Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[JREF2010]

Maresca will indeed probably drop the Kerchers tout-de-suite. They cannot in any way afford to pay even a fraction of the fees they owe him already (on paper at least), let alone the costs of any future legal representation.

That (to me and, I think, to many/most other pro-acquittal commentators) is one of the additional tragic factors in this sorry case. If Maresca has any decency, he will write off the entirety of his work for the Kercher family.

Makes me wonder how many peoples careers and finances are in complete shambles from Migninnis crazy cases. MOF and now Perugia/Kercher case.

People that invested in his case, like Maresca will go home without anything.
Surely he cant bill the Kerchers, hopefully Perugia City will pay and leave the Kerchers out of it. Maybe the various pro-Maresca sites can open the billfolds.
Maresca looked ill at the big announcement.

Hopefully he will move on and stop the vindictive comments.
Maybe Migninni has some more cases for him.

 

[platonov]

Killers have walked before and will walk again.
Must be hard to take for the Kercher family.


I see some posters are wondering what to do now. The option of attacking the ‘guliters’, cops, witnesses etc and more importantly the victim’s family and the victim herself long into the future is always available.

Now why would the Kerchers find this hard to take? Whenever they spoke they said they were waiting for the Italian Justice system to reveal to them what happened to their daughter - they have a lot of faith in that system too, they said.

They are on a search for the truth, aren't they? Well, yesterday's verdict takes them further towards that goal and they will now surely be relieved to learn that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing whatsoever to do with Meredith's death.

Indeed, now that the Italian justice system has spoken definitively on this matter, they are free to contact both the former defendants in order to console them as a result of the utter nightmare of their having had their lives turned upside down by mendacious police officers, incompetent scientists and nut job prosecutors for more than seven years.

Because of their faith in the Italian justice system, they must be feeling very bad for Amanda and Raffaele right now.

No, that wont do.

I'm afraid that from about tomorrow onwards, the Kerchers will not be on TV* ever again.
For all the high-moral-ground "remember the real victim" stuff, that's simply (maybe sadly) not the way the general public or the media think about cases like this. Those who think that Kercher and her family should remain front and centre in the coverage of this case should perhaps stop for a moment and think of virtually every single high-profile case of this sort in recent history. Do they remember, for example, the name of the victim(s) in the Norfolk Four case, or the Lindy Chamberlain case, or the West Memphis 3, or the Lockerbie (not)Bomber?


* in terms of news coverage, that is. There may be documentaries made about the case in which they might appear.

That’s better.
Although I doubt they wanted to be on TV in the first place.
But, well done.

 

[yimyammer]

However, the third guy charged with the murder openly accused them while on the stand in their 1st appeal – in an actual court.
.

This had to be the oddest testimony I've ever heard of, vague with little to no cross examination that I recall.

I remember looking forward to his testimony but he was whisked off in no time having said very little and resolving nothing imho

 

[Bill Williams]

That'she what I thought as well.

I believe that the sentence depends on the judge's belief that calunnia was an aggravating factor in the larger crime. Of course, if there is no larger crime, then it cannot be an aggravating factor.

Nencini argues this in his motivations using the word, "teleological" a lot.

Suffice it to say that it seems that if it contributes to the overall conviction, then it is a one-year sentence, but if it does not then it is a three year sentence.

I don't know if that is logical, but it does seem to work that way.

 

[Sonia]

None, really?
Just as well you didn’t disclose this earlier in these threads – it would have put quite a crimp in the post count and reduced forum traffic.

However, the third guy charged with the murder openly accused them while on the stand in their 1st appeal – in an actual court.
Would that, for example, not count as a strike?

Or, at least, as 60% of a ‘strike’.

Do you mean when he appeared in court in 2011, but refused to answer questions, and was unable to read from his "own" handwritten document?

"Instead of sealing the deal for the prosecution by vocalizing his accusations against Amanda and Raffaele and backing them up with actual proof, Rudy refused to be questioned about what happened the night that Meredith Kercher was slashed to death. He left the fate of this case hanging on the DNA report that the court’s independent witnesses will file on Wednesday, an outcome that Italy’s Nazione newspaper had predicted.

Knox and Sollecito, convicted of the murder in a separate trial, never got the chance (if only through their lawyers), to defend themselves against Rudy’s accusations. Instead, the judge allowed them to make spontaneous statements, but only after Rudy left the court. All of this was captured on camera (see Umbria24′s video below).

Rudy was expected to strike out at the defense witnesses who testified last week. Prisoners one and all, they claimed he had confided in them–or in another prisoner–that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent. His accusers ranged from a convicted child killer to a mobster snitch .Bizarrely, instead of explaining himself, Rudy relied on a handwritten letter he’d written in 2010, already leaked to the press. Even more bizarrely, he claimed that his own handwriting was illegible and he could not read it–a task Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini magically achieved when he read the letter out loud.

The judge queried Rudy about the letter, asking if he understood every word of it. Well, maybe not the larger ones."

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/06/27/amanda-accuser-couldnt-read-own-accusations/

 

[Sonia]

Let’s see if I have this right.
You are happy that the 2 ‘white kids’ went free but think the black African falsely accused of rape/murder who is better acquainted with some of the cops and prosecutors involved, his accuser and most likely the case itself is comes across as ‘a fairly stupid person’.

From your perspective perhaps.

It was pretty dim of him to tell all and sundry that he was the nephew of his countryman, martyred national hero Patrice Lumumba, and even dub himself "Patrick," wouldn't you agree? He's no relation at all.

 

[LondonJohn]

That'she what I thought as well.

The criminal slander conviction was confirmed in the previous SC verdict, but the aggravation element was sent back down to Nencini.

 

[Sonia]

The DMGT (the parent company of the Daily Mail and its Sunday sister paper the Mail on Sunday) only owns and publishes those two national titles. It doesn't own/publish any other national tabloids - it's only other significant newspaper interest in the UK is Metro, a daily London freesheet.

Regarding the Lumumba interview, I've argued before that I think it is highly unlikely (to the point of near-impossibility) that the Mail would have published directly-attributed quotes within quotation marks made by Lumumba unless it was certain that Lumumba did indeed say those things (i.e. their exact Italian or French equivalent - depending on the language in which he conducted the interview).

I say that because a) they are directly-attributed quotes within quotation marks, and even UK tabloid newspapers are simply not in the business of making up direct quotes of this nature; and b) the very nature of the accusations contained within those quotes makes it additionally important that the quotes could be verified as accurate and reliable.

I very strongly suspect that the interview with Lumumba was tape recorded, and that the newspaper's lawyers insisted on listening to the tapes and reading the translated transcripts before allowing this story to run. Can you imagine the Mail's potential exposure if Lumumba had never provably said those things? Even the Mail is nowhere near that stupid. They could have faced serious defamation suits by either Lumumba, the Perugia police, or both.

I therefore think it's wholly reasonable to conclude that Lumumba almost certainly did make exactly those accusations in exactly those words in his oral interview with the Mail. I also suspect that either Lumumba's lawyer or the police or the PM in the case got onto Lumumba very quickly after the story went live. And I think that whoever intervened, and whatever was said in that intervention, Lumumba quickly and easily became convinced that it was strongly in his own best interests to publicly renounce those quoted accusations.

Sorry I got the group of tabloids wrong. I was thinking of the Northern & Shell group. It's been several years since I moved back to the States from Ireland, and the memory of who owns all those screaming tabloids is fading.

However, I do remember reading that the Daily Mail had to make large settlements frequently and also pay substantial court-ordered damages to individuals who have made charges of being quoted incorrectly. All the tabloids have been caught fabricating quotes, printing libelous stories, and making up things that never happened. The publishers count on getting away with lots of fakery and embellishments, and they do accept getting caught and sometimes forced to make a settlement or pay damages as part of the cost of doing business.

 

[LondonJohn]

Christopher Byers, Steven Branch and Michael Moore. I think anyone who's followed that case remembers the victims very well.

Oh yes, I'm sure that those who follow the case actively know the names of the victims. But that wasn't really what the "remember Meredith" stuff was all about. Instead, it was about a) the fact that the "man (/woman) in the street" was far more conversant with the name Amanda Knox in particular (and Raffaele Sollecito to a lesser extent) than with the name "Meredith Kercher"; and b) the fact that media coverage of the case also homed in on Knox/Sollecito rather than Meredith Kercher.

But that's the way it's always been, and the way it always will be. I guarantee, for example, that any analysis of the media coverage and general public name recognition in the WM3 case would register far higher numbers for the three who were freed from prison than for the three victims. It's just the way it is. And that's why I find the clarion calls of "remember Meredith" ringing a little hollow perhaps. Her family and friends remember her - just as, say, the families of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims remember them as well - but I reject the notion that it's the moral duty of the wider public to put the victim(s) front and centre in any discussion.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I have been trying to write up some comments summarizing my perspective on yesterday's events, and I'm not finding it easy. It was an incredible day. I'd like to take some time to think about it before I say too much.

Public perception was a huge factor in this case. It led to outside pressure, which stiffened the resolve of the authorities to protect themselves from embarrassment, but also created a credibility problem that would not go away. In the end, I believe, the high court realized they were trapped in an untenable position because of public perception. They did the only thing that would stop the hemorrhaging of their credibility: face facts, and exonerate these defendants.

Everyone who supported Amanda and Raffaele helped to shape the public's understanding. I know how grateful Amanda and her family are for the support they received from so many people over the course of a long ordeal. We can all feel proud of the final, just result we helped to bring about.

 

[anglolawyer]

I believe that the sentence depends on the judge's belief that calunnia was an aggravating factor in the larger crime. Of course, if there is no larger crime, then it cannot be an aggravating factor.

Nencini argues this in his motivations using the word, "teleological" a lot.

Suffice it to say that it seems that if it contributes to the overall conviction, then it is a one-year sentence, but if it does not then it is a three year sentence.

I don't know if that is logical, but it does seem to work that way.

I don't know exactly what the Supremes did but I don't think this is it, Bill. It's a bit like a tennis match where the spectators heads can be seen looking to their right, then their left, then to the right again. It goes:

Massei: calumny with the aggravating circumstance ('the AC') that she tried to conceal her part in the murder by accusing somebody else

Hellman: calumny without the AC

ISC: calumny with the AC

Nencini: calumny with the AC

ISC: calumny without the AC (yesterday)

ECHR: no calumny at all (tomorrow)

 

[LondonJohn]

That’s better.
Although I doubt they wanted to be on TV in the first place.
But, well done.

Did platonov even bother to read the post to which I was responding regarding the Kerchers being on TV? If he needs reminding, it was a post which suggested that Maresca might elect to continue representing the Kerchers on account of future TV appearances by the Kerchers having a marketing/promotion benefit to him and his law firm.

 

[anglolawyer]

I have been trying to write up some comments summarizing my perspective on yesterday's events, and I'm not finding it easy. It was an incredible day. I'd like to take some time to think about it before I say too much.

Public perception was a huge factor in this case. It led to outside pressure, which stiffened the resolve of the authorities to protect themselves from embarrassment, but also created a credibility problem that would not go away. In the end, I believe, the high court realized they were trapped in an untenable position because of public perception. They did the only thing that would stop the hemorrhaging of their credibility: face facts, and exonerate these defendants.

Everyone who supported Amanda and Raffaele helped to shape the public's understanding. I know how grateful Amanda and her family are for the support they received from so many people over the course of a long ordeal. We can all feel proud of the final, just result we helped to bring about.

Yo Charlie! Thanks for bringing us the news. I look forward very much to your further reflections once they have settled in your mind.

 

[LondonJohn]

It was pretty dim of him to tell all and sundry that he was the nephew of his countryman, martyred national hero Patrice Lumumba, and even dub himself "Patrick," wouldn't you agree? He's no relation at all.

I thought about this the other day, when I happened to hear a quiz question on TV about Patrice Lumumba.

I'd say it was not only dim of Patrick (Diya) Lumumba to make this false claim of close familial relationship to Patrice Lumumba - it also perhaps offers insights into his character. It suggests that he might be something of a fantasist who has little problem lying and exaggerating if he thinks it might be to his personal benefit.

 

[codyjuneau]

We were talking about PL - is he now merely a guilter?

Nope.
They were charged with, and convicted of, murder in a criminal trial.
Is litigation not usually a reference to a civil court matter, unless the guys on Bonanza are mistaken.

I was not talking about Patrick. He is not a guilter. He's a sort of victim himself but someone who is taking his victim hood too far and in the wrong direction. The police are far more responsible for his plight than she is.

They were acquitted, Platonov. Call them murderers and you defame them and in an extremely serious way. Luckily for you, your statements probably don't matter enough for you to get into any trouble but you never know ...

Your last sentence is incomprehensible.

ETA Ninja'd by Rose.

.
He could just plead ignorance. Should be easy to prove.

Cody
.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have been trying to write up some comments summarizing my perspective on yesterday's events, and I'm not finding it easy. It was an incredible day. I'd like to take some time to think about it before I say too much.

Public perception was a huge factor in this case. It led to outside pressure, which stiffened the resolve of the authorities to protect themselves from embarrassment, but also created a credibility problem that would not go away. In the end, I believe, the high court realized they were trapped in an untenable position because of public perception. They did the only thing that would stop the hemorrhaging of their credibility: face facts, and exonerate these defendants.

Everyone who supported Amanda and Raffaele helped to shape the public's understanding. I know how grateful Amanda and her family are for the support they received from so many people over the course of a long ordeal. We can all feel proud of the final, just result we helped to bring about.

Very good to see you here Charlie. We missed you yesterday, but suspected that you might have other calls on your time.

From my own personal perspective, I only ever got into the online debate about this case because I found it to be a fascinating subject - and one in which I felt I could offer interesting views and arguments, as well as learning from others, and having my views challenged. For me, therefore, it was never about a campaign per se.

But I obviously know that for others it truly was a campaign, and I'm especially happy and relieved for all of them (including you, of course, and others close to Amanda and her family (and Raffaele and his family)). I do agree that the debate here and elsewhere played some part in shaping public opinion, and even perhaps (even if in a minute way) in shaping the courtroom strategy. So yes, I do think it's fair and appropriate to feel at least a modicum of pride and satisfaction at this point, without being triumphalist. I think that Knox, Sollecito and their families, friends and close supporters have every right to celebrate, but for the rest of us it ought to be quiet reflection on a job well done.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry I got the group of tabloids wrong. I was thinking of the Northern & Shell group. It's been several years since I moved back to the States from Ireland, and the memory of who owns all those screaming tabloids is fading.

However, I do remember reading that the Daily Mail had to make large settlements frequently and also pay substantial court-ordered damages to individuals who have made charges of being quoted incorrectly. All the tabloids have been caught fabricating quotes, printing libelous stories, and making up things that never happened. The publishers count on getting away with lots of fakery and embellishments, and they do accept getting caught and sometimes forced to make a settlement or pay damages as part of the cost of doing business.

I totally agree with all this. But it's rare (to the point of near non-existence) to find the Mail and its ilk risking defaming bodies such as the police or public officials. Those sorts of people have real power and real clout, as well as pretty bottomless financial resources for fighting defamation battles. As an example, defaming someone like Christopher Jefferies (in the Joanna Yates murder case) is a very different risk to defaming the police or public officials involved in that case.

 

[Sonia]

I totally agree with all this. But it's rare (to the point of near non-existence) to find the Mail and its ilk risking defaming bodies such as the police or public officials. Those sorts of people have real power and real clout, as well as pretty bottomless financial resources for fighting defamation battles. As an example, defaming someone like Christopher Jefferies (in the Joanna Yates murder case) is a very different risk to defaming the police or public officials involved in that case.

I see your point. All the cases that I can recall involve media figures, footballers, and the like.

I wish Knox and Sollecito could recover damages for all the false stories planted about them over the past 7+ years. But I know it's healthier for them to move past all that and get back to living their lives.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't know exactly what the Supremes did but I don't think this is it, Bill. It's a bit like a tennis match where the spectators heads can be seen looking to their right, then their left, then to the right again. It goes:

Massei: calumny with the aggravating circumstance ('the AC') that she tried to conceal her part in the murder by accusing somebody else

Hellman: calumny without the AC

ISC: calumny with the AC

Nencini: calumny with the AC

ISC: calumny without the AC (yesterday)

ECHR: no calumny at all (tomorrow)

It then seems counter-intuitive when factoring in the sentence. This is how Massei breaks down the 26 year sentence he imposed:

Amanda Knox is also answerable for the crime
of calunnia, she must be condemned to a total punishment of 26 years of
imprisonment (base penalty 24 years; increased to 24 years and 6 months for the
simulation [staging]; to 24 years and 9 months for carrying the knife; to 25 years for
theft and increased, finally, by a further year for calunnia).​

Hellmann sets it at 3 years, without the aggravating circumstance, "re-determin(ed) the sentence in consideration of the fact that this crime was thus no longer directly related to the crimes of which she was acquitted." (Cf. Nencini)

ISC (Section 1) in 2013 (according to Nencini) heard from the Prosecutor General who appealed, in part, Contradictory and evidently non-logical reasoning concerning the failure to recognize the aggravating teleological purpose regarding the presumed crime of calunnia. (Cf. Nencini)

ISC (Section 1), then partially annuled the calunnia, in effect sending part of it back to the Nencini court - "limited to an evaluation of the aggravating of the teleological purpose, devolving upon this Court of remand, a “(...) new judgment guided by a more comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence.“(Page 45 of the sentence of the Supreme Court) The outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court formed a partial substantial [definitive] judgment regarding the crime of calunnia."

Nencini then said that the, "Supreme Court remanded to the judgment of this district Court solely the question of whether having committed the crime of calunnia in order to gain impunity from the more serious crime of murder constitutes an aggravating factor."

He then concludes by sentencing Knox this way. "Thus, the penalty to be imposed on Amanda Marie Knox for the crime of calunnia with multiple aggravations must be established in 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment (base penalty [336] of 2 years and 6 months increased to 3 years of prison for the aggravating factor under second paragraph of article 368 of the Criminal Code, and further increased to the above mentioned final penalty for the aggravation under article 61 no. 2 Criminal Code)."

It seems that the ISC (Section 5) from March 2015 simply returns to Hellmann's reasoning without the aggravating circumstance, at the three years, included in time served.

So it seems to have gone this way:

Massei: calumny with the AC - one year

Hellman: calumny without the AC - 3 years.

ISC: calumny with the AC - at least three years.

Nencini: calumny with the AC - 3 1/2 years

ISC: calumny without the AC (yesterday) - 3 years

ECHR: no calumny at all (tomorrow) - cannot come soon enough.

This does not seem to make sense.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have been trying to write up some comments summarizing my perspective on yesterday's events, and I'm not finding it easy. It was an incredible day. I'd like to take some time to think about it before I say too much.

Public perception was a huge factor in this case. It led to outside pressure, which stiffened the resolve of the authorities to protect themselves from embarrassment, but also created a credibility problem that would not go away. In the end, I believe, the high court realized they were trapped in an untenable position because of public perception. They did the only thing that would stop the hemorrhaging of their credibility: face facts, and exonerate these defendants.

Everyone who supported Amanda and Raffaele helped to shape the public's understanding. I know how grateful Amanda and her family are for the support they received from so many people over the course of a long ordeal. We can all feel proud of the final, just result we helped to bring about.

Welcome back!