was accused of lack of impartiality, and today his case arrives at CSM.

"If only they had asked me ... I was in the courtroom to not just warm my chair. I was available. The President Nencini told me that, if I wanted to take the floor, I would have been welcome. I was available but in all these years no prosecutor or judge has ever made a sign, has never turned to me asking me to respond, clarify and defend. I find considerations of the President of the Court puzzling. And then, as if my statements could have really changed the course of the trial because no one felt the need to question me?".

Hand in hand, elbows resting on the table of the Indian restaurant, Greta and Raffaele are two young lovers. But is it true that you wanted to run away? The other night, the day of judgment, you'd been to Austria and then returned? "Run away? You will not believe but I thought the other night of the acquittal. If I wanted to lose my tracks I would not have waited till the last minute, I would have done it once released from prison. But I 'm fighting for the truth and I will do it with all my strength."

Does he think of living in Santo Domingo? Wrong. "That was recent, last year. And it was a trip to open up the prospect of work. No, the flight I would have to plan and implement before, once released from prison in 2011."

During lunch, Raffaele often returns to the question of his contribution to the debate that could have changed the outcome of the trial. It's a rump that he can't swallow. "I read that I had to upload all on Amanda. The truth is that there was nothing against me. There was a memorial of Amanda, who to me had not said anything [incriminating]. Meredith, I had seen her a few times but I had never spoken [to her]. So mine was a superficial knowledge. I had never even met Rudy. And this judge that talks about this thing, that murder could happen between young people on a night out? No, I do not recognize myself in the image of a depressed from strange delusions. I was living a happy life. Because [they] paint me as one who participates in a murder for solidarity. I was not there. And at the crime scene my traces not found."

Controversial examination on Meredith's bra clasp, torn off, which would be a proof of his presence. Disputed are the bloody footprints on the bath mat, detected during examination with Luminol. Raffaele denies everything. I try provocation: in statements at his first stop in the police station he once admitted that perhaps Amanda reappeared at his home in the late evening. "It was a misunderstanding. I was under pressure and could not figure out what day they were referring to. If the day before or the day after. Besides, they [the cops] in the questioning were very threatening."

But didn't it seem strange to Raffaele that the next morning, November 2, she went back to her house to take a shower? She could not have it at his home? " Indeed. Ask her. However, when she returned home, to me, she asked me if it was normal that the door of Via della Pergola was open, and there were small traces of blood in the bathroom, but said nothing of disorder in Romanelli's room; I noticed that instead when I went to Amanda's house."

Amanda again and again, almost an obsession. "Her memorial? I don't know how it went. I am not the person in charge of her statements. I can not accuse her because I know nothing. To be honest: I have no memory of that night without her. In short, I do not remember." But was Amanda a " luciferina"? "Like all women, much more elusive. I'd known her for such a short time that I wouldn't be able to make a final judgment. She sure was cheerful, expansive, "Alice in Wonderland". Today she has changed."

Raffaele disarming, when answering the question: "How I think it went that night? Does not concern me. I was not there. I am a stranger and I'm not the one who has to find answers. Rudy Guede had been suspected of having committed previous robberies in an identical manner. Broken glass, climbing [through a window], entering an apartment. I was at my house that night. Between 21 and 21:30. Before that, I watched "The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain", then opened a file of an episode of "Naruto". On the pillow of Mez there was also a semen stain never analyzed. I had nothing to do with it and yet they decided that I had to be necessarily in the circle [of suspects]."

He is almost defensive, pleading he is out of time. "How sad - he says as he pulls on his coat - what happened to me can happen to anyone. Why all this rage against an innocent man?" Greta, the companion of Raffaele, always silent throughout the conversation, says before they go:" I try to be optimistic."
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Let's look at Nencini's words and see why Sollecito's not taking the stand was an issue:

Quote:
Sollecito’s lawyers had asked you to split the defence.
“We’ll explain the point more in the reasonings, where we will explain why we rejected that request. In any case, Sollecito did not want to be questioned during the trial.”

And this influenced your choice to convict him?
“It is the defendant’s right, but certainly it removes a voice from the trial proceedings. He limited himself to making spontaneous declarations, saying only what he wanted to say, without being cross examined.”


http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featu ... -appeal-2/


The issue of his not testifying, for Nencini, is directly connected to the defence request that the defenses be split. The inference here is that Sollecito's refusal to testify, in Nencinini's view, made such a splitting untenable.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sollecito will be on AC360 tonight.

Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend says he'll face new 'ordeal'

The full interview with Sollecito will air Monday night on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."

CNN

Preview clip: CNN VIDEO
Top Profile 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks Michael for your explanation - you are right, it would only make sense if he was subject to cross examination and that would have been highly risky.

In regards to the allegations against Judge Nencini, would the affect only the decision against RS? I have not seen Amanda's lawyers jumping on the band wagon (or have I missed something?)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Knox and Sollecito both want to give interviews. Hook them up to Skype and interview them together.
Why isn't anyone in the news pointing out how odd it is that they don't give a joint interview. I'd like to see it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aranavachi wrote:
Thanks Michael for your explanation - you are right, it would only make sense if he was subject to cross examination and that would have been highly risky.

In regards to the allegations against Judge Nencini, would the affect only the decision against RS? I have not seen Amanda's lawyers jumping on the band wagon (or have I missed something?)


I don't see that it will effect the decisions against either of them. It's just another "desperate adventure" by the defence in the hope "something" works out in their favour.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Knox and Sollecito both want to give interviews. Hook them up to Skype and interview them together.
Why isn't anyone in the news pointing out how odd it is that they don't give a joint interview. I'd like to see it.



Only Knox won't give anyone an interview unless all the questions have been screened and approved by David Marriott first and Sollecito will give anyone at all an interview, except those that really matter which is the courts that are trying him.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Regarding extradition, can Knox introduce anything to the proceedings? A brief statement of facts would include that the Hellman appeal was justifiably annulled and that a new hearing was held. Wouldn't any statement from Hellman fall into the category of "annulled" and be excluded from the extradition considerations, if it was even eligible in the first place?


Knox is not allowed to submit any exculpatory evidence of any kind. The scope of extradition hearings is limited to the DOJ providing evidence and Knox can only respond to rebut that evidence she can not enter any evidence of her own.

That would be the situation under a normal extradition. For an extradition on the basis of a final conviction there is no discussion of the evidence at all. It is just a matter of showing that a valid conviction exists and that the person in custody is the person named on that conviction. That is it. The Groupies seem to be under the delusion that there will be a trial in the States. That is what happens when all your lawyers got their degrees by collecting 8 proofs of purchase.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
Regarding extradition, can Knox introduce anything to the proceedings? A brief statement of facts would include that the Hellman appeal was justifiably annulled and that a new hearing was held. Wouldn't any statement from Hellman fall into the category of "annulled" and be excluded from the extradition considerations, if it was even eligible in the first place?


Knox is not allowed to submit any exculpatory evidence of any kind. The scope of extradition hearings is limited to the DOJ providing evidence and Knox can only respond to rebut that evidence she can not enter any evidence of her own.

That would be the situation under a normal extradition. For an extradition on the basis of a final conviction there is no discussion of the evidence at all. It is just a matter of showing that a valid conviction exists and that the person in custody is the person named on that conviction. That is it. The Groupies seem to be under the delusion that there will be a trial in the States. That is what happens when all your lawyers got their degrees by collecting 8 proofs of purchase.


Thanks. That's what I thought. I was hoping that it would all be straight forward from here in, but instead we now have the Judge's recent remarks which will form some basis for the appeal.
Top Profile 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Aranavachi wrote:
Thanks Michael for your explanation - you are right, it would only make sense if he was subject to cross examination and that would have been highly risky.

In regards to the allegations against Judge Nencini, would the affect only the decision against RS? I have not seen Amanda's lawyers jumping on the band wagon (or have I missed something?)


I don't see that it will effect the decisions against either of them. It's just another "desperate adventure" by the defence in the hope "something" works out in their favour.


Michael th-) The way I understood it, if (big if) RS can establish that there was bias against him from the judge, because he exercised his right to silence, then he may be able to argue this at Supreme Court level and perhaps something will come of it (another appeal?). I understand that this is clutching at straws, I am exploring the very faint possibility - would this be something the AK team can clutch onto?

I know its far fetched and I have no understanding of the Italian legal system beyond what I have learned through this case, however it sounds like an argument that can be explored. You have highlighted that the comment from the judge was only in relation to separating his defense from that of Knox - in effect implying that he was there for a clean up but not for the murder. I still think that if he has testified it would still not work given the phone and computer evidence (its like the Guede toilet defense). nw)

In a recent interview with RS (at an Indian restaurant?) cant remember where I read this. He is distancing himself from Amanda. Saying he didn't know her for too long, he cant remember what was going on that night and giving Amanda no alibi. Italian translations are sometimes hard to grasp - especially since RS talks in code - but this was my understanding. Given this and the above - I am wondering how this may unfold...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

my apologies, the article at Indian restaurant that I refer to was posted above by Guermantes (thank you!)

I refer to these statements by RS:
RS says "Her memorial ? I do not know how it went. I am not the person in charge of her statements ." --- essentially saying she wrote it, whats it got to do with me?! not defending AK at all here IMO

"I can not accuse her because I know nothing"
"To be honest : I have no memory of that night without her. In short, I do not remember ."
----again RS just claims ignorance without being honor bound to defend her

"But was Amanda a " luciferina"? "Like all women , much more elusive . I've known her for such a short time that I cannot make a final judgment . She sure was cheerful, expansive , "Alice in Wonderland" . Today she has changed . "
--- so he says he doesn't know her enough to comment on her guilt?

His answer to the question "How I think it went that night?"
RS says "Does not concern me . I was not there . I am a stranger and I'm not that I have to find answers. Rudy Guede had previous robberies in an identical manner . Broken glass , climbing , entered the apartment ."
RS continues to highlight "I was at my house that night . Between 21 and 21:30 . Before "The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain " , then opened the file in an episode of "Naruto"
---- no mention of AK

It looks like he is turning against her. So if his defense can claim bias, IMO he may well start talking...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aranavachi wrote:
Michael wrote:
Aranavachi wrote:
Thanks Michael for your explanation - you are right, it would only make sense if he was subject to cross examination and that would have been highly risky.

In regards to the allegations against Judge Nencini, would the affect only the decision against RS? I have not seen Amanda's lawyers jumping on the band wagon (or have I missed something?)


I don't see that it will effect the decisions against either of them. It's just another "desperate adventure" by the defence in the hope "something" works out in their favour.


Michael th-) The way I understood it, if (big if) RS can establish that there was bias against him from the judge, because he exercised his right to silence, then he may be able to argue this at Supreme Court level and perhaps something will come of it (another appeal?). I understand that this is clutching at straws, I am exploring the very faint possibility - would this be something the AK team can clutch onto?

I know its far fetched and I have no understanding of the Italian legal system beyond what I have learned through this case, however it sounds like an argument that can be explored. You have highlighted that the comment from the judge was only in relation to separating his defense from that of Knox - in effect implying that he was there for a clean up but not for the murder. I still think that if he has testified it would still not work given the phone and computer evidence (its like the Guede toilet defense). nw)

In a recent interview with RS (at an Indian restaurant?) cant remember where I read this. He is distancing himself from Amanda. Saying he didn't know her for too long, he cant remember what was going on that night and giving Amanda no alibi. Italian translations are sometimes hard to grasp - especially since RS talks in code - but this was my understanding. Given this and the above - I am wondering how this may unfold...



But in what way can Nencini be shown to have prejudged either of them? That's what bias means, a prejudgment. All Nencini has said is he made judgments on the basis of the evidence and that in terms of the defence strategy, he required something further from the defence then they offered in order for him to be able to split the defence. Where's the bias in that? The defence realise this, hence why they felt the need to put words and meaning in Nencini's mouth in order to make something out of nothing.

As for Sollecito trying to distance himself from Amanda, it's all far too late for that now. He's had all of his chances...one pre-trial, one trial and two appeals worth. He's blown it.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox's former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito speaks out
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/03/a ... peaks-out/
Top Profile 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
Regarding extradition, can Knox introduce anything to the proceedings? A brief statement of facts would include that the Hellman appeal was justifiably annulled and that a new hearing was held. Wouldn't any statement from Hellman fall into the category of "annulled" and be excluded from the extradition considerations, if it was even eligible in the first place?


Knox is not allowed to submit any exculpatory evidence of any kind. The scope of extradition hearings is limited to the DOJ providing evidence and Knox can only respond to rebut that evidence she can not enter any evidence of her own.

That would be the situation under a normal extradition. For an extradition on the basis of a final conviction there is no discussion of the evidence at all. It is just a matter of showing that a valid conviction exists and that the person in custody is the person named on that conviction. That is it. The Groupies seem to be under the delusion that there will be a trial in the States. That is what happens when all your lawyers got their degrees by collecting 8 proofs of purchase.


Thanks. That's what I thought. I was hoping that it would all be straight forward from here in, but instead we now have the Judge's recent remarks which will form some basis for the appeal.


Which IMO will receive short shrift from the Supreme Court.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Amanda Knox's former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito speaks out
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/03/a ... peaks-out/


Thanks max. The full interview (4 min 09 sec):

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/03/world/europe/italy-knox-sollecito/
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
max wrote:
Amanda Knox's former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito speaks out
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/03/a ... peaks-out/


Thanks max. The full interview (4 min 09 sec):

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/03/world/europe/italy-knox-sollecito/



For Goodness sake! Just how dumb does Sollecito think people are? And Anderson Cooper lets it slide. Sollecito says that he travelled to Austria in anticipation of a celebration of his exoneration! We are supposed to believe that Sollectio thought he was going to be found innocent? All of his trips to Switzerland, DR, and Idaho, in the hopes of obtaining a wife and a green card, belie this. He knew was done for and was actively seeking a way out. Exoneration indeed!
And Cooper lets this pass. Cooper, you should be ashamed to call yourself a reporter.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

How many stories is Raff gonna tell about the trip to Austria? I don't get why they are even doing these interviews on the news shows. The public doesn't make the decision of extradition. It's a State Department issue. Raff's going to prison. Amanda should not remain free.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Emerald wrote:
I don't get why they are even doing these interviews on the news shows.


Hi Emerald,

it's disconcerting to see these two convicted killers appearing on TV again. It makes a mockery of justice. I can't wait for the moment that they are returned to jail and locked up for a long time.

Sollecito TG1 interview (VIDEO, in Italian)

ROME - Process murder of Meredith Kercher , Raffaele Sollecito defends himself before the cameras of Tg1 :

Attachment:
Sollecito TG1 interview 3 Feb 2014.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7GqhG5a8_8

" Against me there is a desert of evidence , I do not know what happened that night, I was at my house and it is not my job to try to find the truth about this ,"

said the young man from Puglia, accused of killing , along with Amanda Knox, the British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia .

Sollecito speaks for the first time after the new sentence .

" Embittering and dramatic to be convicted of a motive that is that we did not know what to do that night and we killed her."

Sollecito , stopped immediately after the sentence near Udine, denies that he thought to flee to Austria.


BLITZ QUOTIDIANO


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Meredith , Sollecito to Tg1 : "No one believes me. There is a desert of evidence against me "

Nobody believes me and I do not understand why. Against me there is a desert of evidence", said Raffaele Sollecito in an interview with TG1.

Sollecito then reiterated that " no one has ever asked me to be questioned : it is they who have to ask me and this thing has never happened ."

Now we have the Supreme Court, then could open the prison doors. "It would be a hell - he concludes - I prefer not to think about it ."


IL MATTINO

He is starting to sound like Amanda: "No one believes me." How many times is he going to

repeat: "No one has ever asked me to testify (be interrogated.) It is they who have to ask

me...
" Everyone knows that this is absolute nonsense; he doesn't fool anyone. I'm just

surprised that the interviewers allow his misleading claims to go unchallenged.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Meredith, [dark] clouds gather over the judge : lay members of the CSM against Nencini
3 February 2014

New clouds are gathering over Nencini, who now also risks a "trial" before the panel of arbitrators of the National Magistrates (ANM), for violation of the code of ethics of the judges. A position (justified) which , however , was not always so prompt . [In the case of Antonio Esposito] The ANM defended the magistrate and declassified his interview as an "inappropriate" chat with a journalist friend.
...
The first blow on Nencini came today, with the formalization of the Executive Committee of the CSM 's request to open a procedure before the committee. An initiative signed by the entire group of lay members in the center-right (with the exception of Hannibal Marini). "Not only gave publicity to the elements to be considered covered by the secrecy of the council chamber , not only anticipated the various aspects of motivation still unknown - they explain - but also expressed negative opinions , or otherwise puzzled about the conduct in the case of one of the sentenced defendants ."

If the Executive Committee of Palazzo dei Marescialli upholds the request, Nencini could risk the start of a process of transferring office incompatible with the office in Florence or its functions. To save him from this perspective, however, could a previous similar case, that of Esposito.

Even in that case, the first commission of the CSM opened a procedure, but then closed it on the grounds that the conduct of the magistrate fits disciplinary profiles and that in these cases, which are the responsibility of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice, the CSM must stop. It is likely that the Supreme Court will start an investigation on Nencini, as he had done for Esposito , against whom it then exercised disciplinary measure. And a similar initiative was also taken by the Minister of Justice, acting in the same manner it followed in the case of the magistrate of the Berlusconi trial, and has arranged "preliminary investigations " on the issue of the court of Florence.


IL GIORNALE
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Meredith, [dark] clouds gather over the judge : lay members of the CSM against Nencini
3 February 2014...


Would this be happening if the defendants were any of the following:

1) poor;
2) dark-skinned;
3) unattractive;
4) middle aged;
5) without the services of an expensive PR firm; or
6) relying on a public defender instead of a sitting MP?

Never let anyone tell you that we're equal before the law.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Meredith , Sollecito to Tg1 : "No one believes me. There is a desert of evidence against me "

Nobody believes me and I do not understand why. Against me there is a desert of evidence", said Raffaele Sollecito in an interview with TG1.

Sollecito then reiterated that " no one has ever asked me to be questioned : it is they who have to ask me and this thing has never happened ."

Now we have the Supreme Court, then could open the prison doors. "It would be a hell - he concludes - I prefer not to think about it ."


IL MATTINO

He is starting to sound like Amanda: "No one believes me." How many times is he going to

repeat: "No one has ever asked me to testify (be interrogated.) It is they who have to ask

me...
" Everyone knows that this is absolute nonsense; he doesn't fool anyone. I'm just

surprised that the interviewers allow his misleading claims to go unchallenged.



Is it me, am I remembering incorrectly, but when Sollecito made his spontaneous statement to Nencini's court at the start of the appeal, at the end of it, didn't Nencini drop a very large hint to him that he should come back and speak again later, but this time from the stand?

That was said to him directly by the judge. He can't say he wasn't asked and therefore warned, and Nencini wasn't required to actually ask him for him to be able to take the stand or even warn him that he needed to.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I remember that suggestion Nencini made, and even then it seemed like the judge was giving him an opportunity he was too stupid to recognize.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Trailer for "Face Of An Angel"

I think most will love this movie. There's quite a few subtexts I see and am sure the director will cover quite well. Think of it as Barbie's Revenge :)




ETA: This article makes it clear it is not quite about the case. http://variety.com/2014/film/news/amand ... 201084722/

Michael Winterbottom is a good director, and if it gives publicity for the case around the time the Supreme Court will be hearing it, all the better.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
I remember that suggestion Nencini made, and even then it seemed like the judge was giving him an opportunity he was too stupid to recognize.



And of course, Sollecito is going to go on pretending that that never happened.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
max wrote:
Amanda Knox's former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito speaks out
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/03/a ... peaks-out/


Thanks max. The full interview (4 min 09 sec):

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/03/world/europe/italy-knox-sollecito/


It's kind of surreal...what is an Italian, having killed an English woman in Italy, doing on American TV (at least without his American co-killer)?
Anderson Cooper looks like he doesn't really know either.
Note Raffaele's last sentence: "I don't want to pay for someone else's peculiar behavior". Too late, I suppose...


Last edited by Ava on Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yeah, 'cos Sollecito's own behaviour isn't peculiar at all, is it?!

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Defense Dirty Tricks: Did We Just See Yet Another One, An Attempt To Compromise Judge Nencini?
Posted by Jools

TJMK
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox Judge Comments Investigated
1:19pm UK, Tuesday 04 February 2014
http://news.sky.com/story/1206361/amand ... vestigated

Knox's lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said in an emailed statement the interviews were "not appropriate" but the lawyer reserved comment on any action until the court's reasoning for the verdict is issued. This is expected within 90 days of the sentence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

A few more tidbits on what Sollecito has said in his interview to TG1 (I think he is feeling emboldened by the accusations leveled against the President of the Appeals Court; in the absence of this onslaught on Nencini, Sollecito would have had less of a reaction and wouldn't have dared to speak out):

Raffaele Sollecito to Tg1. "Mine is not a life, it's hell."

The first words spoken to the journalist Emma D'Aquino were:

"There is an absurd desert of evidence and I do not accept to be charged with a motive of the kind: we had nothing to do that night and decided to kill. It’s embittering and dramatic enough to be told these things after the judgment."

When the reporter asked him what may have happened that night, Sollecito has repeated what he has always said :

" I do not know what happened that night and I said and repeated: completely alien to what happened to Meredith that evening , I was at my house and it is not my job to try to understand and to find the truth."

Even on the issue of the DNA that was found on the bra clasp of the victim, the young engineer replied:

"The DNA on the clasp is not mine , and we have already shown it . On the hook there are at least three profiles. If I had not been involved in the trial, one of those DNA [profiles] would not have been attributed to me "

As for what he said about the President of the Court who said Sollecito preferred not to be questioned , the individual concerned has explained :

"No one has ever asked me to be subjected to interrogation, it is they who have to ask me and this thing has never happened. "

Then the reporter asked him if it is true that he wanted to run away and he replied :

"I actually , I'd be a dreamer , but I expected a complete exoneration and when I heard the judgment, obviously it was a very dramatic situation, and the first thing I did was go back to Italy."

Pending the judgment of the Supreme Court , which could be followed by prison term if confirmed as established on appeal , Sollecito does not know what to say about his future :

"It's not life , it is very bad , it is like being in hell. But at this moment I prefer not to think about it."


CRIMEBLOG
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
Amanda Knox Judge Comments Investigated
1:19pm UK, Tuesday 04 February 2014
http://news.sky.com/story/1206361/amand ... vestigated

Knox's lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said in an emailed statement the interviews were "not appropriate" but the lawyer reserved comment on any action until the court's reasoning for the verdict is issued. This is expected within 90 days of the sentence.


Thanks Ava. Also this bit:

Sollecito's defence lawyer, Luca Maori, said the judge's comments were "serious" and could form part of an appeal to Italy's highest court on last week's verdict.

"This is not a vendetta because a judge handed down a verdict other than what we expected," Mr Maori insisted.


Yeah right.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

CNN transcript of yesterday's AC360 program:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cd.01.html

Sollecito's AC360 interview (video): http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/03/world/europe/italy-knox-sollecito/

COOPER: Crime and Punishment tonight: Raffaele Sollecito speaks out on the nightmare he thought he'd escaped. Last week, an appeals court found him and his ex-girlfriend, Amanda Knox, guilty of murder. The court upholding their convictions in the alleged drug-and-sex-fueled stabbing death of Meredith Kercher more than six years ago in the Italian town of Perugia. The appeals court sentenced Raffaele Sollecito to 25 years behind bars.

On Friday, he surrendered his passport after police stopped him near Italy's border with Austria and Slovenia. He tells us he was not attempting to flee. He's appealing this latest verdict. So, of course, is Amanda Knox, who is here in the United States vowing to fight until what she says - until the very end. Knox says she will never go willingly back to Italy, where she faces 28-and-a-half years in prison.

And the judge who announced verdict is now facing criticism tonight for speaking out about the case this weekend. Here to talk about it all is Raffaele Sollecito and his attorney, John Kelley.

Raffaele, first of all, how are you holding up? How are you doing? RAFFAELE SOLLECITO, ACCUSED OF MURDER: Actually, I'm very close to my family and my friends, and I'm trying to be as positive as possible in a situation like this. So, it's very dramatic, the situation here now. But on the other side, I still have to fight. I have chosen to be here and to fight against this ordeal.

COOPER: When you first heard about this new verdict, what did you think?

SOLLECITO: Well, it's really unbelievable to me.

<20:40:12>

I thought it was quite -- kind of unreal. But what is really shocking to me is also the statements from the men - the presidents after the verdict.

COOPER: You mean the statements by the judge?

SOLLECITO: Yes, I mean -- the president is the judge, of course, sorry. We call him the president.

COOPER: To you, what do those statements mean, what do they say to you about the judge?

SOLLECITO: He recently did an interview to a newspaper saying that I was silenced (sic), and that the reason why, he convicted me. I was silent just because nobody asked to question me.

COOPER: The judge said to the newspaper that your decision not to testify worked against you, that you made a statement but didn't get cross examined. You're saying you were willing to be cross examined, is that what you're saying?

SOLLECITO: I'm saying that I was incurred (sic) to answer any question, and they never asked any question. So basically if they don't ask, I cannot respond, I cannot reply because they never asked anything.

COOPER: Let me bring in your attorney here. John, does it make sense what the judge said to that newspaper?

JOHN O. KELLY, ATTORNEY FOR RAFFAELE SOLLECITO: Not at all. I mean, the court had the right to ask Raffaele to appear and answer questions, they never gave him that notice. They did indicate he had a right to make a statement, he made the statement. He was a continued presence in court there and was willing at any time to answer any and all questions for as long as they wanted regarding the incident.

SOLLECITO: You all know that the focus was only through Amanda to her behavior, to her peculiar behavior. But whatever it is, I'm not guilty for it. Why do they convict me? Why do put me on the corner and say that I'm guilty just because in their mind I have to be guilty because I was her boyfriend? It's -- it doesn't make any sense to me.

COOPER: Do you hold Amanda Knox responsible for the situation you're in now?

SOLLECITO: Actually, they focused all their attention on her, and I don't -- I don't -- I cannot understand really why. But on the other side, I'm not responsible for that. So I'm not saying that Amanda is responsible for all this situation. But they focus on her and they accuse her all the time. But I have nothing to do with these circumstances and all these accusations.

COOPER: Are you still in touch with Amanda at all?

SOLLECITO: Yes, sure, not so often, but sometimes I get in touch with her.

COOPER: The day of the verdict, you'd crossed the border into Austria, and then you returned to Italy where the police found you in a hotel. Why did you drive all the way to the border on the day of the verdict?

SOLLECITO: Basically, I was expecting an exoneration, and I'd planned a kind of happy ending celebrating the exoneration with my girlfriend. And I crossed the border because there are places which are very familiar to my girlfriend, and I wanted to go there. But as soon as I understood the verdict, I came back in Italy.

COOPER: At this point, do you believe you can get a fair trial in Italy?

SOLLECITO: Actually, I don't know what to think because objectively, there's nothing against me and nothing very strong against Amanda. And in my case, I really did nothing wrong, and I don't want to pay for someone else's peculiar behavior.

COOPER: Raffaele, I appreciate you talking to us, and I'm sorry it's under these circumstances. And John Kelly, as well. Thank you very much.


CNN TRANSCRIPT AC360 February 3, 2014
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Why was John Q Kelly a part of that interview?

Raff has waited a few years too long to distance himself from the other convicted criminal Amanda Knox.

None of the morning news programs I've seen have even mentioned this case. Very telling that Amanda Knox has lost her 'star' luster. Good.

Meredith Kercher is the victim NOT Amanda Knox.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I'm a little confused about the reference to separating the trials. Was a request made at the beginning of the appeals to separate the defendants? If so, was that made with the Massei court, the Hellman court, or this court?

Regarding Sollecito's position, if he had separated the trials and claimed that he was at home while Knox went out, would he have a stronger case in arguing that the DNA was contamination via Knox and that the footprint is a smudge?


Last edited by Jester on Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I like the tone of the British press. Apologies if it has already been posted:

Amanda Knox is a murderer and no PR rebranding can hide the truth of her guilt
By Alison Phillips

THE MIRROR
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
I remember that suggestion Nencini made, and even then it seemed like the judge was giving him an opportunity he was too stupid to recognize.


And of course, Sollecito is going to go on pretending that that never happened.


Skeptical Bystander has posted this on .org:

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Long, long ago, during the evidence gathering phase, Mignini suggested and set up a meeting with all three suspects. It was Raffaele Sollecito and his lawyers, iirc, that agreed to and then backed out of this meeting, missing a great opportunity to clear the air.

Sollecito tried to blame Massei and the prosecutors for his silence during that trial as well. He waited, of course, until he was acquitted. Sollecito seems to have a history of cowardice in the moment. He only regains his composure later on, when it is safe to lie because no one will call him out.


The bolded and underlined bit: I remember that too. So Sollecito needs himself to "shut up", not Judge Nencini. He has conveniently "forgotten" this meeting that never took place because of his refusal to participate. Maybe someone should remind him about it. If anyone could find a link to an old news story, it would be great!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Why the U.S. Should Hand Over Amanda Knox If Italy Asks

BY CARLO DAVIS

FEBRUARY 3, 2014



NEW REPUBLIC

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Exclusive photos: Raffaele and Greta (17 photos)

Raffaele Sollecito with his Greta Menegaldo ;)

Attachment:
Raffaele e Greta.jpg


SOCIAL CHANNEL


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
I remember that suggestion Nencini made, and even then it seemed like the judge was giving him an opportunity he was too stupid to recognize.


And of course, Sollecito is going to go on pretending that that never happened.


Skeptical Bystander has posted this on .org:

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Long, long ago, during the evidence gathering phase, Mignini suggested and set up a meeting with all three suspects. It was Raffaele Sollecito and his lawyers, iirc, that agreed to and then backed out of this meeting, missing a great opportunity to clear the air.

Sollecito tried to blame Massei and the prosecutors for his silence during that trial as well. He waited, of course, until he was acquitted. Sollecito seems to have a history of cowardice in the moment. He only regains his composure later on, when it is safe to lie because no one will call him out.


The bolded and underlined bit: I remember that too. So Sollecito needs himself to "shut up", not Judge Nencini. He has conveniently "forgotten" this meeting that never took place because of his refusal to participate. Maybe someone should remind him about it. If anyone could find a link to an old news story, it would be great!



Well, even before that in one of the pre-hearings, Sollecito and Guede were to have a face-to-face debate in court (something the Italian system allows), but Sollecito pulled out at the last minute because the prosecution would not allow him to have a transcript of what Rudy "might say" or access to the evidence file showing what evidence there was on Rudy. Does anyone remember that?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I have a very vague recollection of something similar perhaps maybe but in this most precise of all worlds maybe thats not good enough!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hey Nowo, blast from the past, great to see you again! :)

How's the weather looking for Knox?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dark and stormy I hope. I haven't been paying as much attention over the years as I should have. Credit to those who have never wavered, never given an inch...you are consistent, and are speaking for countless others. Me at least!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Someone's just sent me this post by Piktor quoting Machiavelli over on Org. Most illuminating!:

Piktor wrote:
@ JLOL:

Originally Posted by Vibio View Post
Nencini is not under investigation for misconduct.

There is a request to open an investigation. This is AK/ RS's defense which is normal. This is also political. The right (remember Berlusconi) will of course make a big deal about this. (…)

Machiavelli answers:

Nencini is the coordinator of 'Magistratura Democratica' in Tuscany, that is the leftist Magistrate gropu. He is the person who filed a report for criminal defamantion against Berlusconi, that was declared inadmissible because Berlusconi was a Senator at the time. Indeed Nencini is a prominent enemy of Berlusconi and actions against him are obviously political.

This government action is quite a pretext and will go nowhere: the minister herself is not in a moral position for that, given that she was caught in a scandalous conflict of interest, plotting at the phone trying to get her friend out of prison - minister Cancellieri is the friend of the Ligresti family, and the political coordinator of her party is Benedetto Dalla Vedova, the brother of Carlo Dalla Vedova.



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost9814515



http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewto ... 41#p158641

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Online Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Letter to The Guardian, signed by 108 signatories (wow!) protesting its bias re Amanda Knox : http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... -sollecito
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Guys, some FOAKer has created a Twitter account: @kercher_kercher and is posting naked porn photos with the Kerchers' heads stuck on top.

These are really sick sad people. And the fact that these are the kind of people that Amanda Knox chooses to surround herself with says EVERYTHING about her.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Well, even before that in one of the pre-hearings, Sollecito and Guede were to have a face-to-face debate in court (something the Italian system allows), but Sollecito pulled out at the last minute because the prosecution would not allow him to have a transcript of what Rudy "might say" or access to the evidence file showing what evidence there was on Rudy. Does anyone remember that?


Interesting, and typical of him. Doesn't sound so honor bound...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, even before that in one of the pre-hearings, Sollecito and Guede were to have a face-to-face debate in court (something the Italian system allows), but Sollecito pulled out at the last minute because the prosecution would not allow him to have a transcript of what Rudy "might say" or access to the evidence file showing what evidence there was on Rudy. Does anyone remember that?


Interesting, and typical of him. Doesn't sound so honor bound...


Well, I say Sollecito, but it was actually his lawyers. They didn't want him having a debate with Rudy in court "cold", they felt there were too many risks.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

If memory serves, the face-to-face was supposed to have taken place in that court hearing where Knox was notoriously filmed on someones phone singing and dancing in court. The Kerchers were also present. The hearing was semi-behind closed doors with all photos and video banned but journalists were allowed to be present. Someone snuck that vid with their mobile phone and leaked it out afterwards. Anyway, the main event scheduled in the build-up to this hearing, or at least that which was most eagerly anticipated, was the planned face-to-face, but it never happened. Knox's legal team refused it right off the bat but Sollecito's said they may accept but under certain conditions. Those conditions weren't acceptable to the court and prosecution so it turned out there never was any face-to-face between any of the suspects. For the record, Rudy's legal team had no objection to Rudy's taking part with either of the other two.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Guys, some FOAKer has created a Twitter account: @kercher_kercher and is posting naked porn photos with the Kerchers' heads stuck on top.

These are really sick sad people. And the fact that these are the kind of people that Amanda Knox chooses to surround herself with says EVERYTHING about her.


I doubt most Foakers..disillusioned though they may be...would give the nod to this shameful person. Do they ( The supporters of Knox..not understand that this is beyond the pale? And that it reflects badly on all of them?

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
Michael wrote:
Guys, some FOAKer has created a Twitter account: @kercher_kercher and is posting naked porn photos with the Kerchers' heads stuck on top.

These are really sick sad people. And the fact that these are the kind of people that Amanda Knox chooses to surround herself with says EVERYTHING about her.


I doubt most Foakers..disillusioned though they may be...would give the nod to this shameful person. Do they ( The supporters of Knox..not understand that this is beyond the pale? And that it reflects badly on all of them?



Not queuing up to condemn them, are they?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks for the info, Michael. So no face-to-face between RS and AK either. I read that on pmf sometime but not in detail, I believe. In a way I can understand their lawyers, though. Whenever they open their mouth, it's no good...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The idea was, they were all supposed to have a face-to-face with each other. Knox's people said no straight away, Rudy's people said okay and Sollecito's people wanted to negotiate terms first (which were refused).

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yeah, all three of them, too bad it never happened. I can just see Amanda in that scenario getting really angry...and maybe Raffaele as well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
The idea was, they were all supposed to have a face-to-face with each other. Knox's people said no straight away, Rudy's people said okay and Sollecito's people wanted to negotiate terms first (which were refused).


I find this very intriguing. Are there any published articles about this (any language okay)? I would like to know more about it. Could this be something reported by Frank before he changed his mind about what he believed?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
Yeah, all three of them, too bad it never happened. I can just see Amanda in that scenario getting really angry...and maybe Raffaele as well.



It certainly would have been "interesting". Whether it would have actually been useful to the case or simply degraded into a circus, we unfortunately can never know. But one thing needs to be understood...it was a chance. A chance for each of the accused to demonstrate their innocence. With the exception of Rudy, they opted not to take it. One of many chances they have had. Now, all they want to do is whine about how hard done by they are and how unfair it all is.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
The idea was, they were all supposed to have a face-to-face with each other. Knox's people said no straight away, Rudy's people said okay and Sollecito's people wanted to negotiate terms first (which were refused).


I find this very intriguing. Are there any published articles about this (any language okay)? I would like to know more about it. Could this be something reported by Frank before he changed his mind about what he believed?


Yes, there should be plenty still around. A google search should find them. Sforza's old Shock blog on the Wayback Machine should still carry it also. This all happened pre-Massei and pre-Micheli. Some time mid 2008.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Trailer for "Face Of An Angel"

I think most will love this movie. There's quite a few subtexts I see and am sure the director will cover quite well. Think of it as Barbie's Revenge :)




ETA: This article makes it clear it is not quite about the case. http://variety.com/2014/film/news/amand ... 201084722/

Michael Winterbottom is a good director, and if it gives publicity for the case around the time the Supreme Court will be hearing it, all the better.


A quote from the trailer: "Guilty or not, that's what everyone wants to read."

So the movie will be concentrating on the role of the media. I hope the PR campaign will also be mentioned, but somehow I doubt it.

In my opinion, this movie will only highlight how the media have helped to damage Knox's public image without going much into the evidence which probably will be described as not conclusive.

I don't think movies should be based on real crimes at all unless it is a documentary.

I don't believe I am going to like the movie.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Raffaele's whinging is on a par with : He murders his parents..and then cries that he's an orphan. :roll:

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Raffa is afraid he might bump into Rudy on the street one day and jealous of Rudy's reduced prison term (a non-news story by Tom Kington):

4 February 2014
Sollecito Slams Kercher Killer's Release Plan
The man reconvicted of killing Meredith Kercher tells Sky News that plans to let Rudy Guede out on day release are "absurd".

Raffaele Sollecito has told Sky News it is "absurd" the only man currently behind bars for killing Meredith Kercher will be allowed to leave jail temporarily this year.

His lawyer, Walter Biscotti, confirmed he will soon be able to work outside jail.

However, Sollecito, who together with his former girlfriend Amanda Knox were acquitted of murder but had their convictions reinstated last week, said Guede should not have been allowed a fast track trial that called no witnesses and saw him given a reduced sentence.

"This is absurd," he said. "Guede should have been on trial with me.

"How can I convince him to speak when he has done all he can to hide the truth?"


SKY NEWS
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

You know, Nell..I sort of don't want to watch the movie. But then the optimist in me will..hoping it gives a true depiction of what liars...killers the three of them are.
Did anyone read the Follain article? I can't find it.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Raffa is afraid he might bump into Rudy on the street and jealous of Rudy's reduced prison term (a non-story by Tom Kington):

4 February 2014
Sollecito Slams Kercher Killer's Release Plan
The man reconvicted of killing Meredith Kercher tells Sky News that plans to let Rudy Guede out on day release are "absurd".

Raffaele Sollecito has told Sky News it is "absurd" the only man currently behind bars for killing Meredith Kercher will be allowed to leave jail temporarily this year.

His lawyer, Walter Biscotti, confirmed he will soon be able to work outside jail.

However, Sollecito, who together with his former girlfriend Amanda Knox were acquitted of murder but had their convictions reinstated last week, said Guede should not have been allowed a fast track trial that called no witnesses and saw him given a reduced sentence.

"This is absurd," he said. "Guede should have been on trial with me.

"How can I convince him to speak when he has done all he can to hide the truth?"


SKY NEWS



Which translated to : I hope Guede will NEVER speak. p-))

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I can't thank Guermantes..Nell..and many others for doing all the hard work of finding and posting all the latest happenings. I get to sit back..do nothing..and just receive. hugz-)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Aranavachi wrote:
Michael wrote:
Aranavachi wrote:
Thanks Michael for your explanation - you are right, it would only make sense if he was subject to cross examination and that would have been highly risky.

In regards to the allegations against Judge Nencini, would the affect only the decision against RS? I have not seen Amanda's lawyers jumping on the band wagon (or have I missed something?)


I don't see that it will effect the decisions against either of them. It's just another "desperate adventure" by the defence in the hope "something" works out in their favour.


Michael th-) The way I understood it, if (big if) RS can establish that there was bias against him from the judge, because he exercised his right to silence, then he may be able to argue this at Supreme Court level and perhaps something will come of it (another appeal?). I understand that this is clutching at straws, I am exploring the very faint possibility - would this be something the AK team can clutch onto?

I know its far fetched and I have no understanding of the Italian legal system beyond what I have learned through this case, however it sounds like an argument that can be explored. You have highlighted that the comment from the judge was only in relation to separating his defense from that of Knox - in effect implying that he was there for a clean up but not for the murder. I still think that if he has testified it would still not work given the phone and computer evidence (its like the Guede toilet defense). nw)

In a recent interview with RS (at an Indian restaurant?) cant remember where I read this. He is distancing himself from Amanda. Saying he didn't know her for too long, he cant remember what was going on that night and giving Amanda no alibi. Italian translations are sometimes hard to grasp - especially since RS talks in code - but this was my understanding. Given this and the above - I am wondering how this may unfold...



But in what way can Nencini be shown to have prejudged either of them? That's what bias means, a prejudgment. All Nencini has said is he made judgments on the basis of the evidence and that in terms of the defence strategy, he required something further from the defence then they offered in order for him to be able to split the defence. Where's the bias in that? The defence realise this, hence why they felt the need to put words and meaning in Nencini's mouth in order to make something out of nothing.

As for Sollecito trying to distance himself from Amanda, it's all far too late for that now. He's had all of his chances...one pre-trial, one trial and two appeals worth. He's blown it.


The bias/prejudice could possibly be shown by demonstrating that Nencini did not separate RS from AK, because RS did not speak. I can see that this is a circular argument - however IMHO it is one that can be made. If Nencini, after looking at the evidence, thinks that RS could have separated himself by taking the stand ==> then Nencini should have given RS the benefit of the doubt and acquitted because RS has the right to remain silent.

As for RS separating himself from AK, late or not, the recent CNN interview is another clear signal that he is now doing just that. He says
- there is no evidence against me
- and there is no strong evidence against Amanda
Then he goes on to say
- I do not want to be convicted for someone else's peculiar behavior!
This is a very different tune of 'Amanda and I' which he played over the past couple of years...I may be wrong, but it seems obvious to me that although he hasn't yet come to a stage where he is throwing her under the bus, he is definitely saying 'I don't know what she did and where she was, but i didn't do it'
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I just don't see that. Their trials were linked. ONLY if Raffaele had subjected himself to cross..Then ..maybe..the Judge could have at that stage...if asked..allowed a seperate trial.

It seems to me..and I could be wrong here.......the status quo..was one trial. Unless Raffaele was prepared to stand alone..it was a done deal.

He was * Honour Bound *

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I will say this. It seems as though the Italians go over board in allowing Defendants EVERY opportunity. It just boggles the mind.

I honestly believe..that if one is going to commit a murder...do it in Italy. Guede out in a year or so. Defendants allowed so much leeway. I find it astounding.

I'd like Juan Martinez..( The Prosecutor in the Jodi Arias trial..to have 5 MINUTES with these murderers.

I feel so bad for Meredith's Family. Every day..insults upon injury. Hopefully..they don't read or see the articles. :cry:

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Raffa is afraid he might bump into Rudy on the street one day and jealous of Rudy's reduced prison term (a non-news story by Tom Kington):

4 February 2014
Sollecito Slams Kercher Killer's Release Plan
The man reconvicted of killing Meredith Kercher tells Sky News that plans to let Rudy Guede out on day release are "absurd".

Raffaele Sollecito has told Sky News it is "absurd" the only man currently behind bars for killing Meredith Kercher will be allowed to leave jail temporarily this year.

His lawyer, Walter Biscotti, confirmed he will soon be able to work outside jail.

However, Sollecito, who together with his former girlfriend Amanda Knox were acquitted of murder but had their convictions reinstated last week, said Guede should not have been allowed a fast track trial that called no witnesses and saw him given a reduced sentence.

"This is absurd," he said. "Guede should have been on trial with me.

"How can I convince him to speak when he has done all he can to hide the truth?"


SKY NEWS



So, Sollecito would deny Rudy Guede his LEGAL RIGHTS, just because after the fact he perceives it as being more convenient for His Highness? Pfffft.

Oh, and at least Rudy has taken the stand, something Sollecito NEVER HAS!

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aranavachi wrote:
Michael wrote:
Aranavachi wrote:
Michael wrote:
Aranavachi wrote:
Thanks Michael for your explanation - you are right, it would only make sense if he was subject to cross examination and that would have been highly risky.

In regards to the allegations against Judge Nencini, would the affect only the decision against RS? I have not seen Amanda's lawyers jumping on the band wagon (or have I missed something?)


I don't see that it will effect the decisions against either of them. It's just another "desperate adventure" by the defence in the hope "something" works out in their favour.


Michael th-) The way I understood it, if (big if) RS can establish that there was bias against him from the judge, because he exercised his right to silence, then he may be able to argue this at Supreme Court level and perhaps something will come of it (another appeal?). I understand that this is clutching at straws, I am exploring the very faint possibility - would this be something the AK team can clutch onto?

I know its far fetched and I have no understanding of the Italian legal system beyond what I have learned through this case, however it sounds like an argument that can be explored. You have highlighted that the comment from the judge was only in relation to separating his defense from that of Knox - in effect implying that he was there for a clean up but not for the murder. I still think that if he has testified it would still not work given the phone and computer evidence (its like the Guede toilet defense). nw)

In a recent interview with RS (at an Indian restaurant?) cant remember where I read this. He is distancing himself from Amanda. Saying he didn't know her for too long, he cant remember what was going on that night and giving Amanda no alibi. Italian translations are sometimes hard to grasp - especially since RS talks in code - but this was my understanding. Given this and the above - I am wondering how this may unfold...



But in what way can Nencini be shown to have prejudged either of them? That's what bias means, a prejudgment. All Nencini has said is he made judgments on the basis of the evidence and that in terms of the defence strategy, he required something further from the defence then they offered in order for him to be able to split the defence. Where's the bias in that? The defence realise this, hence why they felt the need to put words and meaning in Nencini's mouth in order to make something out of nothing.

As for Sollecito trying to distance himself from Amanda, it's all far too late for that now. He's had all of his chances...one pre-trial, one trial and two appeals worth. He's blown it.


The bias/prejudice could possibly be shown by demonstrating that Nencini did not separate RS from AK, because RS did not speak. I can see that this is a circular argument - however IMHO it is one that can be made. If Nencini, after looking at the evidence, thinks that RS could have separated himself by taking the stand ==> then Nencini should have given RS the benefit of the doubt and acquitted because RS has the right to remain silent.

As for RS separating himself from AK, late or not, the recent CNN interview is another clear signal that he is now doing just that. He says
- there is no evidence against me
- and there is no strong evidence against Amanda
Then he goes on to say
- I do not want to be convicted for someone else's peculiar behavior!
This is a very different tune of 'Amanda and I' which he played over the past couple of years...I may be wrong, but it seems obvious to me that although he hasn't yet come to a stage where he is throwing her under the bus, he is definitely saying 'I don't know what she did and where she was, but i didn't do it'



I'm not quite sure how. If Nencini felt he needed more input from the defence in the face of the evidence before feeling he could split the defences as they wished, how is that bias? Note, the complaint by Nencini here, if it can be seen as a complaint, was NOT that he didn't feel there was enough evidence to confirm guilt, but not enough to split the defences and certainly not enough to dispel the evidence and acquit. The coded message here was that Sollecito had a lot of explaining to do which he not only did not do, he didn't even attempt it.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
I will say this. It seems as though the Italians go over board in allowing Defendants EVERY opportunity. It just boggles the mind.

I honestly believe..that if one is going to commit a murder...do it in Italy. Guede out in a year or so. Defendants allowed so much leeway. I find it astounding.

I'd like Juan Martinez..( The Prosecutor in the Jodi Arias trial..to have 5 MINUTES with these murderers.

I feel so bad for Meredith's Family. Every day..insults upon injury. Hopefully..they don't read or see the articles. :cry:


Yes, and the defendants instead of being grateful for these opportunities go running to the US media to describe them as assaults on their freedoms. There are many convicted criminals in other countries that would have given their right arms to be able to have an appeal that assessed not only the technical elements but also the merits of the evidence. People don't get that in the US or UK. If Sollecito and Knox hadn't of got that then the guilty verdict from the Massei trial would have stood and that would have been that. Every other mechanism in the Italian system is in place to protect the accused and to afford them every opportunity to demonstrate their innocence. In addition to this, they would also happily deny Rudy Guede the exact same rights as they had. They too could have opted for the Fast Track process but they CHOSE not to take it.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Supreme Court joins the 'party'

Quote:
Meredith: Judge Nencini under investigation

And 'investigation was initiated by the judge of the Supreme Court pg Alessandro Nencini, President of the College who sentenced Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, for the interview he granted prior to the filing of the reasons and after that criticism had come to the magistrate for more parties, including Anm. This brings or three ongoing investigations on the magistrate, as the CSM also officially opened a practice in the magistrate.

http://www.rainews.it/dl/rainews/artico ... fde42.html
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Knox and Sollecito: justice revisited in prime time

A soundbite in the court of public opinion is so much easier than wading through all that legal evidence

Column LAST UPDATED AT 11:17 ON Wed 5 Feb 2014

Andrea Vogt



THE WEEK

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:43 pm   Post subject: Sanity in Seattle   

Alan Dershowitz: Amanda Knox appeal might not be so easy this time
By John Carlson Published: Feb 4, 2014 at 11:27 AM PST



KVI




(relevant part starts 2:30 minutes in)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Latest from Andrea Vogt: http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featu ... -appeal-2/

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Well said.

Quote:
Gags useless for Nencini

The judge Nencini ends under the slap of the CSM and the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court. Two surveys for transfer of office and disciplinary action to punish him. It is all too obvious that the CSM and Pg have nothing better to do, even if justice is falling apart, that haunt a magistrate guilty only of having given some clarification to journalists who then double quotes his words. I must say, a waste of energy and totally useless for the CSM Pg reveals that the apparent change of mood towards the judges. You want them to be silent and dumb and also with his head bent.

http://milella.blogautore.repubblica.it ... r-nencini/
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Another interview with RS. More of the same. For those internet girlfriends who lost all hope. He says:
"Greta mi sta vicino perché mi vuole bene, ma non è la mia fidanzata."
http://www.oggi.it/focus/cronaca/2014/0 ... aberranti/
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Trailer for "Face Of An Angel"

I think most will love this movie. There's quite a few subtexts I see and am sure the director will cover quite well. Think of it as Barbie's Revenge :)




ETA: This article makes it clear it is not quite about the case. http://variety.com/2014/film/news/amand ... 201084722/

Michael Winterbottom is a good director, and if it gives publicity for the case around the time the Supreme Court will be hearing it, all the better.


A quote from the trailer: "Guilty or not, that's what everyone wants to read."

So the movie will be concentrating on the role of the media. I hope the PR campaign will also be mentioned, but somehow I doubt it.

In my opinion, this movie will only highlight how the media have helped to damage Knox's public image without going much into the evidence which probably will be described as not conclusive.

I don't think movies should be based on real crimes at all unless it is a documentary.

I don't believe I am going to like the movie.


Ah, but there are good movies based on real crimes that don't betray the victims, like Monster, Zodiac or Capote (RIP Philip S. Hoffman, one of the best :( ).
It just seems a little early when the legal process hasn't even finished yet.
Maybe Winterbottom didn't realize how long it would be dragging on when he got into the project back in 2010 (or 2009 ?).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Translation of the Oggi interview:

Raffaele Sollecito speaks against the judge: " The declarations of Nencini are aberrant "
In an exclusive interview with the weekly Oggi, the young man is attacking the judge who sentenced him to 25 years.

Raffaele Sollecito speaks for the first time after conviction. And he does so in an exclusive interview that the weekly magazine Oggi publishes in its edition on newsstands tomorrow. In which, among other things, he rails against the judge who issued the final judgment on the same Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Guilty, as Raffaele says, commenting on the content of the papers of the judgment in Meredith process. So much so that now the CSM has launched an investigation on its own judge Alessandro Nencini for his statements.

"Aberrant STATEMENTS" - Raffaele Sollecito did not mince words in today 's interview, the first after the final judgment against him: " I would have sided with Guede when she [Knox] fought with Meredith for cleaning in the bathroom and I would have helped to stab her. This was suggested by the Attorney General in the indictment to justify the crime. This was confirmed by the President of the Court in his aberrant statements commenting on the judgment."

MINISTERIAL INSPECTION - So says Raffaele Sollecito in an interview with the weekly magazine Oggi, on newsstands tomorrow. Sollecito is hard on Alessandro Nencini, President of the Assize Court of Appeal which sentenced him to 25 years, the subject of controversy and a ministerial inspection for his words after the sentence.

" NO ONE HAS EVER ASKED THE DEFENCE ... " - Nencini, among other things, said Sollecito had never agreed to undergo an interrogation, [he] issued just spontaneous statements and did not accept cross-examination. "No one has ever asked me," says Sollecito to Oggi. "The prosecutor of Perugia, prosecutor Mignini, should have done it, instead he confined himself to assisting in the interrogation of guarantee of the GIP *) [Matteini]. Neither of the plaintiffs asked that I be questioned. I was available. And why, in any case, this would have to worsen my position? What would have changed? What could I add to what I said? But the president has gone further (and here Raffaele rages, ed.) He also said 'that the murder matured so that if Amanda that night had gone to work for Lumumba, Meredith would still be alive. Things among young people [ragazzi] on a night out... '. Was he hallucinating? As if I get up in the morning, I have nothing to do and say, I'm going to kill a girl. But what does it mean 'things among guys [young people]?' "

"GRETA LOVES ME" - About the girl with whom he spent the hours before and after the judgment, Greta Menegaldo, Sollecito said: "Greta is close to me because she loves me, but she is not my girlfriend. Perspectives that I can offer at this moment on this girl? Leave her out of this. It's not fair. [She has] Nothing to do [with it]."


OGGI

Sollecito the idiot speaks again: "This was confirmed by the President of the Court in his aberrant statements commenting on the judgment ." What a lying bastard he is ... but we already knew that, right? Nencini never said anything of the kind.

----------------------
*) GIP - Giudice per le indagini preliminari (Judge in charge of preliminary investigations)
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
The idea was, they were all supposed to have a face-to-face with each other. Knox's people said no straight away, Rudy's people said okay and Sollecito's people wanted to negotiate terms first (which were refused).


I find this very intriguing. Are there any published articles about this (any language okay)? I would like to know more about it. Could this be something reported by Frank before he changed his mind about what he believed?


I did a quick google search last night but didn't find any news article about it. Maybe you will be luckier...I'd be interested, too.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
The idea was, they were all supposed to have a face-to-face with each other. Knox's people said no straight away, Rudy's people said okay and Sollecito's people wanted to negotiate terms first (which were refused).


I find this very intriguing. Are there any published articles about this (any language okay)? I would like to know more about it. Could this be something reported by Frank before he changed his mind about what he believed?


I did a quick google search last night but didn't find any news article about it. Maybe you will be luckier...I'd be interested, too.


I'm not that familiar with wayback searches, so I haven't yet tried to search in that realm. I do think it might provide the answer, or counter argument, to what Sollecito is saying today. He is already known for attempting to re-write history, so unless someone can come up with dates, times, facts of the matter, he will tell his new version of history and as usual, there will be some that will insist it is truth.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Here, this link will get you onto the old Perugia Shock via the Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/201008070000 ... results=50

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

'President' of the court??? Dang.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

"President of the Court" is one of the titles the senior judge carries during a trial or appeal. Another is "Expert of Experts".

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

That is strange... I guess I could be the freak of freaks.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:38 pm   Post subject: Sanity in Seattle Meets Insanity in Seattle   

Amanda Knox legal view sparks incredulous callers to KVI
By John Carlson Published: Feb 5, 2014 at 12:42 PM PST



After laying out his conclusions about Amanda Knox’s level of complicity in the stabbing death of former roommate in Italy, Meredith Kercher, and Knox’s 2nd conviction in the murder, John Carlson is besieged by callers defending Knox. They tell Carlson’s he’s completely wrong.


KVI

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Director: I'm not exploiting Meredith Kercher's death
11:35 AM Thursday Feb 6, 2014
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment ... d=11197624

He [Michael Winterbottom] said: "Talking to Barbie and others, they were aware they focused on sensational elements that sell. What goes missing is the person who's the victim."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
Nell wrote:
A quote from the trailer: "Guilty or not, that's what everyone wants to read."

So the movie will be concentrating on the role of the media. I hope the PR campaign will also be mentioned, but somehow I doubt it.

In my opinion, this movie will only highlight how the media have helped to damage Knox's public image without going much into the evidence which probably will be described as not conclusive.

I don't think movies should be based on real crimes at all unless it is a documentary.

I don't believe I am going to like the movie.


Ah, but there are good movies based on real crimes that don't betray the victims, like Monster, Zodiac or Capote (RIP Philip S. Hoffman, one of the best :( ).
It just seems a little early when the legal process hasn't even finished yet.
Maybe Winterbottom didn't realize how long it would be dragging on when he got into the project back in 2010 (or 2009 ?).


I agree with you. There have been interesting movies about real crimes that are worth watching, but take the movie "Zodiac" for example, a survivor was highly suspicious when he was approached to help with the production.

I also have a problem with the constant claim that the press were focussing on Knox's sex life and that this worked against her.

The press I've read stood out for not reporting in a balanced way, rarely mentioning the actual evidence that implicates Knox in the murder and this has worked hugely in her favour. So in my opinion, the press has helped Amanda Knox to cultivate the image of a young American being railroaded. She was not put at a disadvantage, to the contrary.

Everyone who says otherwise is not telling the truth. The articles discussing the evidence were very far in between.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:

In a recent interview with RS (at an Indian restaurant?) cant remember where I read this. He is distancing himself from Amanda. Saying he didn't know her for too long, he cant remember what was going on that night and giving Amanda no alibi. Italian translations are sometimes hard to grasp - especially since RS talks in code - but this was my understanding. Given this and the above - I am wondering how this may unfold...



But in what way can Nencini be shown to have prejudged either of them? That's what bias means, a prejudgment. All Nencini has said is he made judgments on the basis of the evidence and that in terms of the defence strategy, he required something further from the defence then they offered in order for him to be able to split the defence. Where's the bias in that? The defence realise this, hence why they felt the need to put words and meaning in Nencini's mouth in order to make something out of nothing.

As for Sollecito trying to distance himself from Amanda, it's all far too late for that now. He's had all of his chances...one pre-trial, one trial and two appeals worth. He's blown it.[/quote]

The bias/prejudice could possibly be shown by demonstrating that Nencini did not separate RS from AK, because RS did not speak. I can see that this is a circular argument - however IMHO it is one that can be made. If Nencini, after looking at the evidence, thinks that RS could have separated himself by taking the stand ==> then Nencini should have given RS the benefit of the doubt and acquitted because RS has the right to remain silent.

As for RS separating himself from AK, late or not, the recent CNN interview is another clear signal that he is now doing just that. He says
- there is no evidence against me
- and there is no strong evidence against Amanda
Then he goes on to say
- I do not want to be convicted for someone else's peculiar behavior!
This is a very different tune of 'Amanda and I' which he played over the past couple of years...I may be wrong, but it seems obvious to me that although he hasn't yet come to a stage where he is throwing her under the bus, he is definitely saying 'I don't know what she did and where she was, but i didn't do it'[/quote]


I'm not quite sure how. If Nencini felt he needed more input from the defence in the face of the evidence before feeling he could split the defences as they wished, how is that bias? Note, the complaint by Nencini here, if it can be seen as a complaint, was NOT that he didn't feel there was enough evidence to confirm guilt, but not enough to split the defences and certainly not enough to dispel the evidence and acquit. The coded message here was that Sollecito had a lot of explaining to do which he not only did not do, he didn't even attempt it.[/quote]

I wanted to clarify that I am just playing devil's advocate here - I agree with your position, it is the obvious intention of the judge. At the same time I can see a twisted argument being made (wether its accepted or not is a different story).
This is the reasonable doubt argument, if Nencini thought there was any possibility that RS could have explained his way out of the evidence, then he should have given RS the benefit of the doubt - because RS has the right to remain silent.
Nencini says there was not enough evidence to split the defenses, and that RS should have been subjected to cross if he wanted this. It is RS' right to remain silent - it is the court's job to infer reasonable doubt.

I just think Nencini put his foot in it, he should have said something like RS speaking or not - the evidence did not leave any reasonable room for the defenses to split. Now he has talked his way into, if RS talked things may be different...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I'm still catching up on all the news since the day of the verdict and watching Youtube videos.

If anyone is interested, here's ABC's Nightline (pro-Knox, of course) with Knox's parents and Douglas Preston:

Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito re-convicted for Kercher murder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVb2MfUrk7E

Dan Abrams commenting before the Jan 30 verdict on (possible) extradition:

Amanda Knox re-trial verdict

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kBeryXMgnY

Steve-o (Part I):

Amanda Knox convicted of murder again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRWhCscaHqs
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Translation of the Oggi interview:

Raffaele Sollecito speaks against the judge: " The declarations of Nencini are aberrant "...

...

" NO ONE HAS EVER ASKED THE DEFENCE ... " - Nencini , among other things , said Sollecito had never done interrogation , issued just spontaneous statements and did not accept cross-examination. "No one has ever asked me," says Sollecito to Oggi. " The prosecutor of Perugia, prosecutor Mignini, should have done it, instead he confined himself to assisting in the interrogation of guarantee of the GIP *) [Matteini]. Neither of the plaintiffs have asked that I be questioned . I was available...


OGGI

...What a lying bastard he is ... but we already knew that, right? ...

----------------------
...


"No one ... ever asked"?!

"I was available"?!

"Mignini should have done it..."

Raffles does, indeed, appear to be a lying bastard - consider this post of mine from 2012:


Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies).

That rule has marked the upward surge of mankind since (at least) the 6th Century and its corollaries (the presumption of innocence and the right to silence) have been enshrined in the constitutional law of every western democracy you can name.

One is hard pressed to think of a rule of evidence more fundamental to the heart of either the civil or common law system.

In 1935, Lord Sankey rather famously described this rule (placing the onus on the prosecution) and its corollaries as “the Golden Thread” running through the common law of England (Woolmington v. The DPP, in the House of Lords).

In the USA, the rule and its corollaries are covered by the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments; in Canada, they are enshrined under Section 11 of their Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms; & in Italy (and the 46 other member states of the Council of Europe) they’re covered under Article 6 of the ECHR:

“...the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself, are generally
recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair
procedure under Article 6…” (per Saunders v. United Kingdom in 1996, the European Court of Human Rights)


To wit: in Italy, the prosecution simply cannot compel a defendant to take the stand and face cross-examination when said defendant elects to exercise his right to remain silent.

The choice to avoid cross-examination was his and his alone.

Evidently, Raffles takes us all for fools. Anderson Cooper didn't disappoint him.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
That is strange... I guess I could be the freak of freaks.


With people like Supernazi and geebee in the running, you don't have the slightest chance of winning that title, DG!

Besides, aren't you're one of the cool kids who played college ball?!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aranavachi wrote:
I wanted to clarify that I am just playing devil's advocate here - I agree with your position, it is the obvious intention of the judge. At the same time I can see a twisted argument being made (wether its accepted or not is a different story).
This is the reasonable doubt argument, if Nencini thought there was any possibility that RS could have explained his way out of the evidence, then he should have given RS the benefit of the doubt - because RS has the right to remain silent.


No, this doesn't make any sense. Whether Nencini thought it possible or not that Sollecito may have had some sort of explanation, the evidence still remains. He cannot acquit someone in the face of the evidence merely because he thinks that had they have only chosen to have spoken, there's a "possibility" they may have had an answer to it. Remember what the High Court said about accepting alternative explanations merely because they are "possible"? Not that Raffaele offered any alternative "possibilities" for the court to consider, in any case.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Why Amanda Knox's spin shouldn't deny justice for Meredith

By Lindy McDowell – 05 February 2014



BELFAST TELEGRAPH

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

And just to add, as Jackie has so professionally pointed out, the right to silence exists (and is fundamental) to all legally sophisticated nations across the board. As such, were it the case that any judge or jury should infer innocence or even simply give the benefit of the doubt in the face of all evidence merely because an accused chooses to defer to their right of silence, then nobody in any court would ever be convicted of a felony.

When you have a substantial case against an accused, then a court requires something of substance from the accused or/and their defence in order to be able to dispel it. When an accused has "a case to answer", then indeed they must provide an "answer". When that answer is lacking or non-existent, then a court must convict.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I've a little something more to say. Sollecito went to trial in the first case because multiple courts in addition to a deeper examination by Judge Micheli, had determined there was case substantive enough against him to warrant a trial. That trial then found him guilty, unanimously, on all charges except for the theft of the cash and credit cards. So, Sollecito was not in front of Nencini as an innocent man, but as a provisionally guilty defendant attempting to overturn his guilty conviction. Therefore, this meant that in terms of demonstrating his innocence, the ball was in his court, a ball he refused to play. The defence did their best, but the fact is their arguments were (over the course of all hearings) ad hoc and contradictory (Raffaele was home watching Amelie...no, he was home downloading a video...no, he was home watching a cartoon...no, he was at home on the phone to his dad...no, he was writing emails...no, he was doing coursework on his computer, etc, etc). And of course, the defence couldn't do better because they weren't at the cottage that night, they weren't at Raffaele's apartment nor at any place in between the two places. It therefore required something extra, Sollecito himself to offer some sort of definitive explanation from his own mouth, something Sollecito had always elected not to do, not in a setting where he could be cross-examined by all parties. Therefore, Nencini was left with no choice but to deny the request to split the trial and also to confirm Massei's guilty verdicts.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Kerry wisely not say anything about the upcoming Knox extradition request. At least he understands it is an ongoing legal process :) From 4:40 min.
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v ... x.cnn.html
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jackie wrote:
dgfred wrote:
That is strange... I guess I could be the freak of freaks.


With people like Supernazi and geebee in the running, you don't have the slightest chance of winning that title, DG!

Besides, aren't you're one of the cool kids who played college ball?!


Yes, college baseball but not the cool part. I am a weird mixture.

Since I was young... my facinations were with sports, military stuff/history and animals.
Made all A's in High School but played football/baseball and partied alot. My friends gave me hell for the good grades but I was good at getting my work done before the party. I was kind of in both the geek and jock groups.
Majored in Political Science and Business in college, then went to work for my dad in his Insurance Agency. Still there after 20+ years. Married with one daughter age 23. Play war-games on the PC, study crime cases/forums and military forums, play fantasy sports, coach 13-15 boy's baseball in the summer, smoke, listen to classic rock, watch sports and other TV, go fishing, play golf a few times a year, LOVE my animals (1 mini-wiener dog, 5 cats), hang out with my daughter, and get older.
Really rather boring and average for the most part. Tried to be cool for awhile... but gave up years ago.

How about you without any pertinant details?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Here, this link will get you onto the old Perugia Shock via the Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/201008070000 ... results=50


Thanks for the link, Michael. I haven't found anything yet but will go on searching...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Another RS interview? This time, with Studio Aperto. RS, clad in white sweater, acting as a 'victim of prejudice'.

Attachment:
RS studio aperto interview Feb 5 2014.JPG


Interview with Raffaele Sollecito:
Reveals his disappointment and fears for the future: "I, who was sentenced by prejudice." (VIDEO)

MEDIASET


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Ava wrote:
Nell wrote:
A quote from the trailer: "Guilty or not, that's what everyone wants to read."

So the movie will be concentrating on the role of the media. I hope the PR campaign will also be mentioned, but somehow I doubt it.

In my opinion, this movie will only highlight how the media have helped to damage Knox's public image without going much into the evidence which probably will be described as not conclusive.

I don't think movies should be based on real crimes at all unless it is a documentary.

I don't believe I am going to like the movie.


Ah, but there are good movies based on real crimes that don't betray the victims, like Monster, Zodiac or Capote (RIP Philip S. Hoffman, one of the best :( ).
It just seems a little early when the legal process hasn't even finished yet.
Maybe Winterbottom didn't realize how long it would be dragging on when he got into the project back in 2010 (or 2009 ?).


I agree with you. There have been interesting movies about real crimes that are worth watching, but take the movie "Zodiac" for example, a survivor was highly suspicious when he was approached to help with the production.



It's especially delicate with murder cases of course, but this can be true for any "based on a true story" movie or even biopics where the people involved (or their immediate relatives) are still alive. And while movies aren't the same as books, true crime stories usually sell pretty well and there have been quite a few covering 'our' case too (although I don't know how well they sold). Also, documentaries aren't necessarily objective and the people portrayed in them sometimes don't like the result either.
It will always be a sensitive issue I guess...


Last edited by Ava on Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
I'm still catching up on all the news since the day of the verdict and watching Youtube videos.

If anyone is interested, here's ABC's Nightline (pro-Knox, of course) with Knox's parents and Douglas Preston:

Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito re-convicted for Kercher murder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVb2MfUrk7E



Thanks, guermantes. Only new information: She wants to write a children's book now (last time it was her grandma's biography or somethng like that). ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
guermantes wrote:
I'm still catching up on all the news since the day of the verdict and watching Youtube videos.

If anyone is interested, here's ABC's Nightline (pro-Knox, of course) with Knox's parents and Douglas Preston:

Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito re-convicted for Kercher murder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVb2MfUrk7E



Thanks, guermantes. Only new information: She wants to write a children's book now (last time it was her grandma's biography or somethng like that). ;)


Yes, indeed, Ava, nothing new in Knoxlandia. Edda Mellas continues to lie unashamedly on TV:

NK - Neal Karlinsky
EM - Edda Mellas
CK - Curt Knox

@6:55 min

NK: Do you feel like this is purely political now?

EM: Absolutely.

NK: Not based on the facts, evidence?

EM: No, no! Like I said, even in closing arguments, they don't talk just about the facts of the case. If they did, they would have found both Amanda and Raffaele innocent. But you know ... they talk about the need to restore the police's reputation as the reason to find people guilty. You know ... that they are not looking at evidence any more.

CK: You've gone and strayed so far away from justice that that's what we experienced today with this verdict.
------------------------------------
Where did she get that from? Prosecutor General Crini spent 11 hours, summing up the evidence against the accused. Clearly, she had fallen asleep while listening. In addition, she couldn't understand a word of Italian!
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Marco Quintavalle has given an interview to Il Messaggero:

The super witness says: "Conviction is right"
By Luigi Foglietti
5 February 2014

PERUGIA - "For me, the right judgment ." He has no doubt, Marco Quintavalle , the key witness in the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, now former sweethearts, after the verdict that refers both to prison. Accused of killing on the night between the first and second November, 2007 Meredith Kercher , the English girl who had taken lodgings in Via della Pergola . He had told that he saw Amanda in the morning of the murder, and she told to be sleeping with Sollecito. "But the punishment is too severe - he adds - because two young people have the right to be assisted to have a chance of recovery ."

Marco Quintavalle , now fifty-five , a key witness to the process Kercher , made his deposition , which is considered crucial , Saturday 21 March 2009, in the first instance trial. Then he was no longer called to the bar , either in the first appeal or now, in the second [appeal] held in Florence .

Always firm in his beliefs?
"If they called me again to testify , I would say the same things because that is the truth. I'm used to judge a person for facts, so if Amanda says that that morning she was sleeping, instead she was waiting for me to open the store, she tells a lie , then what she did before and after I do not know. "

So never in doubt ?
"Someone tried to make me change my version , even a British journalist , who was among the innocentisti , accused me of being a liar , when he came to interview me in my shop, along with a friend of Amanda, who was trying to get me to say that I was wrong . He asked me earnestly if I was sure that in life you can not go wrong , I replied that of course it is possible, but on that occasion I was sure of the contrary . "

Being branded a liar weights on you ?
" Very , defense lawyers said I'm unreliable , but I was born in the center of Perugia, I worked many years, I know a lot of people , friends and clients , who know that instead I'm very reliable ."

But back to his convenience store where the morning of November 2, Amanda is coming ?
"Sure, but by March 2009 will not have it any more, I sold the business to a Libyan . Even then, newspapers and television had said so many things wrong , such as I had stated that Amanda had bought soaps and detergents. I 've never said that, because while I'm sure that that morning she was there at the time of the opening, I can not say what she had bought because I was not at the cash register and that yes, I saw her with her gray coat , from behind, as she paid . "

And Sollecito was at the market?
"Of course, he came in a few times, even in conjunction (at the same time) with Rudy , who bought a Coke . For me they were together , but had not seen them talk to each other . "

At the beginning of the investigation you did not turn up to give your testimony , why?
" I did not feel the need to report that Amanda came to me that morning , so she could stay home with Raffaele , I had just said to my family , then the thing is known and they convinced me to go to the prosecutor's office. Sure, I have a clear conscience , but the thing for me has been a huge cost from all points of view . "


IL MESSAGGERO
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jackie wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Translation of the Oggi interview:

Raffaele Sollecito speaks against the judge: " The declarations of Nencini are aberrant "...

...

" NO ONE HAS EVER ASKED THE DEFENCE ... " - Nencini , among other things , said Sollecito had never done interrogation , issued just spontaneous statements and did not accept cross-examination. "No one has ever asked me," says Sollecito to Oggi. " The prosecutor of Perugia, prosecutor Mignini, should have done it, instead he confined himself to assisting in the interrogation of guarantee of the GIP *) [Matteini]. Neither of the plaintiffs have asked that I be questioned . I was available...


OGGI

...What a lying bastard he is ... but we already knew that, right? ...

----------------------
...


"No one ... ever asked"?!

"I was available"?!

"Mignini should have done it..."

Raffles does, indeed, appear to be a lying bastard - consider this post of mine from 2012:


Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies).

That rule has marked the upward surge of mankind since (at least) the 6th Century and its corollaries (the presumption of innocence and the right to silence) have been enshrined in the constitutional law of every western democracy you can name.

One is hard pressed to think of a rule of evidence more fundamental to the heart of either the civil or common law system.

In 1935, Lord Sankey rather famously described this rule (placing the onus on the prosecution) and its corollaries as “the Golden Thread” running through the common law of England (Woolmington v. The DPP, in the House of Lords).

In the USA, the rule and its corollaries are covered by the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments; in Canada, they are enshrined under Section 11 of their Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms; & in Italy (and the 46 other member states of the Council of Europe) they’re covered under Article 6 of the ECHR:

“...the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself, are generally
recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair
procedure under Article 6…” (per Saunders v. United Kingdom in 1996, the European Court of Human Rights)


To wit: in Italy, the prosecution simply cannot compel a defendant to take the stand and face cross-examination when said defendant elects to exercise his right to remain silent.

The choice to avoid cross-examination was his and his alone.

Evidently, Raffles takes us all for fools. Anderson Cooper didn't disappoint him.


An AMAZING post !!

Whilst I understand the general rule of thumb for most attorneys for defendants ..for them not to take the stand...IF one is Innocent..then...there would be every reason for them to do so.

He's a slippery one, That Raffles. Perhaps he murdered Meredith because he wasn't asked not to.

Hey, Raffles. The Truth shall set you free. As you dare NOT do so...off you go. To Prison.

I can't watch these interviews. I believe it;s called self preservation :)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Dg...You ARE Cool. sun-)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
guermantes wrote:
I'm still catching up on all the news since the day of the verdict and watching Youtube videos.

If anyone is interested, here's ABC's Nightline (pro-Knox, of course) with Knox's parents and Douglas Preston:

Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito re-convicted for Kercher murder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVb2MfUrk7E



Thanks, guermantes. Only new information: She wants to write a children's book now (last time it was her grandma's biography or somethng like that). ;)


Strewwelpeter was always a favourite for my children. Perhaps Knox can add some gruesome, moral stories to this type of literature.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12116/12 ... 2116-h.htm
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks Cape hugz-) , we did miss YOU.


I left the part out about us being soul-mates kh-)) ... can't tell everything.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hey Michael. Can you or someone else find where we were discussing the lack of RG's shoeprints from around Meredith until they showed up again going out the cottage?

aka cleanup in Meredith's room. Thanks!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Ava wrote:
guermantes wrote:
I'm still catching up on all the news since the day of the verdict and watching Youtube videos.

If anyone is interested, here's ABC's Nightline (pro-Knox, of course) with Knox's parents and Douglas Preston:

Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito re-convicted for Kercher murder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVb2MfUrk7E



Thanks, guermantes. Only new information: She wants to write a children's book now (last time it was her grandma's biography or somethng like that). ;)


Strewwelpeter was always a favourite for my children. Perhaps Knox can add some gruesome, moral stories to this type of literature.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12116/12 ... 2116-h.htm


Or maybe she should just stick with Granny ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

A must-read: Tiziano's translation of an article published in Firenze Post on Feb. 3. I'm re-posting it here in full:

Post by Tiziano » 06 Feb 2014, 07:48
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=158976#p158976
--------------------------------------------------------
THE STORM OVER THE FLORENTINE JUDGE WHO CRITICISED BERLUSCONI

By ANTONIO LOVASCIO

FEBRUARY 3rd, 2014.

I too think that a "false case" - as the Florence Post has written - has been created for the President of the second section of the Appeal Court of Florence, Alessandra Nencini. And my conviction was reinforced this morning reading the timely clarifications of the magistrate on how the facts at the origin of the event unfolded: "no organised or prepared interview", but only a brief, unplanned conversation in the corridors of the Justice Palace, destined in his intentions to "clarify possible misunderstandings" on the inferences and rumours circulating and reported to him by some journalists, on the time taken by the deliberating council.

Thus no desire on the part of the judge to "express judgements on the strategy of the defence", which in any case would be in contrast with his expressed recognition ( recorded by Il Messaggero newspaper) of the fact that "the accused had been defended to the highest degree".

But at the same time my initial conviction was enhanced by the last statement attributed to Raffaele Sollecito - condemned to 25 years for the murder of poor Meredith, slightly less than that inflicted on his ex-girlfriend Amanda Knox, who had returned to America and thus was absent from the Florence court - by La Stampa newspaper. Today Sollecito claims: "If the judges wanted to question me, they could have. I was not there just to warm a seat." The young man from Puglia knows full well that it was his defence, led by a "media fox" like Giulia Bongiorno, to choose the pathway of "spontaneous declarations" precisely to spare him from cross-examination by the prosecutor and the civil parties, which perhaps could have compromised even further his situation, which was, furthermore, noted by the unbearably heavy motivations of the Supreme Court in its sentence of remand, which annulled the acquittal of the accused by the Perugia Court of Appeal, after the first instance conviction.

Speaking to the journalists who contacted him after the last verdict, it seems to me that Nencini did not enter into detailed arguments on the motives which led the Court (made up of citizen judges as well) to reaffirm the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele. As he claims in the current clarifications, the president of the Court, on insistent questioning, limited himself to giving a few modest facts to clarify the position to the most diligent journalists and to public opinion. Certainly he could have even replied with a terse "no comment", to just avoid polemics with Knox and Sollecito's lawyers (ready to ask for an annulment of the conviction and the opening of disciplinary procedures against the magistrate) and to [avoid] offering the pretext to the ever-present political exploitation of justice.

It is true: the storm that has fallen on Nencini very much recalls that which overtook Antonio Esposito, the president of the *Sezione Feriale of Cassation, which after declaring Berlusconi guilty of tax fraud, gave an interview to Il Mattino newspaper. But the frenzy of the centre-right was predictable. Indeed, in his (remarkable) "curriculum" the Florence judge also has an accusation of slander (in 2010) against the ex-premier and then leader of Forza Italia himself. Nencini (then the representative for Tuscany of the **ANM) had requested symbolic damages of 10,000 Euro from the Cavaliere, who had defined the magistrature as a "cancerous growth" which applied the laws like a "wrathful god". The parliamentary body which rules on certain legal matters concerning deputies decided that Berlusconi was not challengeable for that definition. The account is therefore still open. And one can sense the specious political pressures on the First Commission (in charge of transfer from office because of incompatibility with the area of appointment or function of magistrates) to open a dossier on the president of the second section of the Appeal Court of the Assises of Florence. Even if he has directed a difficult trial - journalists and jurists recognise that he has - with competence, wisdom and balance, without ever having lent himself to exposure to the easy flattery of the media circuit.

* Sezione feriale della Cassazione: Section which deals with trials where there is a risk of statute of limitations and with precautionary measures.
-----------------------------------------------------

FIRENZE POST
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Ava wrote:
guermantes wrote:
I'm still catching up on all the news since the day of the verdict and watching Youtube videos.

If anyone is interested, here's ABC's Nightline (pro-Knox, of course) with Knox's parents and Douglas Preston:

Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito re-convicted for Kercher murder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVb2MfUrk7E



Thanks, guermantes. Only new information: She wants to write a children's book now (last time it was her grandma's biography or somethng like that). ;)


Yes, indeed, Ava, nothing new in Knoxlandia. Edda Mellas continues to lie unashamedly on TV:

NK - Neal Karlinsky
EM - Edda Mellas
CK - Curt Knox

@6:55 min

NK: Do you feel like this is purely political now?

EM: Absolutely.

NK: Not based on the facts, evidence?

EM: No, no! Like I said, even in closing arguments, they don't talk just about the facts of the case. If they did, they would have found both Amanda and Raffaele innocent. But you know ... they talk about the need to restore the police's reputation as the reason to find people guilty. You know ... that they are not looking at evidence any more.

CK: You've gone and strayed so far away from justice that that's what we experienced today with this verdict.
------------------------------------
Where did she get that from? Prosecutor General Crini spent 11 hours, summing up the evidence against the accused. Clearly, she had fallen asleep while listening. In addition, she couldn't understand a word of Italian!


Curt Knox and Edda Mellas can lie shamelessly to all viewers because the networks agreed to David Marriott's conditions not to have someone on the set to challenge them on their lies.

Where I am from, the interviewer is well informed of the facts and assures a balanced presentation by challenging some statements. This doesn't seem to be very popular in the US. It's all about sensationalism.

A story about an Italian prosecutor that openly discusses in court how to "save face" certainly has the ingredients to a great story in the US. No questions asked.

In my opinion this PR campaign started by Amanda Knox's family plus the media that obliged reporting only pre-approved talking points will be remembered as one of the biggest, if not the biggest, mass media manipulation of recent times.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

And the media circus around the two murderers continues:

Raffaele Sollecito: I Have 'No Regrets' About Returning to Italy
By Johnny Dodd
February 6, 2014

"The Italian prosecutors manufactured a case against Ms. Knox based on innuendo, rank speculation and outrageous inferences drawn from her conduct," says John Q. Kelly, Sollecito's U.S. attorney. "Raffaele is collateral damage. His only crimes are honesty and integrity, refusing to assist in a witch hunt in exchange for his freedom."
...
Sollecito and Knox spoke before the verdict "to support one another." But he says he has no current plans to reach out to his one-time girlfriend. "At this point," he says, "I just want to be with people who are really close to me, people who are important in my life."

For more about the case, including an exclusive interview with Amanda Knox, pick up this week's issue of PEOPLE


PEOPLE

At one time very close, Sollicito (sic) said that he hasn’t spoken to Knox since the guilty verdict was handed down.

“Psychologically it’s not my priority. You can understand that this is something that’s about me now, more than, and about my family, my people who support me. So any kind of support between me and her in this moment there’s no, lift up.”

He also said his relationship with Knox has deteriorated over the years.

“Yeah, it was more supportive. I felt that I could have a shoulder on the other side. But now the situation, even if we are in the same kind of trial, my life and her life is very different, and things developed in a very different way.


RADAR ONLINE
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Guermantes quoting Quintavalle wrote:
So never in doubt ?
"Someone tried to make me change my version , even a British journalist , who was among the innocentisti , accused me of being a liar , when he came to interview me in my shop, along with a friend of Amanda, who was trying to get me to say that I was wrong . He asked me earnestly if I was sure that in life you can not go wrong , I replied that of course it is possible, but on that occasion I was sure of the contrary . "



So, right here, we have a clear case of witness tampering! Harassing witnesses to make them change their testimony??? I wonder...did they also do that with Sollecito's ex-cleaning lady to have her contradict Quintavalle's testimony? Did they also do that with Sllecito's current cleaning lady at the time, to make her change her testimony about the bleach? The tampering in this case, throughout, stinks!

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
Hey Michael. Can you or someone else find where we were discussing the lack of RG's shoeprints from around Meredith until they showed up again going out the cottage?

aka cleanup in Meredith's room. Thanks!



Okay, try this in a search. Make the search for posts posted by me, in the "Murder of Meredith kercher" subforum. Put in the following keywords (together): "levitate" "Rudy" "footprints"

See if that works for you :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Ava wrote:
guermantes wrote:
I'm still catching up on all the news since the day of the verdict and watching Youtube videos.

If anyone is interested, here's ABC's Nightline (pro-Knox, of course) with Knox's parents and Douglas Preston:

Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito re-convicted for Kercher murder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVb2MfUrk7E



Thanks, guermantes. Only new information: She wants to write a children's book now (last time it was her grandma's biography or somethng like that). ;)


Yes, indeed, Ava, nothing new in Knoxlandia. Edda Mellas continues to lie unashamedly on TV:

NK - Neal Karlinsky
EM - Edda Mellas
CK - Curt Knox

@6:55 min

NK: Do you feel like this is purely political now?

EM: Absolutely.

NK: Not based on the facts, evidence?

EM: No, no! Like I said, even in closing arguments, they don't talk just about the facts of the case. If they did, they would have found both Amanda and Raffaele innocent. But you know ... they talk about the need to restore the police's reputation as the reason to find people guilty. You know ... that they are not looking at evidence any more.

CK: You've gone and strayed so far away from justice that that's what we experienced today with this verdict.
------------------------------------
Where did she get that from? Prosecutor General Crini spent 11 hours, summing up the evidence against the accused. Clearly, she had fallen asleep while listening. In addition, she couldn't understand a word of Italian!


Curt Knox and Edda Mellas can lie shamelessly to all viewers because the networks agreed to David Marriott's conditions not to have someone on the set to challenge them on their lies.

Where I am from, the interviewer is well informed of the facts and assures a balanced presentation by challenging some statements. This doesn't seem to be very popular in the US. It's all about sensationalism.

A story about an Italian prosecutor that openly discusses in court how to "save face" certainly has the ingredients to a great story in the US. No questions asked.

In my opinion this PR campaign started by Amanda Knox's family plus the media that obliged reporting only pre-approved talking points will be remembered as one of the biggest, if not the biggest, mass media manipulation of recent times.



I think what Edda is alluding to here (and exaggerating it no small amount as well as getting it completely wrong), is Defence lawyers during their closing arguments, accused the investigators of prejudice during their investigation. It was a load of hyperbole and rubbish to stand in for the lack of arguments they had to defeat the actual evidence. But this was about the investigation and the "trial by media", not about Nencini's appeal.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
Jackie wrote:
dgfred wrote:
That is strange... I guess I could be the freak of freaks.


With people like Supernazi and geebee in the running, you don't have the slightest chance of winning that title, DG!

Besides, aren't you're one of the cool kids who played college ball?!


Yes, college baseball but not the cool part. I am a weird mixture.

Since I was young... my facinations were with sports, military stuff/history and animals.
Made all A's in High School but played football/baseball and partied alot. My friends gave me hell for the good grades but I was good at getting my work done before the party. I was kind of in both the geek and jock groups.
Majored in Political Science and Business in college, then went to work for my dad in his Insurance Agency. Still there after 20+ years. Married with one daughter age 23. Play war-games on the PC, study crime cases/forums and military forums, play fantasy sports, coach 13-15 boy's baseball in the summer, smoke, listen to classic rock, watch sports and other TV, go fishing, play golf a few times a year, LOVE my animals (1 mini-wiener dog, 5 cats), hang out with my daughter, and get older.
Really rather boring and average for the most part. Tried to be cool for awhile... but gave up years ago.

How about you without any pertinant details?


Strangely, I think you and I are rather alike...in terms of duality. Although with me, it's rather more extreme.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks Michael. I found the information searching 'footprints' post by you in that section.

It was Jul 24, 2013/Main Discussion/March29-/pg 13

Such a good point about the footprints missing from Meredith to her door... but then all continuing in the hallway.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
Michael wrote:
Here, this link will get you onto the old Perugia Shock via the Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/201008070000 ... results=50


Thanks for the link, Michael. I haven't found anything yet but will go on searching...


Yeah, you may have to go through month by month. Also, if they still exist, check the comments. The other place you would have found discussion regarding the face-to-face much more easily and where discussion of it was abundant for a period, was our old True Crime Weblog Message Board, which unfortunately, no longer exists. And I don't think it exists in any form even on the Wayback Machine. I don't know why that is, maybe because that site wasn't a top level domain and they only cache forums that have top level domains. There may be some discussion of it surviving back on Haloscan. They are no longer on the web, but I have rtf's of them (or much of them) somewhere. If anyone asks me for them, I'll try and dig them out.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
I've a little something more to say. Sollecito went to trial in the first case because multiple courts in addition to a deeper examination by Judge Micheli, had determined there was case substantive enough against him to warrant a trial. That trial then found him guilty, unanimously, on all charges except for the theft of the cash and credit cards. So, Sollecito was not in front of Nencini as an innocent man, but as a provisionally guilty defendant attempting to overturn his guilty conviction. Therefore, this meant that in terms of demonstrating his innocence, the ball was in his court, a ball he refused to play. The defence did their best, but the fact is their arguments were (over the course of all hearings) ad hoc and contradictory (Raffaele was home watching Amelie...no, he was home downloading a video...no, he was home watching a cartoon...no, he was at home on the phone to his dad...no, he was writing emails...no, he was doing coursework on his computer, etc, etc). And of course, the defence couldn't do better because they weren't at the cottage that night, they weren't at Raffaele's apartment nor at any place in between the two places. It therefore required something extra, Sollecito himself to offer some sort of definitive explanation from his own mouth, something Sollecito had always elected not to do, not in a setting where he could be cross-examined by all parties. Therefore, Nencini was left with no choice but to deny the request to split the trial and also to confirm Massei's guilty verdicts.


Micheal, I really hope you know that I am in no way trying to imply RS was not involved. All I am saying is that it looks to me as though he is separating himself from Knox and if he can latch onto Nencini's word to get himself another trial - he will try it at any expense. I can almost bet he will say he does not remember whether Amanda was with him that night.

On the flip side Amanda is going all out to say 'WE' are innocent and that she doesn't know what she will do if RS goes to jail and she does not etc

Its in stark contrast to the tune that RS is playing. Again highlighted in Guermantes's quotes above:
John Q. Kelly, Sollecito's U.S. attorney. "Raffaele is collateral damage." implying at the very least that there were questionable things against Knox - none of this "they are both railroaded"
RS says about Knox “ I felt that I could have a shoulder on the other side. But now the situation, even if we are in the same kind of trial, my life and her life is very different, and things developed in a very different way." and its not his priority to talk to her.

Bet she wishes she had married him now!

To me it is obvious that Knox is desperate for him to stick with her, while he is ready to throw her away for a chance to save himself.

As for the facts against RS - i think its even stronger than the case against Knox:
computer and phone records
DNA on the bra strap
footprint on the bathroom mat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It would seem that the "Oh Shit! Plan" is to claim that the process is biased against the pair. Bongiorno is trying to accuse Nencini of bias, Sollecito is whining to any media outlet that will listen that the appeal was biased against him. Now also, Edda Mellas is publicly also claiming the court was biased.

This is what happens when they can no longer argue against the evidence (all arguments having failed). Utter desperation.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aranavachi wrote:
Micheal, I really hope you know that I am in no way trying to imply RS was not involved. All I am saying is that it looks to me as though he is separating himself from Knox and if he can latch onto Nencini's word to get himself another trial - he will try it at any expense. I can almost bet he will say he does not remember whether Amanda was with him that night.


Well, he IS trying it. Not that it will work. And they want to be careful, it may backfire. The prosecution may retaliate to these antics, by appealing the sentence to the High Court and requesting it be increased on X and Y grounds, instead of supporting the sentence as it stands, which they were originally probably going to do (support it). Maresca, too.

Aranavachi wrote:
To me it is obvious that Knox is desperate for him to stick with her, while he is ready to throw her away for a chance to save himself.


Not quite. "Throwing her away" would be to declare that he stayed in his apartment all evening alone while Knox went out, maybe only helping later with the staging/partial clean-up. He's not ready to go that far yet. What he IS doing, is trying to "distance" himself from Knox and evidence by claiming "I have been convicted only by the evidence against Amanda, as there is no evidence against me. I am therefore, convicted solely by my association with Amanda". But of course, this too is a complete lie as there is evidence against Sollecito plus also evidence equally against the pair of them (eg, alibis which do not stand up to even the most casual scrutiny).

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Guermantes quoting Quintavalle wrote:
So never in doubt ?
"Someone tried to make me change my version , even a British journalist , who was among the innocentisti , accused me of being a liar , when he came to interview me in my shop, along with a friend of Amanda, who was trying to get me to say that I was wrong . He asked me earnestly if I was sure that in life you can not go wrong , I replied that of course it is possible, but on that occasion I was sure of the contrary . "



So, right here, we have a clear case of witness tampering! Harassing witnesses to make them change their testimony??? I wonder...did they also do that with Sollecito's ex-cleaning lady to have her contradict Quintavalle's testimony? Did they also do that with Sllecito's current cleaning lady at the time, to make her change her testimony about the bleach? The tampering in this case, throughout, stinks!


Nara Capezzali received a visit from Knox supporters too.

Amanda Knox supporters said she was deaf and confused. I remember comments from Frank Sfarzo ridiculing her. Paul Ciolino visited her too with a woman to translate for him, Giulia Alagna.

Link to video: http://youtu.be/Nd-Th8lIxyo

They claimed police never talked to her, yet she testified during the trial. Peter Van Sant and Paul Ciolino presented her as an unreliable witness, despite the fact that her testimony was confirmed by Monacchia Antonella and, involuntarily, by Amanda Knox, who also described the scream in her statements to police.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
Thanks Cape hugz-) , we did miss YOU.


I left the part out about us being soul-mates kh-)) ... can't tell everything.


That's right. I love a man who doesn't .......tell. :)

k-((

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I do believe Raffles is warming up to throwing Knox under the bus. I'm sure of it. Is it too late? I don't know..but the idea is in the works,I believe.Whether or not extradition works..it would be a killer blow. Forget PR at that point.

In fact..the PR campaign is on dead legs. Say what you will...people know there's no smoke without fire. Lots of twists and turns still to come. Throw Guede into the mix.......

As a matter of fact..the one in the best position at the mo..is Guede. If I was Knox I'd be very,very worried. Two potential tell all's out there. I don't like her odds..at all.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
I do believe Raffles is warming up to throwing Knox under the bus. I'm sure of it. Is it too late? I don't know..but the idea is in the works,I believe.Whether or not extradition works..it would be a killer blow. Forget PR at that point.

In fact..the PR campaign is on dead legs. Say what you will...people know there's no smoke without fire. Lots of twists and turns still to come. Throw Guede into the mix.......

As a matter of fact..the one in the best position at the mo..is Guede. If I was Knox I'd be very,very worried. Two potential tell all's out there. I don't like her odds..at all.


I never thought I would say this but I believe you are right!

His interview with Anderson Cooper was very damaging too.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jaybee51


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:19 pm

Posts: 112

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Is Frederick Forsyth losing his marbles?

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/column ... e#comments
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
capealadin wrote:
I do believe Raffles is warming up to throwing Knox under the bus. I'm sure of it. Is it too late? I don't know..but the idea is in the works,I believe.Whether or not extradition works..it would be a killer blow. Forget PR at that point.

In fact..the PR campaign is on dead legs. Say what you will...people know there's no smoke without fire. Lots of twists and turns still to come. Throw Guede into the mix.......

As a matter of fact..the one in the best position at the mo..is Guede. If I was Knox I'd be very,very worried. Two potential tell all's out there. I don't like her odds..at all.


I never thought I would say this but I believe you are right!

His interview with Anderson Cooper was very damaging too.


Yes..and Nell...he is going to blame her..TOTALLY. In the end..he has better representation. Although he is weak...he knows the very real danger he is now in.I still believe he had no motive. In killing Meredith. The one who DID..was Knox. She has made a huge mistake in just dismissing him. The wheels are turning. Anyone else think it was very strange..Knox simply saying..* Guilty.28 years*. And then..Edda..Oh..Amanda's most concerned about Raffaele>

No..no..no. The * Queen* Knox. I have news for you, Duckie. ( or Swan..as Michael so sadly reported :( ( Quite gutted about that, Michael )

Listen up, Swanee down the River. * Uneasy lies the head that wears the Crown *. I believe you are going to be quite shocked at the outcome. You may just be a pebble in the Ocean..when up against relations between England and Italy.

You may find that you are simply just another murderess..the facys are against you...and apart from your family and weird supporters.....you are a cold blooded, jealous, vindictive, manipulative, rejected Murderer.

I know I have couched this in a very delicate way ( however..let's call a spade.. a spade..)..Enough BS on the airwaves.

You, KNOX..are toast. Let's have done with this malarkey.

I tell you this. I just don't know how The Kerchers handle themselves with such dignity. I really don't.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jaybee51 wrote:
Is Frederick Forsyth losing his marbles?

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/column ... e#comments


Jaybee..

He's just jumping on what he thinks is the * popular* Bandwagon. I think it's been too much news..too soon. What Americans call * over exposure*. There is still 90 days or so to go. It's going to be over done by that stage.

HUGE mistake to saturate the market immediately. By the time 3 months arrives...it's going to so old in the Media.

You can't pop a balloon when it's already deflated. As far as Raff is concerned...I think * Pop goes the Weasel * :)

I really think that there's a reason for delays. People forget..it lacks impetus. For now..it's a nine day wonder. Let's see in 90 DAYS!!

It will be an anti-climax when the verdict is upheld. What then? The same old rhetoric..which will be so p-((( by that time.

Timing is everything. They've blown it by going over their same old BS. Ad nauseum. Which, btw..for the * guilters* :)

Is EXCELLENT.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Aranavachi wrote:
Micheal, I really hope you know that I am in no way trying to imply RS was not involved. All I am saying is that it looks to me as though he is separating himself from Knox and if he can latch onto Nencini's word to get himself another trial - he will try it at any expense. I can almost bet he will say he does not remember whether Amanda was with him that night.


Well, he IS trying it. Not that it will work. And they want to be careful, it may backfire. The prosecution may retaliate to these antics, by appealing the sentence to the High Court and requesting it be increased on X and Y grounds, instead of supporting the sentence as it stands, which they were originally probably going to do (support it). Maresca, too.

Aranavachi wrote:
To me it is obvious that Knox is desperate for him to stick with her, while he is ready to throw her away for a chance to save himself.


Not quite. "Throwing her away" would be to declare that he stayed in his apartment all evening alone while Knox went out, maybe only helping later with the staging/partial clean-up. He's not ready to go that far yet. What he IS doing, is trying to "distance" himself from Knox and evidence by claiming "I have been convicted only by the evidence against Amanda, as there is no evidence against me. I am therefore, convicted solely by my association with Amanda". But of course, this too is a complete lie as there is evidence against Sollecito plus also evidence equally against the pair of them (eg, alibis which do not stand up to even the most casual scrutiny).


Absolutely, but to me even if RS says he cannot remember whether she was at his house, that would be throwing her away.

RS now knows that he is not America's child - despite all the promises, NO ONE in the States defended him. All this time he was 'honor bound' in the hope of gaining American support. I think not only is RS over vouching for AK - he no longer cares what the US public think about him. He has started playing the 'Italian Boy' card (Italian girlfriend, Italian family, Italian X Y Z).

He has now said all these things:
- he didn't know Amanda that well and therefore he cannot judge what she could and could not do
- there is no evidence against him, but some evidence against Amanda
- he doesn't want to be convicted because of her behavior
- he is focusing on his family and friends and does not feel the need to speak to his co-defendant
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aranavachi wrote:
This is a very different tune of 'Amanda and I' which he played over the past couple of years...I may be wrong, but it seems obvious to me that although he hasn't yet come to a stage where he is throwing her under the bus, he is definitely saying 'I don't know what she did and where she was, but i didn't do it'

He has thrown her under the bus again. As with Knox, the events surrounding that night he has managed to shroud in vagueness - Knox managed to get her vagueness accepted. Knox's judgement through MSM is authority. Sollecito uses Knoxs' smokescreen: subjectivity, "my mind thought", or "the cannabis".

He's destroyed her credibility completely by saying again that he has absolutely no idea whether she was with him or not that night, after restating formally that she was with him; long elaborate story of their night together. Knox wrote her own story around him.

He's desperate - what more will he say. He is now threatening Knox and he has nothing to lose by doing it.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 20 of 30 [ 7308 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 30  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Ergon, Linkdex [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


29,150,131 Views