Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

I think this in an alleged fact. I think before accepting as proved the evidence would have to be put to Knox and subject to challenge. Merely asserting this to be so does not make it a fact, any more than it is a fact that the bloody shoe prints were left by Sollecito is a proven fact (though asserted by the police), nor that Sollecito / Knox phoned 112 after the arrival of the postal police. Nor that Knox was HIV positive. There are many things asserted about Knox / Sollecito that on examination prove to be untrue.

Why start now? We're only 6 days away from Cassazione potentially signing off on this.

Why start letting the accused face their accusers now?

As the dissenting popular-judge from the Nencini-panel is now reminding us, what was put to her at trial was that this was a crime of a smelly toilet. At the very least, this was put in open court by prosecutor Crini, so that the defence could make full answer if need be.

What good what that have done to make answer against a smelly toilet? None.

Because Nencini, in his motivations, reinvented it, pulling from Rudy's stuff the "judicial fact" that it was an argument over rent money. Aside from the many problems with Nencini's assertion....

..... when do the defendants get to make full answer to that? It seems that Nencini simply has the power as an appellant judge to simply make stuff up. And make it up after the fact-finding is over.

 

[carbonjam72]

Maybe they will split again. In March 2011 they were, publicly, a happy family. Then the lone PMF went off-line for a week. Then it came back up, and it took a few days to notice - there were TWO of them! They do their best to keep the tensions under wraps, but every once in a while one of the original combatants breaks the silence to claim that they are the real repositories of Meredith's memory.

Perhaps they'll get back together for the sequel?

 

[carbonjam72]

They're probably thinking the Daily Mail has pulled a Brutus on them, but if so they misunderstand that paper's agenda. The DM is solely interested in sales / clicks and has no loyalty or firm position on anything. They will publish anything at all about Amanda Knox, because it's pure clickbait.

Also, counter programming for profit. They 'sell short' a person's (tabloid victims) character all the way down as they sell them into the gutter, and then ride them all the way back up as their reputation is rehabilitated.

A story must be surprising in some way.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lack of unanimity

Here's the thing. Mrs Ballerini doesn't understand "Beyond a reasonable doubt". She doesn't understand that where you don't have that level of proof, you cannot convict and you cannot sentence a defendant to any term of imprisonment.

Kauffer,

IIRC Nencini's answer to a question from an interviewer led me to the inference that the decision was not unanimous. Mrs. B might have been one who voted against the majority.

 

[Planigale]

Yes, I believe cassation will cancel the convictions, without requesting a further re-trial, and leave everyone scratching their heads wondering how they will justify it in their motivation report in 90 days.

At that point, in 90 days, they'll walk themselves back from the edge, reference Dr Gill's new book, reiterate the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, say there's not enough evidence to convict, and no more evidence likely to emerge from a new trial, hence in the interests of justice, blah, blah, blah. In about 130 pages. (Correction: 132.42 pages. I don't want you to think I just got lucky).

Lots of reasons for my belief, many of which are things happening outside the court room (like TV coverage on Porta-porta, and recent final acquittal of Burlesconi (on sex with a minor), and opening of an investigation of Girlanda).

I could be totally mistaken of course, Nina Burleigh wrote in Newsweek today that she thinks conviction at casssation is basically a formality. I guess we'll see soon, but you did ask.

So since we are putting our guesses out there; I'll go for they confirm Knox's conviction but because of errors in Nencini's motivation (Sollecito cutting bra, Sollecito DNA on knife), they'll annul Nencini re Sollecito and Sollecito will be retried. The Italian government will defer an extradition claim on Knox pending Sollecito trial. Knox will appeal to ECHR.

 

[NancyS]

Don't laugh, those "sinus remedies" (wink, wink), pack a punch.

They sure do

http://youtu.be/tUxOdFJEDdg

I think I agree with Nina Burleigh, the convictions are sadly going to be confirmed

 

[carbonjam72]

So since we are putting our guesses out there; I'll go for they confirm Knox's conviction but because of errors in Nencini's motivation (Sollecito cutting bra, Sollecito DNA on knife), they'll annul Nencini re Sollecito and Sollecito will be retried. The Italian government will defer an extradition claim on Knox pending Sollecito trial. Knox will appeal to ECHR.

Sounds like a good guess. Even though it means they could end up with a split verdict on a 'judicial truth'. How can Amanda be guilty and Raf be innocent, when they had a joint defense, and have continuously claimed to have been together during the time of the crime? I think that's what many people want to see happen, but I can't see it as a practicality. It's a conflict within the same decision. But who knows?

 

[christianahannah]

Kauffer,

IIRC Nencini's answer to a question from an interviewer led me to the inference that the decision was not unanimous. Mrs. B might have been one who voted against the majority.

I'm uncertain as to how Mrs. B voted, however, she does state she was not swayed either way to vote a particular verdict by the two senior judges. She did not even know their opinion of guilt or innocence until the end. She also says they helped others to understand things which they may have had difficulty with but what those things were she doesn't elaborate on. It could be matters of procedural code or evidence, etc. Maybe the Oggi article would shed more light (even with its somewhat questionable reputation as serious journalism).

 

[Machiavelli]

Excellent. So in this glib construction you inform us that Meredith Kercher's and Giacomo Silenzi's association was merely transactional, boiling down to sex and drugs.

No, I'm not saying that, don't make up stuff.
I'm just saying Amanda Knox had contacts with drug dealers for one of two reasons, either for sex or for drugs (or both).
The nature of the relation between Meredith and Giacomo has nothing to do with this, and it's of no interest to the point.
There is no evidence that Knox had a somehow meaningful sentimental relationhip with a drug dealer (or with multiple drug dealers), if there was one then she kept it secret. And wouldn't change the point. But there is evidence she had contacts with them and had sex with at least one of them, so at least she had some kind of material interest to share.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think this in an alleged fact. I think before accepting as proved the evidence would have to be put to Knox and subject to challenge. Merely asserting this to be so does not make it a fact (...)

We disagree. I think it is proven, because the police wouldn't have busted the drug dealers ring without Ms. Knox's phone contacts, her phone calls were the link to them. This is a proven fact.
Moreover, I do consider the presumption of truthfulness of some statements, such as Knox's statement that she had sex with Federico, the Perugian newspapers (plus my direct sources) reporting that the dealers were actually tried and convicted, and the police report about the activities of the three.

 

[NancyS]

No, I'm not saying that, don't make up stuff.
I'm just saying Amanda Knox had contacts with drug dealers for one of two reasons, either for sex or for drugs (or both).
The nature of the relation between Meredith and Giacomo has nothing to do with this, and it's of no interest to the point.
There is no evidence that Knox had a somehow meaningful sentimental relationhip with a drug dealer (or with multiple drug dealers), if there was one then she kept it secret. And wouldn't change the point. But there is evidence she had contacts with them and had sex with at least one of them, so at least she had some kind of material interest to share.

This is sexist nonsense at best - and at worst, the fantasy of a dirty old man

 

[Machiavelli]

I can't believe you are still peddling this 'dirty old man' porn version? Can't you and Mignini just go to the cinema and see Fifty Shades of Grey, I'm sure it is more realistic than this sexed up nonsense - This kind of nonsense is incredibly sexist and offensive to women

A drug dealers ring was caught thanks to Knox's phone calls, they phoned each other even after the murder, and she admitted to having sex with one of them. These are facts and nothing of your sentiments will change them.

 

[Numbers]

Sounds like a good guess. Even though it means they could end up with a split verdict on a 'judicial truth'. How can Amanda be guilty and Raf be innocent, when they had a joint defense, and have continuously claimed to have been together during the time of the crime? I think that's what many people want to see happen, but I can't see it as a practicality. It's a conflict within the same decision. But who knows?

carbonjam,

I think we need to look at the real probabilities here. Consider the CPPPP laws (valid in all places like Italy). The case will be decided by the toss of a die with six sides and twelve edges. (An edge being the line where two perpendicular sides meet.) If the die lands so that an odd number of spots is upright, the conviction is finalized. If the die lands so that an even number of spots is upright, the case will be referred to retrial, with a conviction directed, but a less incredible motivation report demanded. However, if the die lands on an edge, there will be a United Sections review of the case, which I am sure will lead to the acquittal of both defendants. And there are more edges to land on than sides. So there is reason for optimism. Of course, this analysis neglects certain physical issues, such as the effects of gravity on a tumbling cube and the stability of the die in balancing on an edge. However, in Italy, there continues to be, as I understand, strong belief in miracles and selective DNA clean-ups, so no worries.

 

[Samson]

The Daily Mail readers have reversed their opinions. A couple of years ago, the comments were rated by the clicks heavily against Amanda and Raffaele. This article has drawn rating clicks, roughly 60 40 in favour. I suspect this could be regarded as an informal poll of what the British people believe. Take note Machiavelli, Christianahannah, Vibio, and so on.
I hope a retired tabloid journalist from Coulsdon is also mindful of what is going on.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is sexist nonsense at best - and at worst, the fantasy of a dirty old man

Just the facts ma'am.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't know what you're talking about. Knox never had sex with Silenzi or Curatalo or any of the other drug-addled denizens of Perugia, which appears to include just about everyone including Nara. And now we find out from Burleigh that even Mignini is addicted to "sinus" medications. What a circus.

Diocletus, the three (Federico, Luciano, Lorenzo) were not drug addicts, they were drug dealers. There's a difference.
And they were not reported as Knox's boyfriends.

 

[NancyS]

Just the facts ma'am.

Or just your attempt at erotic fiction - seriously, fifty shades has more facts!

 

[NancyS]

A drug dealers ring was caught thanks to Knox's phone calls, they phoned each other even after the murder, and she admitted to having sex with one of them. These are facts and nothing of your sentiments will change them.

I saw this one on Melrose Place - or was it Hollyoaks After Dark?

 

[Kauffer]

Kauffer,

IIRC Nencini's answer to a question from an interviewer led me to the inference that the decision was not unanimous. Mrs. B might have been one who voted against the majority.

I remember that too and drew the same inference at the time.

But now there appears to be a complete lack of certainty as to how these people reached the verdict and how the sentences were decided upon. It may well be that the 'jurors' discussed the case between themselves (Mrs Ballerini also says the professional judges did not try to sway them during their discussions) and Nencini and Cicerchia simply decided on the verdict once the discussions were over or were terminated by them, having not guided the 'jurors' as to the meaning of 'Reasonable Doubt' (I doubt they understand it, either). She says that she and other 'jurors' protested, but this appears to have been solely about the length of sentence. It would seem likely that there was no vote; it seems even more likely that the 'jurors' had no say whatsoever in sentencing.

Nothing I read in the translation of Mrs Ballerini's comments suggested to me that she thought Ms Knox, at least, should be acquitted - merely that she shouldn't have been so heavily sentenced. I found one piece of additional machine translation, which added her referring to Guede's 16 year sentence. Ms B's reasoning appeared to be that since there was more evidence against Guede than Ms Knox, that Ms Knox should not have received a longer term than Guede.

If my take on this is correct, I think it is an even stronger indictment of the process - a widespread belief that proof of innocence needs to be discovered for an acquittal. What I think this 'juror' believes (and perhaps other 'jurors' too) is that if there is a reasonable doubt of guilt, but not proof of innocence, then the defendant should serve a less severe sentence! If this is so, then the verdict was not delivered according to law, or rather, was delivered according to out of date Italian law.

It may well be, if properly guided as to the law, the 'jurors' would have voted (if permitted to do so), unanimously for acquittal!

 

[Samson]

Sounds like a good guess. Even though it means they could end up with a split verdict on a 'judicial truth'. How can Amanda be guilty and Raf be innocent, when they had a joint defense, and have continuously claimed to have been together during the time of the crime? I think that's what many people want to see happen, but I can't see it as a practicality. It's a conflict within the same decision. But who knows?

There is a very serious issue arising if they jail Sollecito, and decline to seek extradition for Knox as Burleigh predicts.
This must be politically impossible, therefore I predict they will either order a new trial, or find a judicial loophole that puts Sollecito's situation in permanent limbo. This would suit everyone (or noone), no winners no losers.