Go Back  

Amanda Knox New Trial 

Current Rating:

Join NowJoin Now
 
  #21  
Old 02-01-2014, 12:10 PM
K9Grip's Avatar
K9Grip
Offline:
Ill Saint Hoodrat
Poster Rank:16
Join Date: Mar 2012
Contributions: 1
 
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Quoted: 19389 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
1/20 10/20
Today Posts
0/11 ssss40649
Re: Amanda Knox New Trial

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBKF View Post
After weighing all the evidence I vote....are you ready?.........Guilty
BTW did the guy who was convicted and in prison ever say that anyone else was involved? I have looked for that, but can't find anything. Maybe gatagato can help me with this.
He gave many different "confessions." In his first, he said they were not there, but during his next 3 or 4 or 5 he said they were.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLAPAPPY View Post
Girl is Turkish, boy is Kurdish, it ended just as well as their kids would have been TURDISH! Yes too many TURDS in the world already!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to K9Grip For This Useful Post:
BBKF, gatagato
  #22  
Old 02-01-2014, 01:08 PM
Shawna's Avatar
Shawna
Offline:
★ Server Supporter ★
Poster Rank:83
Female
Join Date: Oct 2009
 
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
0/20 14/20
Today Posts
0/11 ssss12352
Re: Amanda Knox New Trial

Those detectives need to be trained by Americans. How do they miss, or ignore so much evidence left behind? I could have done a better job than they did. Unfuckingbelievable.

Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Shawna For This Useful Post:
gatagato
  #23  
Old 02-01-2014, 04:25 PM
gatagato's Avatar
gatagato
Online
★ Moderator ★
Poster Rank:180
Male
Join Date: Jul 2009
Contributions: 367
 
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
5/20 15/20
Today Posts
3/11 sssss5486
Re: Amanda Knox New Trial

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBKF View Post
After weighing all the evidence I vote....are you ready?.........Guilty
BTW did the guy who was convicted and in prison ever say that anyone else was involved? I have looked for that, but can't find anything. Maybe gatagato can help me with this.
K9Grip already answered to your question:

Rudy Guede (the only one definitively convicted for this murder) asked to be tried with Processo Abbreviato (shortened trial): which is equal to plead guilty in the US when you have some agreement with the prosecutor: you admit to be guilty, and you will spend in prison 2/3rds of the years that you're supposed to.
NO doubts he's guilty, even according to him.
He lied repeatedly throughout the case, modifying his stories: once he claimed that there was another mysterious man who tried to rape Meredith, and as she fought back he started beating her: as Guede tried to help her, the man ordered him to kill her, handling a knife. He did it. Then the mysterious man gave him the money to flee to Germany. Needless to say, this mysterious dude was never tracked down. Guede was stopped in Germany trying to board a train without a ticket and was extradited back to Italy, in a couple of hours.

He started talking ONLY after (SERIOUSLY) overwhelming DNA evidence emerged that put him at the crime scene at the time of the murder.
Guede's attorneys secured the most lenient punishment possible for his crime by convincing the court that he was merely an accomplice (concorso in omicidio).
Ok, BUT but an accomplice of whom?
Guede will be eligible for work release in 2014 btw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K9Grip View Post
What I'm not quite understanding is why the second "trial" even happened if the higher court deemed them incompetent to understand a case like this? Why waste the money and time? I read the report from the second trail that the judge wrote and it seemed appropriate to me. Nothing wishy washy or weird. I don't understand what was so wrong with him having an independent DNA team come in and re-test the evidence?
That judge, should have followed the procedure, which is NOT what happened.
As a judge of court of appeal, you CANNOT pick-up the first expert that comes to your mind only because you like him or because he's in agreement with you: you can ask for a "third opinion" but the choice does NOT belong to you. It belongs to those who are higher in level, so if you think that some expert was wrong, some MORE experienced magisrtates from court of cassazione will decide who to pick up, and they MUST choose an expert who is better than him/her according to his/her knowledge, his/her history and all the the shit that he/she has done in his life.
I'm not lying to you, let's wait for these fucking 90 days:


Regarding the extradition, i wil tell you what will likely happen, but BEFORE i want this point to be clear: if you want the opinion of some dude who knows how stuff works, then you go to Alan Morton Dershowitz and ask to him what would likely happen.
BUT if you go to a RANDOM former prosecutor for an interview, then what you're looking for is some dude who claims that extradition should not be granted.
Who's right, of the two? Read the treaty
(damn, going to waste some cyberspace, sorry chris)

Quote:
TEXT: 98TH CONGRESS 2d Session SENATE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL THE WHITE HOUSE, April 18, 1984.
To the Senate of the United States:
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty on Extradition between the United States of America and Italy, signed at Rome on October 13, 1983. I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, the Report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty. The treaty will facilitate United States efforts to prosecute narcotics conspiracies by expressly providing that conspiracies and attempts to commit extraditable offenses constitute
extraditable offenses. The Treaty also provides a legal basis for temporarily surrendering prisoners to stand trial for crimes which [*2] occurred in the requesting State. The Treaty follows generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by this Government. Upon entry into force, it will terminate and supersede the existing extradition treaty between the United States and Italy. This Treaty will make a significant contribution to international cooperation in law enforcement. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to ratification. RONALD REAGAN. LETTER OF SUBMITTAL DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 10, 1984. The PRESIDENT, The White House. THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty on Extradition between the United States of America and Italy, signed at Rome on October 13, 1983. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. The Treaty follows generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by this Government. Article 1 obligates each State to extradite to the other, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, any persons charged with or convicted of an extraditable offense by the requesting State. (Extradition [*3] shall also be granted, Article 2 explains, for attempts to commit, participation in the commission of, and conspiracy to commit extraditable offenses.) Article 2 permits extradition for any offense punishable under the laws of both States by imprisonment for more than one year. Instead of listing each offense for which extradition may be granted, as was United States practice until recently, this Treaty adopts the modern practice of permitting extradition for any crime punishable under the laws of both contracting Parties for a minimum period. This obviates the need to renegotiate or supplement the Treaty should both States pass laws covering new types of criminal activity, such as computer-related crimes. Article 2 also follows the practice of recent United States extradition treaties in indicating that the dual criminality standard should be interpreted liberally in order to effectuate the intent of the Parties that fugitives be brought to justice. Article 2 further provides that, if
extradition is granted for an extraditable offense, it may also be granted for offenses which are punishable by less than a year's imprisonment. Article 3 provides that extradition may be granted for [*4] an offense committed outside the territory of the requesting State, provided that such an offense is punishable under the laws of the requested State or that the person sought is a national of the requesting State. Article 4 provides that extradition shall not be denied on the ground that the person sought is a national of the requested State. Articles 5, 6, 8 and 9 state mandatory grounds for refusal of extradition. Article 5 provides that extradition shall be denied when the offense for which extradition is requested is a political or military offense. Article 6 provides that extradition shall be denied when the person sought has been in jeopardy in the requested State for the same offense. Article 8 provides that extradition shall be denied where the requesting State's statute of limitation bars prosecution or enforcement of the penalty. Article 9 provides that extradition shall be denied when the offense is punishable by death in the requesting, but not the requested, State, unless satisfactory assurances are received that the death penalty, if imposed, will not be carried out. Article 7 states a discretionary ground for refusal of extradition. It provides that extradition may [*5] be refused when the person sought is being proceeded against by the requested State for the same act. Articles 10-13 set out procedures which are similar to those found in other modern United States extradition treaties. In particular, Article 10 clarifies the form and content of the documentation required to demonstrate to a United States court probable cause to believe that the crime for which extradition is sought was committed and that the person sought committed it. Article 14 provides that if the person sought is being proceeded against or is serving a sentence in the requested State for a different offense, that State may either (a) defer surrender until the proceedings are concluded or the sentence has been served, or (b) temporarily surrender the person solely for the purpose of prosecution. Temporary surrender is an innovative feature found in recent United States extradition treaties (Costa Rica, The Netherlands and Sweden). Article 15 sets forth a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered by the requested Party in determining to which country to surrender a person sought by more than one State. Article 16 expressly incorporates into the Treaty the rule of specialty. [*6] This article provides, subject to specified exceptions, that a person extradited under the Treaty may not be tried, punished or detained for an offense other than that for which extradition has been granted. Article 17 permits surrender without formal proceedings where the person sought agrees in writing to surrender after having been advised by a competent judicial authority of his or her
right to a formal proceeding and to the protections afforded by the Treaty. Article 18 provides for the seizure and surrender to the requesting State of all property related to the offense for which extradition is requested. This obligation is subject to the rights of third parties. Article 19 governs transit through the territory of one of the contracting Parties of a person being surrendered to the other Party by a third country. Article 20 provides that the requested State shall represent the requesting State in an proceedings in the requested State arising out of a request for extradition. Article 21 governs expenses in a manner similar to other recent United States extradition treaties. Article 22, like the parallel provision of almost all recent United States extradition treaties, stipulates [*7] that the Treaty is retroactive, in the sense that it applies to offenses committed before as well as after its entry into force. Article 23 provides for termination of the Treaty by either Party upon six months written notice to the other. Article 24 provides that the Treaty will enter into force immediately upon the exchange of the instruments of ratification. Upon entry into force, this Treaty will terminate and supersede the Treaty on Extradition between the United States and Italy signed on January 18, 1973. The prior Treaty shall govern pending extradition proceedings except that Article 2 of this Treaty shall apply to those proceedings, and Article 14 shall also apply to those found extraditable under the prior Treaty. The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in favoring approval of this Treaty by the Senate at an early date.


Respectfully submitted, GEORGE P. SHULTZ. EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Italy, Recognizing their close cooperation in the repression of crimes;
Desiring to make such [*8] cooperation even more effective; Seeking to conclude a new Treaty for the reciprocal extradition of offenders; Have agreed as follows: ARTICLE I Obligation to Extradite The Contracting Parties agree to extradite to each other, pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty, persons whom the authorities of the Requesting Party have charged with or found guilty of an extraditable offense. ARTICLE II Extraditable Offenses 1. An offense, however denominated, shall be an extraditable offense only if it is punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year or by a more severe penalty. When the request for extradition relates to a person who has been sentenced, extradition shall be granted only if the duration of the penalty still to be served amounts to at least six months. 2. An offense shall also be an extraditable offense if it consists of an attempt to commit, or participation in the commission of, an offense described in paragraph 1 of this Article. Any type of association to commit offenses described in paragraph 1 of this Article, as provided by the laws of Italy, and conspiracy to commit an offense described in paragraph [*9] 1 of this Article, as provided by the laws of the United States, shall also be extraditable offenses. 3. When extradition has been granted for an extraditable offense, it shall also be granted for any other offense specified in the request even if the latter offense is punishable by less than one year's deprivation of liberty, provided that all other requirements for extradition are met. 4. The provisions of this Article apply whether or not the offense is one for which United States federal law requires proof of an element, such as interstate transportation, the use of the facilities of interstate commerce, or the effects upon such commerce, since such an element is required for the sole purpose of establishing the jurisdiction of United States federal courts. ARTICLE III Jurisdiction When an offense has been committed outside the territory of the Requesting Party, the Requested Party shall have the power to grant extradition if its laws provide for the punishment of such an offense or if the person sought is a national of the Requesting Party.
ARTICLE IV Extradition of Nationals A Requested Party shall not decline to extradite a person because such a person is a national [*10] of the Requested Party. ARTICLE V Political and Military Offenses 1. Extradition shall not be granted when the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense, or if the person whose surrender is sought proves that the request for surrender has been made in order to try or punish him or her for a political offense. 2. For the purpose of the application of paragraph 1 of this Article, an offense with respect to which both Contracting Parties have the obligation to submit for prosecution or to grant extradition pursuant to a multilateral international agreement, or an offense against the life, physical integrity or liberty of a Head of State or Government or a member of their respective families, or any attempt to commit such an offense, will be presumed to have the predominant character of a common crime when its consequences were or could have been grave. In determining the gravity of the offense and its consequences, the fact that the offense endangered public safety, harmed persons unrelated to the political purpose of the offender, or was committed with ruthlessness shall, in particular, be taken into account. 3. Extradition shall not be granted for offenses [*11] under military law which are not offenses under ordinary criminal law. ARTICLE VI Non Bis in Idem Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested. ARTICLE VII Pending Proceedings for the Same Acts Extradition may be refused if the person sought is being proceeded against by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested. ARTICLE VIII Lapse of Time
Extradition shall not be granted when the prosecution, or the enforcement of the penalty, for the offense for which extradition has been requested has become barred by lapse of time under the laws of the Requesting Party. ARTICLE IX Capital Punishment When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting Party and the laws of the requested Party do not provide for such punishment for that offense, extradition shall be refused unless the requesting Party provides such assurances as the requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall [*12] not be executed. ARTICLE X Extradition Requests and Supporting Documents 1. Requests for extradition shall be made through the diplomatic channel. 2. All requests for extradition shall be accompanied by: (a) documents, statements or other information which set forth the identity and probable location of the person sought, with, if available, physical description, photographs and fingerprints; (b) a brief statement of the facts of the case, including the time and location of the offense; (c) the texts of the laws describing the essential elements and the designation of the offense for which extradition is requested; (d) the texts of the laws describing the punishment for the offense; and (e) the texts of the laws describing the time limit on the prosecution or the execution of the punishment for the offense. 3. A request for extradition which relates to a person who has not yet been convicted shall also be accompanied by: (a) a certified copy of the arrest warrant or any order having similar effect; (b) a summary of the facts of the case, of the relevant evidence and of the conclusions reached, providing a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense [*13] for which extradition is requested; in the case of requests from Italy such a summary shall be written by a magistrate, and in the case of requests from the United States it shall be
written by the prosecutor and shall include a copy of the charge; and (c) documents establishing that the person sought is the person to whom the arrest warrant or equivalent order refers. 4. A request for extradition which relates to a person who has been convicted shall, in addition to those items set forth in paragraph 2 of this Article, be accompanied by: (a) a copy of the judgment of conviction, or, in the case of the United States, if the person has been found guilty but not yet sentenced, a statement by a judicial officer to that effect; (b) if the penalty has been pronounced, a copy of the sentence and a statement as to the duration of the penalty still to be served; and (c) documents establishing that the person sought is the person convicted. 5. If the person sought has been convicted in absentia or in contumacy, all issues relating to this aspect of the request shall be decided by the Executive Authority of the United States or the competent authorities of Italy. In such cases, the Requesting [*14] Party shall submit such documents as are described in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article and a statement regarding the procedures, if any, that would be available to the person sought if he or she were extradited. 6. The documents which accompany an extradition request shall be made available in English and Italian by the Requesting Party. 7. The documents which accompany an extradition request shall be admissible into evidence when: (a) in the case of a request from the United States, they are certified by a judge, magistrate or other United States official and are sealed by the Secretary of State; (b) in the case of a request from Italy, they are signed by a judge or other Italian judicial authority and are certified by the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in Italy. ARTICLE XI Additional Documentation 1. If the Requested Party considers that the documentation furnished in support of a request for extradition is incomplete or otherwise does not conform to the requirements of this Treaty, that Party shall request the submission of necessary additional documentation. The Requested Party shall set a reasonable time limit for the submission of [*15] such documentation, and shall grant a reasonable extension of that time limit upon an application by the Requesting Party setting forth the reasons requiring the extension.
2. If the person sought is in custody and the additional documentation submitted is incomplete or otherwise does not conform to the requirements of this Treaty, or if such documentation is not received within the period specified by the Requested Party, that person may be discharged from custody. Such discharge shall not prejudice the re-arrest and the extradition of the person sought if a new request and the additional documentation are delivered at a later date. ARTICLE XII Provisional Arrest 1. In case of urgency, either Contracting Party may apply for the provisional arrests of any person charged or convicted of an extraditable offense. The application for provisional arrest shall be made either through the diplomatic channel or directly between the United States Department of Justice and the Italian Ministry of Grace and Justice, in which case the communication facilities of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) may be used. 2. The application shall contain: a description of the person [*16] sought including, if available, the person's nationality; the probable location of that person; a brief statement of the facts of the case including, if possible, the time and location of the offense and the available evidence; a statement of the existence of a warrant of arrest, with the date it was issued and the name of the issuing court; a description of the type of offenses, a citation to the sections of law violated and the maximum penalty possible upon conviction, or a statement of the existence of a judgment of conviction against that person, with the date of conviction, the name of the sentencing court and the sentence imposed, if any; and a statement that a formal request for extradition of the person sought will follow. 3. On receipt of the application, the Requested Party shall take the appropriate steps to secure the arrest of the person sought. The Requesting Party shall be promptly notified of the result of its application. 4. Provisional arrest shall be terminated if, within a period of 45 days after the apprehension of the person sought, the Executive Authority of the Requested Party has not received a formal request for extradition and the supporting documents required [*17] by Article X. 5. The termination of provisional arrest pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article shall not prejudice the re-arrest and extradition of the person sought if the extradition request and the supporting documents are delivered at a later date. ARTICLE XIII Decision and Surrender 1. The Requested Party shall promptly communicate to the Requesting Party through the
diplomatic channel its decision on the request for extradition. 2. The Requested Party shall provide reasons for any partial or complete rejection of the request for extradition and a copy of the court's decision, if any. 3. When an extradition request has been granted, the competent authorities of the Contracting Parties shall agree on the time and place of the surrender of the person sought. If, however, that person is not removed from the territory of the Requested Party within the agreed time, that person may be set at liberty, unless a new date for surrender has been agreed upon. ARTICLE XIV Deferred Surrender and Temporary Surrender After a decision on a request for extradition has been rendered in the case of a person who is being proceeded against or is serving a sentence in the Requested Party for [*18] a different offense, the Requested Party shall have the authority to: (a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or (b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the Requesting Party solely for the purpose of prosecution. A person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the Requesting Party and shall be returned to the Requested Party at the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting Parties. ARTICLE XV Requests for Extradition Made by Several States The Executive Authority of the Requested Party, upon receiving requests from the other Contracting Party and from one or more other States for the extradition of the same person, either for the same offense or for different offenses, shall determine to which State it will extradite that person. In making its decision, the Executive Authority shall consider all relevant factors, including: (a) the place in which the offense was committed; (b) the gravity of the respective offenses, where [*19] the requesting States are requesting extradition for different offenses; (c) the possibility of re-extradition between the requesting States; and (d) the order in which the requests were received.
ARTICLE XVI Rule of Specialty and Re-Extradition 1. A person extradited under this Treaty may not be detained, tried or punished in the Requesting Party except for: (a) the offense for which extradition has been granted or when the same facts for which extradition was granted constitute a differently denominated offense which is extraditable; (b) an offense committed after the surrender of a person; or (c) an offense for which the Executive Authority of the United States or the competent authorities of Italy consent to the person's detention, trial or punishment. For the purpose of this subparagraph, the Requested Party may require the submission of the documents called for in Artilce X. 2. A person extradited under this Treaty may not be extradited to a third State unless the surrendering Party consents. 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not prevent the detention, trial or punishment of an extradited person in accordance with the laws of the Requesting Party, or the [*20] extradition of that person to a third State, if: (a) that person leaves the territory of the Requesting Party after extradition and voluntarily returns to it; or (b) that person does not leave the territory of the Requesting Party within 30 days of the day on which that person is free to leave. ARTICLE XVII Simplified Extradition If the person sought irrevocably agrees in writing to surrender to the Requesting Party after having been advised by a judge or competent magistrate of the right to formal proceedings and the protections afforded under this Treaty, the Requested Party may surrender the person without formal proceedings. ARTICLE XVIII Surrender of Articles, Instruments, Objects and Documents 1. All articles, instruments, objects of value, documents and other evidence relating to the offense may be seized and surrendered to the Requesting Party. Such property may be
surrendered even when extradition cannot be effected. The rights of third parties in such property shall be duly respected. 2. The Requested Party may condition the surrender of the property upon satisfactory assurance from the Requesting Party that the property will be returned to the Requested Party [*21] as soon as practicable, and may defer its surrender if it is needed as evidence in the Requested Party. ARTICLE XIX Transit 1. Either Contracting Party may authorize transit through its territory of a person surrendered to the other by a third State. The Contracting Party requesting transit shall provide the transit State, through the diplomatic channel, a request for transit which shall contain a description of the person and a brief statement of the facts of the case. 2. No authorization for transit shall be required when air transportation is used and no landing is scheduled in the territory of the other Contracting Party. If an unscheduled landing occurs in the territory of that Contracting Party, it shall detain the person being transited not less than 96 hours while awaiting a request for transit pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article. ARTICLE XX Assistance and Representation The United States Department of Justice shall advise, assist and represent the Republic of Italy in any proceedings in the United States arising out of a request for extradition made by the Republic of Italy. The Italian Ministry of Grace and Justice, through all means permitted by its legal system, [*22] shall advise, assist and provide for the representation of the United States of America in any proceedings in Italy arising out of a request for extradition made by the United States of America. ARTICLE XXI Expenses The Requesting Party shall pay the expenses related to the translation of documents and the transportation of the person sought from the city where confined to the Requesting Party. The Requested Party shall pay all other expenses related to the provisional arrest, extradition request and proceedings. Any expenses related to transit under Article XIX shall be borne by the Requesting Party. The Requested Party shall make no pecuniary claim against the Requesting Party arising out
of the arrest, detention or surrender of persons sought under the terms of this Treaty. ARTICLE XXII Scope of Application This Treaty shall apply to offenses committed before as well as after the date this Treaty enters into force. ARTICLE XXIII Denunciation Either Contracting Party may terminate this Treaty at any time by giving written notice to the other Contracting Party. Termination shall be effective six months after the date of receipt of such notice. ARTICLE XXIV Ratification [*23] and Entry into Force 1. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible. 2. This Treaty shall enter into force immediately upon the exchange of the instruments of ratification. 3. Upon the entry into force of this Treaty, the Treaty on Extradition between the United States of America and the Republic of Italy, signed at Rome on January 18, 1973, and the Supplementary Protocol, signed at Rome on November 9, 1982, shall cease to have effect; however, extradition proceedings pending in a Requested Party at the time this Treaty enters into force shall be subject to the prior Treaty, except that Article II of this Treaty should also be applicable to such proceedings. Article XIV of this Treaty shall also apply to persons found extraditable under the prior Treaty. DONE at Rome, this thirteenth day of October, 1983 in duplicate in the English and Italian languages, both equally authentic. FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY
What will likely happen (in case she would be found guilty with a definitive sentence) is that US and Italy will agree that she will spend the years of imprisonment in some prison in the USA.

Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to gatagato For This Useful Post:
BBKF, icheerthebull, K9Grip
  #24  
Old 02-01-2014, 04:55 PM
icheerthebull's Avatar
icheerthebull
Offline:
My Rank: MASTER SERGEANT
Poster Rank:290
Join Date: Jun 2011
Contributions: 3
 
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Quoted: 465 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
1/20 11/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss2802
Re: Amanda Knox New Trial

Quote:
Originally Posted by K9Grip View Post
I don't agree with you on the "future extradition from any country within the EU." We all know the EU is - how do I put this, struggling with other larger issues right now. I don't think this case is even a blimp on their radar. They really do have more pressing issues to deal with.
I don't mean at a high level. Im not talking about politians. I'm talking about the general runing of judical systems. Im talking about the courts thats sit mon - fri.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K9Grip View Post

My question is, what happens now? I know Amanda and Raffaele can appeal, but will they be arrested and jailed first or will they be allowed to be "free" until after the appeal verdict?
They will appeal, they can apply and get bail, obviously knox will not have anything to do with the legal procedings. No extradition warrent will be applied for until the final appeal IMO. Raffaele has not proved to be a flight risk so IMO he will be free until the verdict of the appeal.

again as I said it not about justice its about the apperance of justice. She may be a attractive upper midle class girl but unfortunately she is not on a oligarch level so if she fails in her appeal she will be extradited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gatagato View Post
What will likely happen (in case she would be found guilty with a definitive sentence) is that US and Italy will agree that she will spend the years of imprisonment in some prison in the USA.
She would have to serve a portion of her sentence in italy. The time is reduced in comparison to people of other nations but even in this case a portion of the sentence would need to be served on Italian soil, that is my understanding anyway

__________________
America is just the country that shows how all the written guarantees in the world for freedom are no protection against tyranny and oppression of the worst kind. There the politician has come to be looked upon as the very scum of society - Peter Kropotkin
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to icheerthebull For This Useful Post:
BBKF, gatagato, K9Grip
  #25  
Old 02-01-2014, 05:50 PM
gatagato's Avatar
gatagato
Online
★ Moderator ★
Poster Rank:180
Male
Join Date: Jul 2009
Contributions: 367
 
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
5/20 15/20
Today Posts
3/11 sssss5486
Re: Amanda Knox New Trial

Quote:
Originally Posted by icheerthebull View Post
She would have to serve a portion of her sentence in italy. The time is reduced in comparison to people of other nations but even in this case a portion of the sentence would need to be served on Italian soil, that is my understanding anyway
Technically yes, you are absolutely right: she will be summoned by the Department of Justice (in Seattle in this case) and asked to prove that the extradition request is not legitimate. And she would fail for sure. And she should be sent to Rome with the first flight available. However, diplomacies of the three Countries are at work to find some cavil, some quibble that will allow them to do that (she serving the rest of the sentence on the US soil): it's not very unlikely that she'd serve the rest of the sentence on the US, but of course this won't happen without the agreement of both Italy and England. I think that they can find an agreement (given the good relationships), but that's only my humble opinion and i could be very wrong: the treaty is written in a way that leaves little/no room to cavils.

Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to gatagato For This Useful Post:
BBKF, Clubhouse, icheerthebull
  #26  
Old 02-01-2014, 06:05 PM
gatagato's Avatar
gatagato
Online
★ Moderator ★
Poster Rank:180
Male
Join Date: Jul 2009
Contributions: 367
 
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
5/20 15/20
Today Posts
3/11 sssss5486
Re: Amanda Knox New Trial

Quote:
Originally Posted by icheerthebull View Post
No extradition warrent will be applied for until the final appeal IMO. Raffaele has not proved to be a flight risk so IMO he will be free until the verdict of the appeal.
Nothing can be done until the Corte di cassazione will emit their verdict: only at that point we can talk about extradition.
However, there are three cases (according to italian laws) in which a magistrate can limit the freedom of a citizen's actions (including detention if needed):
1) if there's risk of escape
2) if there's risk that the defendant can repeat the same type of crime
3) if there's risk that the defendant can fuck up with the evidences
(well that's not exactly what the article says, but it makes the point)

In the case of Amanda, she's free to do whatever she wants until the corte di cassazione will emit its verdict, but for example in thge case of Sollecito (being him an italian citizen) his passport was confiscated.
By the way, he was stopped by Italian authorities close to Slovenia and Austria borders, but actually he's allowed to move to wherever he wants (within the eu boundaries).

Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to gatagato For This Useful Post:
BBKF, Clubhouse, icheerthebull
  #27  
Old 02-01-2014, 06:55 PM
Zambini's Avatar
Zambini
Offline:
Instigator Extraordinaire
Poster Rank:53
Join Date: Jun 2011
Contributions: 3
 
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Quoted: 8081 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
6/20 11/20
Today Posts
0/11 ssss16929
Re: Amanda Knox New Trial

The USA will deport her if asked, they can't not deport her on extradition while asking other countries to deport Snowden

Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zambini For This Useful Post:
BBKF, gatagato
  #28  
Old 02-01-2014, 08:46 PM
NoSolution's Avatar
NoSolution
Offline:
My Rank: PRIVATE
Poster Rank:6313
Join Date: Apr 2010
 
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
1/20 13/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssssss21
Re: Amanda Knox New Trial

Most of the controversy surrounding this conviction is concerned with the notion of "reasonable doubt". It seems to have been assumed that the reasonable doubt alone in this case should logically mean a verdict of "not guilty". However, this is not the case.
Logic is represented by the facts, and the verdict is arrived at by judgement: judge and jury. A human judgement has to be made in the end by consensus. That is where logic leaves off. Ultimately it has to in the end. Judgement is decided by human beings. And they are licensed to do so. That is the nature of a judicial system.
This may seem obvious, but it seems to have been overlooked by many in this particular case.
The "reasonable doubt" is necessarily taken into account by the jury, who then make their decision. It is not the fault of the judicial system if the jury then finds the accused guilty, despite the "reasonable doubt". The reasonable doubt is represented by the defence. It is not ignored.
The jury is ultimately responsible for the verdict.

Even though there was reasonable doubt in the case of Knox and Sollecito, it seems to me that the jury felt that the doubt of their innocence sufficiently outweighed the doubt of their guilt. And I have to say that this seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion given the available evidence.
People have been convicted on the basis of far, far less.

Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NoSolution For This Useful Post:
BBKF, gatagato
  #29  
Old 02-01-2014, 09:08 PM
K9Grip's Avatar
K9Grip
Offline:
Ill Saint Hoodrat
Poster Rank:16
Join Date: Mar 2012
Contributions: 1
 
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Quoted: 19389 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
1/20 10/20
Today Posts
0/11 ssss40649
Re: Amanda Knox New Trial

Quote:
Originally Posted by gatagato View Post
K9Grip already answered to your question:

Rudy Guede (the only one definitively convicted for this murder) asked to be tried with Processo Abbreviato (shortened trial): which is equal to plead guilty in the US when you have some agreement with the prosecutor: you admit to be guilty, and you will spend in prison 2/3rds of the years that you're supposed to.
NO doubts he's guilty, even according to him.
He lied repeatedly throughout the case, modifying his stories: once he claimed that there was another mysterious man who tried to rape Meredith, and as she fought back he started beating her: as Guede tried to help her, the man ordered him to kill her, handling a knife. He did it. Then the mysterious man gave him the money to flee to Germany. Needless to say, this mysterious dude was never tracked down. Guede was stopped in Germany trying to board a train without a ticket and was extradited back to Italy, in a couple of hours.

He started talking ONLY after (SERIOUSLY) overwhelming DNA evidence emerged that put him at the crime scene at the time of the murder.
Guede's attorneys secured the most lenient punishment possible for his crime by convincing the court that he was merely an accomplice (concorso in omicidio).
Ok, BUT but an accomplice of whom?
Guede will be eligible for work release in 2014 btw.


That judge, should have followed the procedure, which is NOT what happened.
As a judge of court of appeal, you CANNOT pick-up the first expert that comes to your mind only because you like him or because he's in agreement with you: you can ask for a "third opinion" but the choice does NOT belong to you. It belongs to those who are higher in level, so if you think that some expert was wrong, some MORE experienced magisrtates from court of cassazione will decide who to pick up, and they MUST choose an expert who is better than him/her according to his/her knowledge, his/her history and all the the shit that he/she has done in his life.
I'm not lying to you, let's wait for these fucking 90 days:


Regarding the extradition, i wil tell you what will likely happen, but BEFORE i want this point to be clear: if you want the opinion of some dude who knows how stuff works, then you go to Alan Morton Dershowitz and ask to him what would likely happen.
BUT if you go to a RANDOM former prosecutor for an interview, then what you're looking for is some dude who claims that extradition should not be granted.
Who's right, of the two? Read the treaty
(damn, going to waste some cyberspace, sorry chris)



What will likely happen (in case she would be found guilty with a definitive sentence) is that US and Italy will agree that she will spend the years of imprisonment in some prison in the USA.

How was the judge allowed to not follow procedure? Let's face it, this case has been huge in Italy - so why was the high court or any other court, not watching and making sure that proper procedures were being followed? And why is having an independent team of experts come in and retest evidence against procedure? If anything, you'd think a team of experts with nothing to gain or lose on this case, testing the evidence would be a good thing. I don't understand how the second trail judge would have the authority to get separate DNA testing done, paid for by Italy, if it wasn't "proper procedure." It's not like the actual case is in court from 9 AM to 5 PM, five days a week until a verdict is rendered. We're talking about a trail that spent maybe 3 -5 days a month in the court room - which leaves ample time for someone to notice proper procedure was not being followed.


In another of Rudy's "confessions" he also said he watched as a dark man murdered Meredith and did nothing to help her. After the man left the house, he tried to save her, but soon realized she was dead. So instead of calling the police, he ransacked her purse and went clubbing.

Prior to Meredith's murder Rudy was a known thief and burglar. He broke into a primary school about two weeks prior to her murder and guess what?? "When police arrived at the school, they searched Guede's backpack and found a large knife with a 16-inch blade that had been taken from the school kitchen." After that break in he also broke into the home of another man who he wielded a knife at, but the man was able to "talk him down" and get him out of the house.

A lot of people believe that Rudy may have been an informant for Perugian and that may or may not be the reason why he wasn't arrested for either burglary. Is it true? I don't know, but it would explain a lot of the reasons why Rudy was kept out of the public eye and sheltered more by the police.


Gata, can you read the charge sheet of Rudy Guede for me? I can't see if he was convicted of sexual assault, breaking and entering and the theft of Meredith's phones and money. In America, if you commit a sexual assault or anything else criminal, in the act of murder, you are charged with those offenses, too. Even if you were the get-away driver, you are charged with the crimes those you were with committed, too.


I don't know if she'll be extradited. This administration has been really good at telling the world to - fuck off. Right now, I really think it's a 50/50 shot. There are a lot of good reasons not to extradite and then again, if you're going to sign a treaty you have to follow through.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLAPAPPY View Post
Girl is Turkish, boy is Kurdish, it ended just as well as their kids would have been TURDISH! Yes too many TURDS in the world already!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to K9Grip For This Useful Post:
gatagato
  #30  
Old 02-01-2014, 09:21 PM
K9Grip's Avatar
K9Grip
Offline:
Ill Saint Hoodrat
Poster Rank:16
Join Date: Mar 2012
Contributions: 1
 
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Quoted: 19389 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
1/20 10/20
Today Posts
0/11 ssss40649
Re: Amanda Knox New Trial

Quote:
Originally Posted by icheerthebull View Post
I don't mean at a high level. Im not talking about politians. I'm talking about the general runing of judical systems. Im talking about the courts thats sit mon - fri.



They will appeal, they can apply and get bail, obviously knox will not have anything to do with the legal procedings. No extradition warrent will be applied for until the final appeal IMO. Raffaele has not proved to be a flight risk so IMO he will be free until the verdict of the appeal.

again as I said it not about justice its about the apperance of justice. She may be a attractive upper midle class girl but unfortunately she is not on a oligarch level so if she fails in her appeal she will be extradited.



She would have to serve a portion of her sentence in italy. The time is reduced in comparison to people of other nations but even in this case a portion of the sentence would need to be served on Italian soil, that is my understanding anyway

See, this is what makes me give the "huh?" face, too. In America, she's seen as plain Jane from a lower middle class to middle class family. They are by no means upper middle class. She's nothing special in the looks department here and you don't hear about her "attractiveness" or "unattractiveness" in our news. Just about every British or Italian article I read, somehow that's always a topic of interest.

I think Amanda has a way of coming off as uninterested and cold, but I don't think that's how she truly feels. Fuck, I don't know her and I've never met her - but I know a ton of people like her.

I don't understand how Meredith's English friends had such hate for her when they'd only met her a couple times and then only heard stories from Meredith about her. I understand their friend who was just murdered is of utmost importance, but the stories from the police station of how they already hated her baffle me. They hated her for having sex with guys in Italy, but Meredith borrowed condoms from Amanda. People act differently when faced with certain situations and I don't think it's fair to vilify her as a spoiled, temptress with a taste for blood over sex and poo stains in the toilet.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLAPAPPY View Post
Girl is Turkish, boy is Kurdish, it ended just as well as their kids would have been TURDISH! Yes too many TURDS in the world already!
Reply With Quote

Powered by vBulletin Copyright 2000-2010 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO