There is no hypothetical. I'm usually quite good at coming up with creative arguments to at least make something a possibility but in this case the answer is no chance. You can't take something that is the normal procedure for a member country's legal system and categorize that as a violation. Think about that for a second -- if something that is the standard procedure was a violation it would have been appealed already and been changed in the legal system. If you goal is to find something that you have any hope of categorizing as a violation it has to be an abnormality to the normal procedures -- as of now no such abnormality exists.

The really weird phenomenon that I've noticed with respect to commenting on the Knox trial is that a **** load of lawyers on news shows are really ****'en stupid. The legal analysis of this trial and especially the discussion of extradition has been atrocious. To be fair some are paid Knox shills so I expect them to say stupid **** but even some of the people not related to the the attempts to spread propaganda are completely clueless.

The point that seems lost on you is that Raffaele in no time at all threw Knox under the bus. The important aspect of his statement to the police are the unnecessary details. He could have said I lied and the truth is that I was home alone and Amanda went out. That in itself would have been a pretty big betrayal but Raffaele goes way beyond that. Raffaele included completely unnecessary details such as the statement that when she returned to his apartment she was wearing different clothing and that when she left in the morning she asked to borrow a bunch of garbage bags. Why the **** would anyone include the detail that his girlfriend who is accused of murder needed a bunch of garbage bags hours after the murder if not to implicate her?

No. All the questions I asked were valid questions. You refuse to address them because there is no way to answer them that does not make Knox look guilty.


Then you are a really odd individual. Most people when telling a third party about how a common friend is missing would when asked to call the missing friend bring up the fact that I just called her and she did not answer. Call her -- I just did and no one answered. Is how that conversation proceeds 100% of the time.

Further in a situation like this no one lies about their location unless there is something weird going on. Knox wanted Filomena to think she was at the cottage and she lied about being there. That is significant. People don't lie unless there is something to be gained from lying.

The calls her her mother are very damaging.

The fact that her mother choose to commit perjury to conceal the nature of these calls is also very damaging.

That Knox lied to the police officers in an attempt to keep them from examining the locked door is devastating
.

In and of itself no.

The fact that Raffaele choose to not testify and further that in the Italian court system he was free to make spontaneous statements at any point and choose not to is what make me believe that. There are multiple opportunities where Raffaele could have spoken to defend Knox which would have been valuable and he remained silent. The only reason to do that is because there is a strategic value in remaining uncommitted to her version of events.

If you read his diary you see a similar pattern.

Lastly, given the situation that is how I would have advised Raffaele so I see it as a good strategy.

The problem is that I am less certain he can play that card now that he has been out of jail for two years and written a book. I think Raffaele has successfully screwed himself out of the only chance he had at a reduced sentence.

semi-grunch here and this might not be popular....

but i see nancy grace, who i absolutely hate, says she thinks amanda knox was heavily involved in her roommate's death and that she knows about alot of things that have never been disclosed.

even though i don't like her, i think she has always been on the right side of reasonable for all the cases that i'm aware (probably though most where the person is pretty obviously guilty - oj, scott peterson, casey anthony....)... and i don't think nancy is a liar either.

in case you're wondering, i would see her flipping channels and her show was, unfortunately, a mainstay at the gym i used to work out at.

this needs a "made for tv" miniseries where they do the trial in front of jury that actually makes a guilty or nonG verdict. similar to vincent bugliosi fictional trial for lee harvey oswald (they found him guilty)

Thanks for your take. I do understand that the above is your response to my putting forward the idea that it's standard procedure to run trials concurrently so allowing the declarations to be heard didn't violate a procedure and therefore wouldn't be grounds for appeal to the ECHR. It seems less cut and dry than that to me in the general sense of what you could appeal, but I'm really not familiar what types of cases end up there. If I'm understanding the process correctly, you're appealing on the grounds that articles of the charter were violated, right?

Yeah, lots of bad talking heads. Seeing this case discussed in the media on either side is tilting because the discussion on the internet is way more indepth.

I don't see how what he said in this regard was controversial at all. It's my understanding that he said that when she left in the morning around 10:30 she took a plastic bag for dirty clothes and that when she came back she had changed clothes. That fits with Amanda's story that she went home to take a shower and came back.

He gets so many things wrong; he has no credibility.

It's in Massei.

It's in the same place as the lines you quoted earlier about the order of the phone calls.

He also says that she was lying about being at the cottage, and the cell towers that the calls were made on proves it.

As far as I know, there are no English translations of daily court proceedings.

Are you suggesting that the judge could be fabricating this out of thin air?

What?

It's not Henry's 'theory', it comes straight from Massei.

Are you confused as to why I think she's covering something up?

See below, I can't make it any more clear than that.

I too would like to see Filomena's raw testimony posted if anyone has an English translation. It's absolutely damning to Knox. Examples:

- The washing machine had just finished when the postal police turned up unexpectedly. The postal police testify to this. Filomena testifies that it was quite warm and contained some of Meredith's clothes. This alone is a shocker.
- Filomena testifies of frictions between the girls, and the fact that Meredith felt uncomfortable about Amanda.
- Filomena testifies about finding the breakin. The facts she puts forward proves that it was staged, and rather sloppily and obviously staged.
- Filomena and many others who testified on the same day talk about how incredibly odd Amanda's behavior was after the murder, including the day after the murder when they were in the police station. All the flatmates and acquaintances and friends were crying; Amanda and Raf were apparently unconcerned about a brutal unsolved murder of her own flatmate in the room next to hers. According to testimony of a friend of Meredith:
There is no person alive who has their flatmate die in a brutal murder in unknown circumstances, and is not distraught, fearful, and deeply shocked the next day. At this point there was no clue who the murderer was. No matter how narcissistic you are, you would not react like this unless you know who the killer was. Fear and uncertainty alone would stop the behavior, even if you were too much of a psycho to feel grief and shock.

So if someone has a translation, that would be much appreciated. The more we get away from the view pushed by Knox shills and their paid PR team, and to actual testimony and facts of the case from reliable third parties, the better.

Lol, gtfo.

I just told you there are no english translations of testimony that I'm aware of.

I see you're just trolling now anyway.

PFUNK, I think what they're saying is:

a) An English translation of the testimony doesn't exist (learn to read Italian?) and given that:
b) Massei's summary and discussion is sufficient to establish what was said. It's not like he's slipping lies or misrepresentations into his discussion of the evidence.

I don't see the need to take up a page pressing the issue.

Yes, I'm quoting Massei, like I've been saying.

I think we can trust that the judge isn't lying about the testimony.

Its pretty unbelievable (and disturbing) how involved some people ITT are with this trial.

The dedication is staggering.

so shes clearly a merderer right

In my opinion there's extremely strong evidence that she participated in some way. Whether she held the knife and did the killing blow, or sat in another with her hands over her ears to block out the victim's screams, as she claimed, and then helped with the cleanup, I don't know.
Welcome to the internet. You must be new here.

You don't think posting 3,000 times about an (albeit major) event in one person's life is a bit...strange?

I just can't fathom putting in the amount of work Henry has or the amount of work/trolling 239 has into a specific event that doesn't directly concern me.

I guess people really do have that much free time on their hands. Anyway, carry on. I'll go back to casually lurking here.

Yeah, it's a bit unusual. But it's less strange than 10,000 POG posts or playing video games for hours or watching nearly five hours of TV per day every day as the average American does. At least it's intellectually stimulating.

If I remember correctly Filomena never said anything was warm she used the word umido indicating the close were damp.

Amanda had been in Perugia less than two months. They had to tell her to clean the toilet different, that was the biggest source of friction. Further, Amanda and Meredith had attended an event a week before the murder where she met Raf. Amanda texted Meredith on Halloween in a friendly way. As much as you want to make up a motive for murder it just isn't there. Also, given what evidence the police said they had do you think just maybe that clouded Filomena's testimony?

Filomena didn't "find" the break in. The reality is the prosecution used her testimony that glass was on top of clothes as the basis for proving the break in was staged. Your problem is that she also said glass was underneath the clothes. She said it was a jumbled mess of clothes and glass.

If only there were actual evidence that they were with Rudy Guede when he was violating Meredith, getting cuts on his hands, and walking around in her blood. Unfortunately for you being insensitive isn't enough to convict someone from murder. Actually, in Italy it is.

Thank goodness we have actual trials with evidence and not witch burnings like your diatribe above. Further, a guilty person would be less likely to act in the manner you are suggesting. They have something to hide and wouldn't want to draw attention to themselves.

It would be helpful if you actually knew the evidence before making these types of declarations. Feel free to continue to make it up as you go I suppose.

Truthsayer, if Amanda was in another room and a bystander to the murder, why on earth would she risk getting a life sentence in a foreign prison to protect a dude she'd known for a week?

239, your "innocence narrative" depends on ignoring dozens of irrational elements of Knox's behaviour (cartwheeling in police station, panicking about Meredith then shifting to not being concerned, inventing a story about someone else murdering Meredith, ignoring the unflushed human excrement in the bathroom, etc) so there's little value in asking your opponents to rationalize Knox's actions.

I love your disingenuous posts. Clearly AK had strong emotions for him and was going through an almost adolescent super-crush.

You're pretty clearly not interested in a mutual exchange of ideas here. I asked you what you make of the mop that you find so conspicuous and you just ignored it. The reality is there is no evidence that a mop existed that was used in some type of cleanup at the cottage that night and no one there 12 hours later smelled any cleaning products. Further, for your guilt tale to be real, they got down on their hands and knees and literally scrubbed around Guede's footprints in an effort to frame him. Then knowing they've set Guede up and all they have to do is wait it out, Amanda accuses someone she knows is innocent and probably has an alibi, and casts suspicion on herself. Good looking out.

It's pretty clear that, as illustrated above, you have no interest in a critical examination of the evidence. You listed four instances of "behavior" above, two which don't mean anything and two which are so misleading I can't respond to them.

I get that a lot of people are trapped in the mountain of weirdness in the case. Personally I find it bizarre that they aren't bothered at all at the lack of a coherent narrative of what actually happened given all the evidence we have. This isn't the Scott Peterson case where the forensics are scant and none of Amanda's behavior is of the nature of the circumstantial evidence in that case.