Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Ampulla of Vater]

Has anyone seen RBRVW or whatever Randy goes by? I wonder if he knows yet.

 

[Strozzi]

Time for me too to thank the members who posted so much great information in these threads over the years. I rarely posted myself, and have only sporadically followed the thread (at least, since the more contentious earlier days when there was a lot more moderator involvement...) but over time, the truth became clear.

Here's how I'd sum up the case, for anyone who doesn't want to delve into those details but is open-minded about the overall picture.

There was and is no plausible accurate primary evidence against Knox. No crime scene evidence, no physical evidence on her person, no primary documentary evidence, no apparent motive, and no credible witnesses. There was a lot of claimed evidence, but it wasn't evidence about the crime. It was all abstract, generated by the process itself. Claims about how she behaved while in custody. The scenarios that prosecutors and the press invented. Things people had said and written in other people's trials. The absence of exculpatory evidence that had vanished while under the control of the police. Things supposedly already "established" by earlier stages of the process.
The problem is, to sort out the two categories of claimed evidence, and see that overall pattern, one has to delve into the details. News articles almost invariably mix the two when describing "the evidence" and so could leave the impression that Knox was acquitted despite there still being some evidential "strikes" against her.

There are, in actual fact, none.

I wonder if Mrs. Kercher can comprehend this - that there are two forms of evidence: plausible accurate primary evidence, and evidence not of the crime but of police and prosecutor efforts to create evidence while concealing or destroying exculpatory evidence.

 

[JREF2010]

I wonder if Mrs. Kercher can comprehend this - that there are two forms of evidence: plausible accurate primary evidence, and evidence not of the crime but of police and prosecutor efforts to create evidence while concealing or destroying exculpatory evidence.

I hope so.
Her kids also, seem bright and intelligent, I hope they can see through the interrogation and other abnormal issues like Stefonis presenting the below limit RFU etc... open minded that the support for Amanda and Raffaele was not disrespect for them.

The hate sites tried to build that animosity of the sides, either or. But again it was just the hate-sites creating that.

 

[Numbers]

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

​

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.

I disagree in part - I think that when the ECHR finds that Amanda's conviction for calunnia was a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, and that Italy must take appropriate action to address that violation, that will make sense.

I am not sure why the CSC said anything about the calunnia at this point. Maybe they wanted to reaffirm Hellmann, otherwise they might be seen as acquitting on the calunnia conviction. I believe the Italian courts must maintain that conviction or admit that the police violated Italian procedural law during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007 and also violated Italian criminal law, CP Art. 377-bis, which provides for a prison sentence of from 2 to 6 years for anyone who, through threats or violence, induces anyone to make false statements to a judicial authority.

 

[Numbers]

A seriously good idea for the Kerchers if they want to understand what efforts Italy really expended in finding who murdered their daughter Meredith; from:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/28/europe/amanda-knox-guilt-innocence/

Maresca says the Kerchers could try to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and argue that Italy failed to find those culpable of killing their beloved daughter and sister but they have yet to make that decision.

"If they think Italy hasn't fulfilled the duty, they could sue Italy," Canestrini told CNN.

Such a claim could be made based on the final conviction handed down to Rudy Guede, a man from the Ivory Coast who was convicted for his role in Kercher's murder in 2008 in a fast-track trial that is still under seal.

When the high court ruled definitively on his case in 2010, they wrote explicitly in their reasoning that he was one of three assailants but did not name who they were.

 

[Desert Fox]

Isn't it squishy area what the ECHR can and cannot investigate?

I suspect if it seen as their purview, the ECHR could declare (after investigating properly) that most likely that Rudy Guede is the single assailant.

If they can, I wonder if the Kerchers would accept that?

 

[codyjuneau]

I disagree in part - I think that when the ECHR finds that Amanda's conviction for calunnia was a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, and that Italy must take appropriate action to address that violation, that will make sense.

I am not sure why the CSC said anything about the calunnia at this point. Maybe they wanted to reaffirm Hellmann, otherwise they might be seen as acquitting on the calunnia conviction. I believe the Italian courts must maintain that conviction or admit that the police violated Italian procedural law during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007 and also violated Italian criminal law, CP Art. 377-bis, which provides for a prison sentence of from 2 to 6 years for anyone who, through threats or violence, induces anyone to make false statements to a judicial authority.

.
Maybe they want the ECHR to reprimand the Italian police, rather than themselves.

Cody
.

 

[kwill]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/28/europe/amanda-knox-guilt-innocence/

From that article:

Sollecito may now have cause to sue Italy for false imprisonment. Italy pays around €12 million every year for locking up people who are later cleared of charges, according to Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi who is introduced measures to reform the judicial system.

But, Canestrini says if Sollecito at any time lied to investigators before he was arrested, he may forfeit his right to reimbursement for being held. Sollecito changed his story more than once before finally settling on an alibi with Knox, so a legal battle could focus on whether anything he told investigators led directly to his arrest.

What the heck? Since they didn't record his interviews, how could they possibly show that he misled them into -- wait for it -- arresting him? Is that really what Canestrini is suggesting here?

That Raffaele forfeits his 48 million euros if they can show that he fooled the detectives into thinking he was guilty?

 

[davefoc]

I agree with someone above that the Gill interview on Porta a Porta IMO carried significant weight in moving the direction of sentiment and importantly the supreme court justices. My speculation.

But I would like to add that the Newsweek cover story by Nina Burleigh characterizing this as a medial witch hunt (something to that effect) was probably felt as well. She deserves some accolades as well. IMO.

A link for anybody that is interested:
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/will-amanda-knox-be-dragged-back-italy-murder-case-314970.html

About 50% of the comments I read argued for guilt. I had not seen such a high percentage of anti-Knox and Sollecito comments on any other article I could remember reading. One thing that is going on appears to be that the pro-guilt side are really motivated and a few people make a whole lot of posts.

 

[kwill]

A link for anybody that is interested:
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/will-amanda-knox-be-dragged-back-italy-murder-case-314970.html

About 50% of the comments I read argued for guilt. I had not seen such a high percentage of anti-Knox and Sollecito comments on any other article I could remember reading. One thing that is going on appears to be that the pro-guilt side are really motivated and a few people make a whole lot of posts.

All for naught! Yesterday afternoon it became illegal to say publicly that she or Raffaele is guilty of murder. They'll keep thinking it of course, but open season on A & R is finally over.

 

[anglolawyer]

Has anyone seen RBRVW or whatever Randy goes by? I wonder if he knows yet.

You think he lives in a hut on the beach with no electricity or plumbing, right? Me too

 

[Antony]

delete

 

[Samson]

All for naught! Yesterday afternoon it became illegal to say publicly that she or Raffaele is guilty of murder. They'll keep thinking it of course, but open season on A & R is finally over.

I believe Amanda is in a strong position to fight on. The judgement is allowing many people to ascribe the verdict to politics. I will be surprised if she does not have a lucrative international speaking career if she wishes. I am promoting this new science and internet delivery of just solutions here, to family involved in law.
For example, a few names to sponsor her come to mind, Jimmy Wales, Donald Trump, Peter Jackson. But this is idle speculation on my part.

 

[Antony]

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.

The idea that the Kerchers didn't want to be on TV is ludicrous, as is the oft-repeated assertion that they "maintained a dignified silence". They, unlike the defendants, had no purpose, let alone obligation, in inserting themselves into the process in the first place and if they really didn't want to be on TV then they wouldn't have held press conferences.

It could be argued that their appointment of a lawyer was justified, to ensure that their daughter's effects were taken care of and her death was investigated adequately, but in reality Maresca has done the opposite, and has simply taken the side of the prosecution - including in suppressing evidence contrary to the family's express wishes. Then there is John Kercher's book, which is reported to be focussed on Amanda Knox in a way that misrepresents the facts to favour the prosecution.

No, the Kerchers' part in this case has been anything but silent, and in many respects, anything but dignified.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

From that article:



What the heck? Since they didn't record his interviews, how could they possibly show that he misled them into -- wait for it -- arresting him? Is that really what Canestrini is suggesting here?

That Raffaele forfeits his 48 million euros if they can show that he fooled the detectives into thinking he was guilty?

You misunderstood. According to the quote you shared, Italy pays, approximately, a total of 12 million Euros to various people found to have been falsely imprisoned each year. It's not saying that people who are falsely imprisoned receive 12 million Euros for each year they were imprisoned. That would be a bit excessive, considering that 12 million alone would make launch someone into the category of "extremely, close to super, rich". That would mean someone mistakenly held for 20 years would receive 240 million Euros, clearly a ridiculous proposition. With that kind of payday, people would be clamoring to be falsely imprisoned.

This has nothing to do with your main point, of course.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

All for naught! Yesterday afternoon it became illegal to say publicly that she or Raffaele is guilty of murder. They'll keep thinking it of course, but open season on A & R is finally over.

I'm not too worried about the issue, but as a matter of interest I've been wondering about how much these legal prohibitions will actually be effective, and hope someone can clarify for me. Wouldn't it still be legal for someone to say/write publicly and loudly, "I believe that the Italian courts made a mistake, and that Amanda and Rafael, although acquitted, were the real murderers of Meredith Kercher."

Such a statement is actually ENTIRELY true, and could not be shown to be false. They would simply be informing the reader/listener of their actual beliefs.

I realize a discussion of defamation laws could quickly veer away from this case and might be more appropriately a subject for another thread, and that my understanding of defamation laws is likely to be woefully unsophisticated.

 

[Antony]

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.

Charlie, it's great to see your name and avatar come up on this board. I'm sure that Amanda is overwhelmed with good will messages, so I hesitate to try to contact her directly (although I have posted on her blog). Can you please pass on my good wishes? No doubt all of her supporters posting here will want to say the same.

How much is she aware of this forum?

Can people suggest the best way of passing messages to Raffaele?

 

[anglolawyer]

Charlie, it's great to see your name and avatar come up on this board. I'm sure that Amanda is overwhelmed with good will messages, so I hesitate to try to contact her directly (although I have posted on her blog). Can you please pass on my good wishes? No doubt all of her supporters posting here will want to say the same.

How much is she aware of this forum?

Can people suggest the best way of passing messages to Raffaele?

Facebook for Raffaele.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Can people suggest the best way of passing messages to Raffaele?

Amanda said on her blog that she was sure he would be grateful for messages of support on his website or Facebook:

http://www.raffaelesollecito.org

https://www.facebook.com/raffa.sollecito

 

[Sergei Walankov]

As someone who's fallen out of the loop over the past year or so, can someone tell me where things are at with the ECHR?