Please familiarize yourself with the concept of a chilling effect. I doubt Italy has the jurisdiction to charge people in other countries who are speaking about it, but regardless, I doubt the court is aiming its actions at a non-domestic audience.
I’ve read more than enough about the case (this is not the first thread about it). Other than the bit about Guede, what I wrote was correct. He didn’t get a lesser sentence in exchange for his testimony, but he did later have his sentenced reduced and the court cited his testimony against the others.
…there was a dearth of forensic evidence against Scott Peterson, but that doesn’t put his conviction in doubt. There were no accusations of satanic sex rituals produced in court: this had no influence on the trial: as can be seen by the motivations report, which, I assume you have read? So if satanic sex rituals weren’t bought up in court and had no relevance to the conviction of Amanda, why did you bring it up? Can you provide any cites to what the prosecution actually did in relation to satanic sex rituals?
You will note the lack of primary cites in that thread. If you want to show that the evidence was mishandled then cite that and please don’t just say “its in the other threads”, because I can’t find it. You should know better than anyone else that you should cite your assertions or not make them.
I’ll state my position again: I have no problems with an innocent Amanda. If she wins the next appeal based on the defense they put up and problems with the prosecution and she is released then all is good in the world. However in my opinion there is more than enough evidence to convict Amanda and I believe the guilty verdict was the correct one.
The remaining evidence against Peterson was a lot more convincing.
I didn’t say there were. But the prosecutor did say Kercher was killed as part of a Satanic sex game. I think the transparent stupidity of the story casts doubt on what followed.
I was referring to some of the issues raised here (like “the discovery of Sollecito’s DNA on Kercher’s torn bra clasp, found in her room 49 days after her death, during which time it had been moved accidentally by investigators.”
…really? How so? And why are you more convinced by the circumstantial evidence in the Peterson case than that of the Knox case?
Surely you could provide a cite to what the prosecutor actually said then we can actually see how stupid there statements are in context? So cite please.
Sure: that evidence is under review. But the case doesn’t hinge on the bra-clasp evidence, as a reading of the motivations report will bear out. And it also isn’t evidence yet that evidence was mishandled: that can only be confirmed after the review, wouldn’t you agree? Do you think the appeal and review is a bad part of the Italian justice system?
While I think of it, the US government has passed laws making this sort of “libel tourism” unenforceable against Americans. So even if the Italians tried, they would not succeed.
I’m sure the State Dept. will do everything they can to prevent the prosecution and/or punishment of Amanda’s parents in this case. I hope they also tell her parents to shut up and not make libelous accusations about the police in Italy. If she really is innocent, the State Dept. resources would be better utilized in gaining her freedom.
…ha ha! My turn to laugh. As I pointed out in the other thread: you were the OP and posted many times but cited nothing. Allegations have been made in this thread about the prosecutions “satanic sex theory.” Instead of pointing and laughing at others: you could instead provide a cite to the satanic sex theory that the prosecution came up with, or withdraw.
Perhaps not, but I cannot believe that Italy would allow a person, charged with a significant crime, to enter or leave the country without answering those charges.
Nonsense. Marley23 made significant multiple errors in his statements about the Kercher case, which have still not been fully corrected (and which should give a rational observer cause for reflection that perhaps his assessment of the case may be in error).
A well-practiced tactic of Knox defenders is to attack the safety of her conviction by impugning the competence, integrity or motivation of the prosecution. However, a reading of the court’s 397-page (English translation) rationale for their judgment reveals this to be unfounded.
As said earlier by Banquet Bear:
“There were no accusations of satanic sex rituals produced in court: this had no influence on the trial: as can be seen by the motivations report, which, I assume you have read? So if satanic sex rituals weren’t bought up in court and had no relevance to the conviction of Amanda, why did you bring it up? Can you provide any cites to what the prosecution actually did in relation to satanic sex rituals?”
(Another point - Marley23, continues the fundamental error of referring to “the” prosecutor in this case, when as should be evident to anyone with passing knowledge of the case that there were in fact two prosecutors. Is Manuela Comodi also part of the “Satan-busting conspiracy”?)
No offense, FinnAgain, but that is not a cite. That is an unattributed blurb written by a US television producer who cites only Mario Spezi and Douglas Preston, the authors of a book about how awful the Italian prosecutor is.
The Italian prosecutor IS awful, but the American press coverage of this case, especially US television coverage, has been embarrassingly one-sided and shallow. “Amanda is American! And hawt! She’s innocent, see? Here’s an interview with her mom and dad to prove it!”
I don’t think she killed that girl, but I do think she was there. I hope she gets out of jail in a couple years and then we can stop hearing about this.
But yes, this Italian prosecution of the parents is embarrassing, undemocratic, and symbolic of how bad things have gotten under Berlusconi. How can you have an open and free society if you can’t criticize the government and judiciary? Shameful, really.
Weird… that’s the third time in as many weeks that I’ve had the wrong link in my cut and paste cache. Ah well, I’m not sure what site in specific I was looking at, but quite a few have republished the allegation that the prosecution referred to the killing as satanic/ritualistic/something-of-the-sort. That it wasn’t an officially made claim, in writing, doesn’t mean that it didn’t inform the prosecution’s conduct.
When I’m not so tired perhaps I’ll dig up another link… sorry about the confusion.
Well, as I cited above, Knox’s defense attorney has claimed that the prosecutor put forth a satanic ritual theory. That’s about the best you can do (I think), but – given the prosecutor’s history – this doesn’t appear to be much of a stretch.
Which says nothing about whether she’s guilty. I have no opinion on whether the investigation was botched, as my only knowledge of this case comes from looking for that cite; but I’m frankly baffled by the libel charge, and just as baffled that some here are defending it (e.g. in the relevant pit thread).