Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Exactly. The sentence of last Friday definitely removed the "conspiration" part by clearing the remaining suspects.



*I'm going by what I can discern from the wise heads (specifically Chiara) at mostrodifirenze forum.

Well there really does seem to be a possible contradiction here:

Firstly, the SC in Guede's trial process passed into "judicial truth" the concept that Guede had accomplices.

But the SC ruling on Friday effectively stated that Knox and Sollecito were not participants in the murder - ergo they were not accomplices of Guede.

So, as I see it, there are now three options in terms of reconciling those two rulings:

1) The SC could rule that its Guede ruling still stands - that Guede had accomplices - alongside its ruling that Knox and Sollecito did not participate. This would therefore automatically imply that in terms of the "judicial truth" at least, there are more than one accomplices of Guede who have never been identified or brought to trial.

2) The SC could rule that its Guede ruling still stands - that Guede had accomplices - then state that it's not for the court to rule on whether or not Knox and/or Sollecito were those accomplices, but merely to rule on whether there was any evidence that Knox or Sollecito participated. In other words, the SC could, from a "judicial truth" perspective, leave the door ajar to the possibility that Knox and Sollecito really did participate in the murder, but that they had to be acquitted because there was no evidence against them. Personally, I think the nature of Friday's acquittal makes this option very unlikely.

3) The SC could announce that the prior ruling that Guede had accomplices may be modified to something along the lines of "possibly with accomplices", and point out that in its view the evidence is also consistent with Guede acting alone. It could point out that in the Guede trials, the matter of accomplices was never properly tested or contested, since all parties were actively keen to promote the idea of accomplices (albeit for different reasons....). In that way, its ruling on Knox/Sollecito and its prior ruling on Guede could logically and judicially sit easily alongside each other, and it would also probably close the door to Guede regarding a conviction review.

 

[Samson]

Exactly. The sentence of last Friday definitely removed the "conspiration" part by clearing the remaining suspects.



*I'm going by what I can discern from the wise heads (specifically Chiara) at mostrodifirenze forum.

I ran the last few posts through G translate. They seem to agree with the acquittals, but feels like a linguistic journey through a labyrinth.

 

[acbytesla]

I really want to know the reaction of the Italian public to the decision. What is the opinion of the people on the street? Is there a lot of people saying that AK and RS got away with murder or are they accepting even welcoming this decision? I'm sure there are some nutters..but I wonder about the predominant view.

 

[anglolawyer]

Hi KM. Nice to see you again.

All this reconciling of different multiple attacker theories is such nonsense IMO. Guede did it.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Well there really does seem to be a possible contradiction here:

Firstly, the SC in Guede's trial process passed into "judicial truth" the concept that Guede had accomplices.

It seems they said upfront they are not doing this:

In the meantime it is now necessary to escape the attempt, pursued by the overall setting of the defence, but out of place in the context of this decision, to involve the Court in supporting the thesis of the responsibility of others, namely Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, for the murder aggravated by the sexual assault of Meredith Kercher. The decision to which this court is called concerns uniquely the responsibility of Guede regarding the deed with which he is charged, and the possible participation of others in the crime should be taken into account only to the extent to which such a circumstance would have an impact on the exclusive commitment of the Court to either modifying or confirming the verdict of guilt of the defendant, which was entirely shared by the courts of first and second instance.​

https://giordanoreport.wordpress.com/

But the SC ruling on Friday effectively stated that Knox and Sollecito were not participants in the murder - ergo they were not accomplices of Guede.

So, as I see it, there are now three options in terms of reconciling those two rulings:

1) The SC could rule that its Guede ruling still stands - that Guede had accomplices - alongside its ruling that Knox and Sollecito did not participate. This would therefore automatically imply that in terms of the "judicial truth" at least, there are more than one accomplices of Guede who have never been identified or brought to trial.

2) The SC could rule that its Guede ruling still stands - that Guede had accomplices - then state that it's not for the court to rule on whether or not Knox and/or Sollecito were those accomplices, but merely to rule on whether there was any evidence that Knox or Sollecito participated. In other words, the SC could, from a "judicial truth" perspective, leave the door ajar to the possibility that Knox and Sollecito really did participate in the murder, but that they had to be acquitted because there was no evidence against them. Personally, I think the nature of Friday's acquittal makes this option very unlikely.

3) The SC could announce that the prior ruling that Guede had accomplices may be modified to something along the lines of "possibly with accomplices", and point out that in its view the evidence is also consistent with Guede acting alone. It could point out that in the Guede trials, the matter of accomplices was never properly tested or contested, since all parties were actively keen to promote the idea of accomplices (albeit for different reasons....). In that way, its ruling on Knox/Sollecito and its prior ruling on Guede could logically and judicially sit easily alongside each other, and it would also probably close the door to Guede regarding a conviction review.

SC have already worded it as "possible participation of others". In the end it had no bearing on Guede's sentence as being a mitigating factor.

 

[Kauffer]

Hi KM. Nice to see you again.

All this reconciling of different multiple attacker theories is such nonsense IMO. Guede did it.

Yes he did, but he was convicted for his part in the crime 'with others'. If the SC motivation does not re-confirm this 'judicial truth', the argument is that he has a shot at conviction review, because the crime he was convicted of no longer exists.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Hi KM. Nice to see you again.

All this reconciling of different multiple attacker theories is such nonsense IMO. Guede did it.

Exactly. It's called a red herring or something..
It's only sad it is used to put wool over the Kerchers' eyes.




Nice to meet again in such wonderful circumstances

 

[toto]

I find your input really interesting.

 

[Dan O.]

<Nevermind>

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems they said upfront they are not doing this:

In the meantime it is now necessary to escape the attempt, pursued by the overall setting of the defence, but out of place in the context of this decision, to involve the Court in supporting the thesis of the responsibility of others, namely Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, for the murder aggravated by the sexual assault of Meredith Kercher. The decision to which this court is called concerns uniquely the responsibility of Guede regarding the deed with which he is charged, and the possible participation of others in the crime should be taken into account only to the extent to which such a circumstance would have an impact on the exclusive commitment of the Court to either modifying or confirming the verdict of guilt of the defendant, which was entirely shared by the courts of first and second instance.​

https://giordanoreport.wordpress.com/



SC have already worded it as "possible participation of others". In the end it had no bearing on Guede's sentence as being a mitigating factor.

Yes and no. In that passage you quoted, the point the SC was trying to make was that it was not its role to determine the identities of any possible accomplices, and this passage is also a preamble or explanatory note in effect. I believe that in the body of the ruling, the SC did rule that Guede acted in concert with others.

 

[acbytesla]

.It's insane for them to declare definitively whether or not there was a single or multiple attackers. The evidence was simply never there to be able to make that conclusion.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi KM. Nice to see you again.

All this reconciling of different multiple attacker theories is such nonsense IMO. Guede did it.

Seconded on the "nice to see you again KM" part

And yes, I agree with the other part. And I fully agree that the overwhelming likelihood is that Guede did it alone - all the evidence supports this, none of the evidence credibly/reliably points to any other assailants (whether Knox or Sollecito or anyone else), and the narrative for a Guede-only murder is by a huge margin the most obvious and most easily understandable.

But that doesn't alter the fact that the SC, in its non-wisdom, may have got itself into a slight bind when it enshrined the judicial truth that Guede acted with others in its confirmation of Guede's conviction. However, I do believe that it ought to be pretty easy for the SC to sort that matter out (as per my previous posts), and that it will reach the right outcome for the right reasona (ethical and judicial).

 

[LondonJohn]

It's insane for them to declare we there or not definitively whether or not there was a single or multiple attackers. The evidence was simply never there to be able to make that conclusion.

I totally agree. And it was a mistake for the SC to have accepted this as a final finding of fact - though perhaps a large part of the blame here should be placed on the lower courts in Guede's trial process. It was those courts who made this finding of fact, and the SC merely rubber-stamped it - thus turning it into an inviolable "judicial truth".

 

[acbytesla]

I totally agree. And it was a mistake for the SC to have accepted this as a final finding of fact - though perhaps a large part of the blame here should be placed on the lower courts in Guede's trial process. It was those courts who made this finding of fact, and the SC merely rubber-stamped it - thus turning it into an inviolable "judicial truth".

For me the bigger problem is to make a "truth" in one trial and make that unassailable and inviolable in another trial.

 

[toto]

Would Guede's sentence been the same had he been convicted via fast track trial of murdering on his own as opposed to being a partner in crime? I would have thought it would be the same. If so, one would hope the SC will reflect that in its reasoning.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Yes and no. In that passage you quoted, the point the SC was trying to make was that it was not its role to determine the identities of any possible accomplices, and this passage is also a preamble or explanatory note in effect. I believe that in the body of the ruling, the SC did rule that Guede acted in concert with others.

The point is those identities were never in question (they are named even in the quoted passage) for the simple reason that all three were charged together. Only later the trial tracks diverged but it couldn't and didn't erase the fact that Guede was charged for acting with them, not some anonymous accomplices.
The suspected possible accomplices are cleared now, the question disappears.

I guess it's up to Guede if he wants a review because of this. Does he have grounds? I don't think so because "acting with others" was neither an aggravating circumstance nor used to convict him.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

successful approximations

From Barbie Nadeau's CNN article (my numbering):

1. "There won't be any civil trials like in the O.J. Simpson case because, according to Italian penal code, Italy's high court decision is final across all courts in the country."

2. "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."

3. "In one of her initial interrogations in 2007, she told investigators she was in the house when Kercher was killed at which time she accused Patrick Lumumba, her boss at a pub where she worked, of the murder.

4. "Canestrini also says that Knox could potentially sue Italy for one year of false imprisonment, but because she admittedly lied to investigators early on which led to her arrest, she would likely not have much of a case."

She later recanted that statement, but Lumumba spent two weeks in prison because of her false claim."

1. Someone should tell Barbie that there was a civil trial already.
2. As others have said, let's see what Raffaele actually said in the recording of his interrogation. And as far as newspaper (Kate Mansey's?) accounts of what Sollecito suppposedly said, I cannot see how anyone could count that as one of Raffaele's stories (yet some have).
3. How the interrogation on 5-6 November could count as initial is beyond my ken. And Ms. Nadeau must surely know of the 7 November memoriale, which (as Katody Matrass first pointed out long ago, before the full text was available) is a complete retraction.
4. When did Knox admit to lying? She said exactly the opposite in one of her letters IIRC.

One could make a quiet living correcting Barbie's...approximations.

 

[katy_did]

The point is those identities were never in question (they are named even in the quoted passage) for the simple reason that all three were charged together. Only later the trial tracks diverged but it couldn't and didn't erase the fact that Guede was charged for acting with them, not some anonymous accomplices.
The suspected possible accomplices are cleared now, the question disappears.

I guess it's up to Guede if he wants a review because of this. Does he have grounds? I don't think so because "acting with others" was neither an aggravating circumstance nor used to convict him.

Makes sense - I wonder if this "judicial truths" thing has been a guilter-peddled red herring from the start (I feel like I've mixed metaphors there somewhere, oh well).

The Dewani trial is an interesting comparison. Three or four (I lose count) people were convicted of murder in conspiracy with Dewani and were even given reduced sentences for testifying against him. Dewani's trial didn't get past the halfway-way mark, but the convictions and sentences of the others don't seem to be in question. If anything, that "judicial truth" should be even more problematic because it's more specific; no one else could possibly be substituted for Dewani whereas in theory others could have acted with Guede.

(Good to see you back, btw!)

 

[Planigale]

Yea
Whatever disposed this cassation panel to annul the convictions it certainly wasn’t the cretinous, xenophobic racist online campaign in the English speaking world.
That’s not to say it didn’t have some effect. Some, from a certain demographic, fell for it but for any right thinking person it’s nature and the fact it was never repudiated (and was actually encouraged) by the killer’s family was instructive.

One Q remains perhaps – can a few more dollars be made or has the gravy train that was MK’s murder run its course.
There might be a market for the images of the victims naked corpse. Given the nature of Britney’s fan base it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility.

So you recognise there was only one killer now. Yes we have heard nothing from Guede's family. There are several victims of this crime first and foremost Meredith and her family, then Sollecito and family, Knox and family and Lumumba. The first was the fault of Guede, the others of the Italian legal system.

 

[Strozzi]

.It's insane for them to declare definitively whether or not there was a single or multiple attackers. The evidence was simply never there to be able to make that conclusion.

If there were other attackers with Guede, where is the primary evidence of their presence in the bedroom? Were they hovering like dragonflies in the air so as not to leave any bloody foorprints or is there evidence of a cleanup without leaving telltale swirls?

Wait, let me guess. Prosecutor Mignini will announce that an accomplice in another room directed Guede's attack. Right, Mach? And that accomplice who directed the attack from another room has a drug dealer's phone number in her phone.