Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

I sincerely doubt that your take on the law is correct (there is no evidence of inconsistent verdicts as yet, after all) but if there were, and if it were true that the Kerchers could bring such a suit, that would be awesome, and I would hope they would do it. Of course, it would be highly unlikely that Maresca would represent them in such an action, though. So, who do you think they might get to represent them if you were correct about the law and if all of the prerequisites were to come to pass and if the Kerchers were to go down that path?

LashL
I am really interested in the hypothetical Arline Kercher Rudy Guede meeting. We are still working through the David Bain case. It has now been referred to an Australian justice.
As we noted, a day of head to head conversation is unusual between accused and seeker of truth, as occurred with justice Binnie.
I hope I have managed to suggest relevance....

 

[Desert Fox]

This is taken from another forum but I don't see is as discussing motivations but sums up the case

Teddy wrotearaphrasing the words of an Italian lawyer on an Italian forum about: "If Rudy murdered with others, who are those others"?

I continue to hear the question of who killed Meredith together with Rudy, seeing as his sentence was for having committed the murder with others. It’s a non-existent problem which only appears to exist.

Rudy Guede is judicially the only person responsible for Meredith’s murder, without ifs and buts, and not together with others. He was the only one to have solid proofs against him and for this reason he took the fast track trial, while the other two, who only had some circumstantial evidence against them, were acquitted. Therefore, the trials of all three, concluded that the accusation of all 3 being involved was wrong: the murderer was one, as found definitively – Rudy Guede, without others being involved.

So why is Guede’s sentence for having murdered together with others? Obviously: because he was tried (like the other two) and then convicted for that accusation. Each of the 3 accused received the same accusation. Given that they took separate paths, the case against Rudy is “carved out” of the Prosecutor’s case, and the same for Knox and Sollecito.

Guede is found guilty, and Knox/Sollecito go on to be tried, but it is found that they had nothing to do with the crime.

So Rudy was convicted definitively for the murder. Those who were suspected to have participated with him, were acquitted, i.e. they weren’t there. The Prosecution had hypothesized 3 people, the judicial process has established there was only one. Due to the fact that separate trials were followed, this false fallacy has been created. Rudy could not have been found guilty of anything other than “together with others”, and neither could his trial make any statement about the position of the others. The conclusion is: there was no “with others”. The obvious result is that: there is only one murderer, Rudy Guede. This is the judicial truth now for the murder of Meredith Kercher

 

[RoseMontague]

The case is done, now it is time to pay the legal bills.

 

[Desert Fox]

Again, pulled from another board but very serious

From an Italian journalist Francesco Luna at his Facebook page:

THREATS TO AMANDA KNOX: TIME FOR AN ACT OF RESPONSIBILITY FROM THE KERCHERS
The pain of the Kerchers for the tragic, horrible loss of Meredith is immense and it deserves respect. But now time has come for them to come forward and exit from ambiguity. They are good people and they don't want other lives to be taken because of this tragedy. They have now a responsibility that they cannot ignore: to avoid more violence and more tragedy. There is a large group of people who have been relentlessly threatening and insulting Amanda Knox since this story began, in 2007. They have grown more and more violent and aggressive, but until last Friday, 27 March 2015, they had a goal: to see Amanda convicted for Meredith's murder. Now that the Italian Supreme Court has officially said that Amanda is not responsible for that murder, they are really going crazy. These people have been dubbed as "haters", and for a reason. They are blinded by hate. They are not all violent or potentially dangerous, of course, but surely someone in that group is. I read, yesterday, that FBI is taking threats to Amanda Knox very seriously. This is a serious alarm that should not be ignored. There is one thing the Kerchers should seriously understand, now. These crazy people are letting their frustration off in their name. They are hiding behind Meredith's name and photo to discharge an incredibly large load of anger, hate and aggressiveness through social media and elsewhere. There is a serious risk that someone belonging to that group decide to go to Seattle and think to become the hero who avenged Meredith. The Kerchers should not allow this. Not in Meredith's name. Enough blood has been shed, enough pain, enough tragedy. It is time for them to speak clearly.
Kerchers' remarks after Friday's verdict are not in the right direction. Saying that they don't understand the SC's decision is not acceptable. They understand it, it's just they don't want to. The decision is very clear: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are not those the Kerchers thought they were. They did not kill Meredith. Repeating that they "don't understand" and that they are "surprised and shocked" does not help and is not right. There is really nothing to understand, it is extremely simple. Rudy Guede killed their daughter and sister: he was robbing her apartment when she returned home and he brutally murdered her.
It is time to end this tragic saga and to avoid more senseless crime. The Kerchers are the only ones who can do it. Whoever can reach out to them, should explain this to them. They need to say clearly that they accept the decision and that they will not support any act of violence, hate, aggressiveness towards the former defendants. And they have to do it now. Before it's too late.

 

[RoseMontague]

1. Nadeu and Halkides are wrong. A civil trial against AK and RS is absolutely possible.
In addition to that, there is a recent law which allows the Kercher also to sue the Italian State, if the Cassazione ruling is inconsistent with others, and pursue truth that way.

I would suggest them to pursue those roads (where there are no evidence restrictions at all).

I'm betting that Raffaele's family will be filing a few lawsuits.

 

[Samson]

The case is done, now it is time to pay the legal bills.

Oh no, there seems no reason to not persevere. Lindy Chamberlain is only just exonerated after spending a decade in jail for the great joy of losing her child, life and liberty.
Thirty years.
This exoneration battle is won later than now.

 

[RoseMontague]

Oh no, there seems no reason to not persevere. Lindy Chamberlain is only just exonerated after spending a decade in jail for the great joy of losing her child, life and liberty.
Thirty years.
This exoneration battle is won later than now.

I see money as a possible reason. I'm curious how much Maresca is owed and who he is sending the bill to.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is interesting. Does Maresca know about this?

So in Italy, civil and criminal trials can run concurrently which allows a bunch of otherwise inadmissible evidence to be admitted to the trial if the evidence is seen as admissible in the civil case and the plaintiff's attorneys are allowed to call the defendant names, like she-devil and otherwise hector them throughout the trial?. And if the defendant happens to be found innocent the plaintiff's attorneys can then just sue the defendant despite having already theoretically sued the defendant for the same issue already?

OK, I'm one that has been reluctant to criticize the Italian courts since the system in my country (USA) is not without its problems that have led to lots of wrongful convictions. But if the Kerchers can now bring a civil suit against AK/RS in Italy, the Italian court system has really entered the land of the Three Stooges. As a practical matter it seems very unlikely that the powers that be would let something like this go forward, if for no other reason than they would look like idiots if they did. Perhaps Machiavelli was only talking theoretically and that based on some technical reading of something he thinks that AK/RS can now be sued by the people that lost their suits in the latest Italian SC decision. Maybe so, as a practical matter it seems very unlikely that anybody could go forth with a whacko idea like this. But even if there was the slimmest chance that something like this was possible, the fact that RS/AK are innocent and provably so would discourage most attorneys from taking the case.

I saw a quote from Maresca saying he had to explain to the Kerchers that there was no further course of action.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The case is done, now it is time to pay the legal bills.

I wonder if the state will compensate Raffaele's legal costs.

Will Maresca sue the Kerchers for money now?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Maresca's face was rather sour on TV. OTOH John Kercher wrote some time ago that they've spent a little fortune on the case.
I remember they hired their own experts. I guess those required payment upfront.

 

[Desert Fox]

Maresca's face was rather sour on TV. OTOH John Kercher wrote some time ago that they've spent a little fortune on the case.
I remember they hired their own experts. I guess those required payment upfront.

I would like to have seen what their own experts argued. . . . .I have a funny feeling they stated that the evidence does not support guilt.

 

[RoseMontague]

Maresca's face was rather sour on TV. OTOH John Kercher wrote some time ago that they've spent a little fortune on the case.
I remember they hired their own experts. I guess those required payment upfront.

I'm sure the various pmfs and tj members would be happy to help pay the bills.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm sure the various pmfs and tj members would be happy to help pay the bills.

apparently, this is now off-topic, impermissible gloating.

 

[katy_did]

Oh, of course. That's why you're still here, expostulating at length about your gustatory predilections, correct? All for the Kerchers.

No, the answers to you are because you addressed me with a food-themed provocation.

"Gustatory predilections" and "food-themed provocation", I love it.

At least when you two bicker, you do it articulately ("Sir, please stop hurling your food-themed provocations in my direction”. "Well if you'd stop expounding on your gustatory predilections..." Etcetera).

 

[RoseMontague]

apparently, this is now off-topic, impermissible gloating.

Missed the memo, or maybe dinner.

Surely suggesting somebody take further legal action without thinking about how they are going to pay for it (or the actions already taken) is a little presumptuous.

 

[Kauffer]

Maresca's face was rather sour on TV. OTOH John Kercher wrote some time ago that they've spent a little fortune on the case.
I remember they hired their own experts. I guess those required payment upfront.

Unfortunately, they have asked all the wrong questions of all the wrong people.
Wanting to find the truth as opposed to wanting to find a confirmation of guilt, will get you different answers.

 

[anglolawyer]

Missed the memo, or maybe dinner.

Surely suggesting somebody take further legal action without thinking about how they are going to pay for it (or the actions already taken) is a little presumptuous.

Yeah, people are always flinging imaginary writs around like confetti when someone else is paying.

 

[Annella]

Claudio Pratillo Hellmann REALLY speaks out

Judge Hellmann spills.... these are some exceptional words...


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/hellmann-interview-march-30-2015/

 

[Strozzi]

Article 652 Effects of the criminal judgment of acquittal in trials for civil or administrative damages

1. The final criminal judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect, with relation to either the ascertainment that the criminal act did not occur, or that the accused did not commit it ...in the civil or administrative trial for restitution and compensation for damages brought by the injured person or in his interest, provided that the injured has joined the proceedings as a civil party or has been given the possibility to join the proceedings, unless the injured has already brought the action in civil court, under Article 75, paragraph 2.
It appears if Maresca had filed the civil suit in civil court for damages against Knox and Sollecito on behalf of the Kerchers, the suit could survive a supreme court ruling that the defendants are NOT GUILTY. Maresca should have foreseen this possibility and filed in civil court. He did not, and is to blame for this. Lousy attorney.

Who referred the Kerchers to Maresca, anyway? Not Mignini, I hope.

ETA: Perhaps the Kerchers can sue Maresca for professional negligence for not filing their damage suit against Knox and Sollecito in civil court, where it could have survived a supreme court ruling of NOT GUILTY. Then Maresca could defend himself against the suit by claiming that it would have had no merit as the defendants are innocent of the crime!

 

[souldonut]

Machiavelli,
Curious how you feel the prosecution team performed in the latest hearings, and if you feel the outcome may have been due to fault of the messengers, rather than the message?

Do you think the prosecution adequately articulated the pro-guilt position ? Were there things you would have emphasized or de-emphasized?

I wonder if they tried to correct factual errors from the Nencini motivation, or just clung onto them. I am also curious if the prosecution presented a believable pro-guilt timeline, consistent with physiology, witness testimony, the computer usage, etc., or if they thought that was not really necessary.