Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#10

[aa9511]

In the US, the State Department decides if an extradition to another country is warranted, pursuant to an international treaty (Secretary of State John Kerry).

Ah, I see. Thanks.

 

[aa9511]

Extradition requests come through the US state department, and if approved then go to the US attorneys -- and only then would come before a court. There are multiple places to foul up an extradition request if it is politically unpalatable. The final step is within a court of law. I do not, personally, see a big separation between politics and the law. For more info, see Wikipedia.

Extradition law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, oh boy, there is definately a lot of "room for error."

 

[aa9511]

I believe that there are many examples of injustice in the US. The innocent who have been convicted and punished as well as the guilty who have not been held accountable.

I am not very familiar with the criminal justice system in Italy. From the little that I do know it appears that Italian justice is far from perfect also. I believe that the Italian supreme court's ruling in Amanda's case was not just. From the little that I know of the case of the 60-year old pedophile it seems that they've made another rather bizarre ruling. (Sorry for the faulty link).

Judges, be they American or Italian, are not infallible. Injustice in America does not excuse injustice in Italy.

bbm

All good points, especially the bolded.

 

[aa9511]

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!! Wishing everyone a healthy and happy New Year, and hope you achieve or get closer to achieving your goals!!!

arty:

artyguy:

:newyear:

:fireworks:

 

[SMK]

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!! Wishing everyone a healthy and happy New Year, and hope you achieve or get closer to achieving your goals!!!

arty:

artyguy:

:newyear:

:fireworks:

:newyear: Same back to you, and to all. :newyear: :fireworks:

 

[redheadedgal]

* I noticed on the flap of Amanda's book jacket Harper and Row had said that Knox was wrongfully convicted of murder, and that it was overturned by Hellmann on appeal, They failed to note that the process had not been finally signed off by the Supreme Court of Cassation. What if Jodi Arias had foreign family and supporters claiming her conviction was wrongful here?

It pays for Harper and Row to present it in that way - many more people will buy the book if they think she's been done a great injustice and wrongfully put through all of this - completely innocent.

They are just thinking of their own bottom line, of course. It's a business after all, not a social service or charity.

They don't care about the truth, or rather, the truth does not make a difference to them since it has no effect on its profits, and in this case actually would decrease their profits substantially. They already signed onto the Amanda bus, now it's their job to sell as many of the books as they can and market it so people will buy it.

when was the book jacket printed compared to the SCC ruling? ... link?

 

[Tugela]

Maybe for the prosecutors, it's their job to fight to win conviction of people they see as guilty of the crime, but what about for the judges?

Judges are frequently former prosecutors, so they think along the same lines.

 

[whoanellie]

when was the book jacket printed compared to the SCC ruling? ... link?

The book was officially released about a month after the SCC ruling. Jacket was likely designed and printed before the ruling.

 

[redheadedgal]

The book was officially released about a month after the SCC ruling. Jacket was likely designed and printed before the ruling.

my point exactly

 

[MichaelSmith]

Oct 13 - The law offices of Paolo Brocchi is broken into via the 2nd story window smashed with a rock.

Oct 27 - Maria Del Prato catches Guede in her nursery in Milan which had been broken into the week earlier and 2000 euros stolen, she calls police who discover he's in possession of stolen property from the law office and Perugia police are notified. He's also caught with a little hammer used for breaking glass.

Nov 2 - The cottage is broken into by someone using the same MO used at the law office 3 weeks earlier. The perp left poo in the toilet.

Nov 4 - Stefano Bonassi tells police about a guy and his toilet habits who'd been to the cottage called The Baron who they played basketball with.

Nov 6 - The DNA results start coming back showing the rapist and poo man are the same person but it's not Lumumba or Sollecito.

Why weren't they more interested in poo man who they surely could have figured out pretty quickly was Guede who'd used an identical MO 3 weeks earlier? It'd be interesting to see if one of the guys downstairs actually mentioned Guede by name before Nov 5.

 

[SMK]

when was the book jacket printed compared to the SCC ruling? ... link?

Yes, I understand.

I was speaking about the front flap; the back flap does say Hellmann was overturned in 2013 (this must have been added after the ruling).

What I meant about the front flap is that the process was still on-going, yet they made it sound finalized. Just struck me as odd, as all now know that no ruling in final in Italy until the 3 phase process has been completed, and the Court of Cassation has signed off on the case.

ETA: I think what annoyed me is that they were attempting to make the Italian courts sound like the American courts: Knox was wrongfully convicted of murder in 2009 and the Hellmann court overturned this in 2011.

In truth: The Massei ruling was provisional only, and Hellmann's overturning was provisional only. IMO the book came out too early, and should have waited for the Court of Cassation to sign off before being released.

 

[SMK]

Oct 13 - The law offices of Paolo Brocchi is broken into via the 2nd story window smashed with a rock.

Oct 27 - Maria Del Prato catches Guede in her nursery in Milan which had been broken into the week before and 2000 euros stolen and calls police who discover he's in possession of stolen property from the law office and Perugia police are notified. He's also caught with a little hammer used for breaking glass.

Nov 2 - The cottage is broken into by someone using the same MO used at the law office 3 weeks earlier. The perp left poo in the toilet.

Nov 4 - Stefano Bonassi tells police about a guy and his toilet habits who'd been to the cottage called The Baron who they played basketball with.

Nov 6 - The DNA results start coming back showing the rapist and poo man are the same person but it's not Lumumba or Sollecito.

Why weren't they more interested in poo man who they surely could have figured out pretty quickly was Guede who'd used an identical MO 3 weeks earlier? It'd be interesting to see if one of the guys downstairs actually mentioned Guede by name before Nov 5.

Well, of course Lumumba was released and Guede was dragged back from Germany and arrested. But by this time police had become convinced that Sollecito and Knox had been part of it.

 

[Monzoo]

Well, of course Lumumba was released and Guede was dragged back from Germany and arrested. But by this time police had become convinced that Sollecito and Knox had been part of it.

Happy New Year, everyone!

SMK, I think the point being made is that on November 6, the day they placed AK, RS and PL under arrest was the same day that they started getting results from forensics, all of which pointed to someone other than the three they had under arrest.

Didn't they also hold the press conference talking about how they solved the crime, and that AK bucked, and confessed to facts they knew to be correct? (That her boss Lumumba was involved.)

The initial arrest reports -- available on AK's site-- are interesting in the fact that none of that initial information survived to trial.

 

[SMK]

Happy New Year, everyone!

SMK, I think the point being made is that on November 6, the day they placed AK, RS and PL under arrest was the same day that they started getting results from forensics, all of which pointed to someone other than the three they had under arrest.

Didn't they also hold the press conference talking about how they solved the crime, and that AK bucked, and confessed to facts they knew to be correct? (That her boss Lumumba was involved.)

The initial arrest reports -- available on AK's site-- are interesting in the fact that none of that initial information survived to trial.

Thanks for linking to that report.

Yes, I see that Lumumba and the shoeprint of Raffaelle never made it to the Massei trial.

However, I don't think Mignini was just stubbornly hanging onto Knox and Sollecito because he was too embarrassed to admit a mistake. I believe that by this time he was so convinced of Amanda's involvement that to him it made perfect sense to substitute Guede for Lumumba.

Mignini's error was in pledging his allegiance to the theory too hastily - and voicing it for the media, which stunted the natural unfolding of it, which may have been more believable had it come out as secondary information. IMO he has never recovered from this initial error.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, I understand.

I was speaking about the front flap; the back flap does say Hellmann was overturned in 2013 (this must have been added after the ruling).

What I meant about the front flap is that the process was still on-going, yet they made it sound finalized. Just struck me as odd, as all now know that no ruling in final in Italy until the 3 phase process has been completed, and the Court of Cassation has signed off on the case.

ETA: I think what annoyed me is that they were attempting to make the Italian courts sound like the American courts: Knox was wrongfully convicted of murder in 2009 and the Hellmann court overturned this in 2011.

In truth: The Massei ruling was provisional only, and Hellmann's overturning was provisional only. IMO the book came out too early, and should have waited for the Court of Cassation to sign off before being released.

Yes, well the whole thing seems to be an opinion piece anyway, so I think they were never trying to be "politically correct."

For example, in the part you were referring to, IIRC, you said it said Amanda was "wrongfully convicted." Well, that is matter of opinion whether it was wrongful or not.

So, then, IMO we cannot really expect them to be "politically correct" (I don't know how else to term it), when the original premise is based on an opinon.

Edit: Maybe instead of "politically correct" I should have just said "accurate"....LOL!

 

[aa9511]

Happy New Year, everyone!

SMK, I think the point being made is that on November 6, the day they placed AK, RS and PL under arrest was the same day that they started getting results from forensics, all of which pointed to someone other than the three they had under arrest.

Didn't they also hold the press conference talking about how they solved the crime, and that AK bucked, and confessed to facts they knew to be correct? (That her boss Lumumba was involved.)

The initial arrest reports -- available on AK's site-- are interesting in the fact that none of that initial information survived to trial.

Thanks Monzoo Same to you!

 

[aa9511]

Thanks for linking to that report.

Yes, I see that Lumumba and the shoeprint of Raffaelle never made it to the Massei trial.

However, I don't think Mignini was just stubbornly hanging onto Knox and Sollecito because he was too embarrassed to admit a mistake. I believe that by this time he was so convinced of Amanda's involvement that to him it made perfect sense to substitute Guede for Lumumba.

Mignini's error was in pledging his allegiance to the theory too hastily - and voicing it for the media, which stunted the natural unfolding of it, which may have been more believable had it come out as secondary information. IMO he has never recovered from this initial error.

If he was so embarrassed, then why did he let Patrick go? He would have been embarassed by putting Patrick in jail, too! If we take the whole theory that Mignini just didn't want to admit his mistakes, then why, we would have had Patrick on trial too, along with the other 3, Amanda, RS, and Rudy? Would that not make more sense? Surely, you know, since the police and prosecutors are so good at changing information to suit their needs, they could have just magically "erased" Patrick's alibi. Or you know, just thrown that Swiss professor's papers into the fire - oops. "What alibi?? We do not know of any alibi." :snooty:

It would have been easy to add Patrick to the mix, if the police and prosecutors supposedly "invented" the whole story around Amanda and RS.

Couldn't they have also "invented" a Patrick story.

Something like: Amanda and RS met Patrick AND Rudy at the basketball courts. Brought them to the house for hanging out, smoking, etc.. All 4 participate in sexual assault.

It would have actually made their "story" even more believable, because they would have one extra person to restrain Meredith.

They could have "invented" some footprints like they supposedly did with Amanda and RS.

"Invented" some DNA of his on some of Meredith's things, or elsewhere in the house, to show he was there.

That way, Mignini would not have had to admit to any mistake. Wouldn't that have been better for him, under this theory that this is all a witch-hunt because Mignini doesn't want to admit to any mistakes?

 

[TorisMom003]

Patrick lived there. He had his family (wife and kids) there and he owned a business there. The other three did not live there, full time. One was a drifter that had no real place to live at all (RG). One was a student from the US. One was a student from another part of the country. Of the four Patrick had close ties and conections with people that lived and worked in the area, people that could and would stand up to support him in his wrongful imprisonment.

I don't believe that Mignini just doesn't want to admit to any mistakes. I believe that it goes much deeper than that. It appears, to me, that he has some issues with how he perceives things. When a case presents itself that is really rather straightforward, he appears to instead prefer that case to have a more sinister unbelievable explaination instead. One does rely on their past in how they see things. In Mignini's case perhaps he has let his past (and what he has seen as a child) to color how sees everything around him.

MOO

 

[SMK]

If he was so embarrassed, then why did he let Patrick go? He would have been embarassed by putting Patrick in jail, too! If we take the whole theory that Mignini just didn't want to admit his mistakes, then why, we would have had Patrick on trial too, along with the other 3, Amanda, RS, and Rudy? Would that not make more sense? Surely, you know, since the police and prosecutors are so good at changing information to suit their needs, they could have just magically "erased" Patrick's alibi. Or you know, just thrown that Swiss professor's papers into the fire - oops. "What alibi?? We do not know of any alibi." :snooty:

It would have been easy to add Patrick to the mix, if the police and prosecutors supposedly "invented" the whole story around Amanda and RS.

Couldn't they have also "invented" a Patrick story.

Something like: Amanda and RS met Patrick AND Rudy at the basketball courts. Brought them to the house for hanging out, smoking, etc.. All 4 participate in sexual assault.

It would have actually made their "story" even more believable, because they would have one extra person to restrain Meredith.

They could have "invented" some footprints like they supposedly did with Amanda and RS.

"Invented" some DNA of his on some of Meredith's things, or elsewhere in the house, to show he was there.

That way, Mignini would not have had to admit to any mistake. Wouldn't that have been better for him, under this theory that this is all a witch-hunt because Mignini doesn't want to admit to any mistakes?

Well, they had to let Lumumba go, as he had an airtight alibi.

A Swiss professor came all the way back from Zurich to Perugia to attest to Patrick's being at the bar all evening on Nov 1.

It was too public, and there was no DNA at all of Patrick's at the cottage, (he had never been there, while Amanda lived there and Raffaelle had visited) while there was ample evidence of Guede's.

 

[SMK]

Patrick lived there. He had his family (wife and kids) there and he owned a business there. The other three did not live there, full time. One was a drifter that had no real place to live at all (RG). One was a student from the US. One was a student from another part of the country. Of the four Patrick had close ties and conections with people that lived and worked in the area, people that could and would stand up to support him in his wrongful imprisonment.

I don't believe that Mignini just doesn't want to admit to any mistakes. I believe that it goes much deeper than that. It appears, to me, that he has some issues with how he perceives things. When a case presents itself that is really rather straightforward, he appears to instead prefer that case to have a more sinister unbelievable explaination instead. One does rely on their past in how they see things. In Mignini's case perhaps he has let his past (and what he has seen as a child) to color how sees everything around him.

MOO

BBM - I would agree that Mignini looks internally, preferring the contents of his own inner mind, rather than the dry facts.

On the one hand, people who do this have a tendency to become deluded; to place too much importance on their intuition and feelings at the expense of everyday reality. When they make an error, it is a huge one. In this sense you could almost call them semi-psychotic. ( I am thinking of Jung's analysis of this type; Jung himself would fall into this category.)

On the other hand, this kind of thinking can lead to a real penetration of surfaces, to deeper truths that "normal" people miss. This is why I keep trying to discern if Mignini is really crazy, or crazy like a fox. I go back and forth on this.