• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
toto said:
I am genuinely curious: could you answer the question I posed earlier:

Could you kindly clarify whether the SC has decreed them INNOCENT or something less so. I got the impression that Sollecito's advocate Bongiorno stressed that the courts had said they had been found innocent in the same way that the distinguished judge Hellman had?

Thank you.
Click to expand...

ok so with google translate of Ansa

http://www.ansa.it/umbria/notizie/2...rdi_f773ff5b-0710-4452-884c-d0bfde02b778.html

and from The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...her-amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-italy-case

we have:

the judges concluded for the acquittal of the accused: technically "for not having committed the crime," essentially for lack of evidence (as explained by the indication, in device, the second paragraph of Article 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code).​

and

One of the remarkable aspects of Friday’s decision is how the supreme court – which went out of its way to say Knox and Sollecito were innocent, not merely that there was a lack of evidence to convict them – will address those earlier assumptions about how many attackers there were that night in November 2007.​

So it looks very decisive. I agree with those who say that the idea of the Kerchers attempting to sue A and R seems rather misguided. Rafaelle Sollecito, on the other hand, has just indicated on Sky news a determination to ensure he is not slandered in the future.
 
Strozzi said:
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. :p

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! :p
Click to expand...

Thanks Strozzi, I was going to say that while I think Mach's right about the possibility of a civil suit after an acquittal for insufficient evidence, it seems strange that someone who's already brought a civil claim and lost (as presumably the Kerchers have done) should then be allowed to bring another civil suit. Surely you can't just keep suing someone over and over again until you get a result you like?
 
toto said:
ok so with google translate of Ansa

http://www.ansa.it/umbria/notizie/2...rdi_f773ff5b-0710-4452-884c-d0bfde02b778.html

and from The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...her-amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-italy-case

we have:

the judges concluded for the acquittal of the accused: technically "for not having committed the crime," essentially for lack of evidence (as explained by the indication, in device, the second paragraph of Article 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code).​

and

One of the remarkable aspects of Friday’s decision is how the supreme court – which went out of its way to say Knox and Sollecito were innocent, not merely that there was a lack of evidence to convict them – will address those earlier assumptions about how many attackers there were that night in November 2007.​

So it looks very decisive. I agree with those who say that the idea of the Kerchers attempting to sue A and R seems rather misguided. Rafaelle Sollecito, on the other hand, has just indicated on Sky news a determination to ensure he is not slandered in the future.
Click to expand...

The second paragraph of Article 530 is the one which refers to insufficient evidence; the acquittal is still "for not having committed the offence" even if this paragraph applies. It would be very helpful to have the dispositivo so that we could know for sure, though. There's some possibility the journalists are relying on Maresca saying the acquittals were for insufficient evidence, and he's not exactly trustworthy (i.e. he also tried to claim Hellman's acquittal might have been for insufficient evidence, when he knew full well it wasn't). Still the Italian media do seem to be saying that the judge cited paragraph 2 - maybe the foreign media just hasn't understood what that means.
 
Raffaele has just announced that anybody who refers to him as a murderer or even accused, will be sued. Bongiorno has just announced that Judges at previous trials who were 'wrong' will be investigated. With no haste. :)
 
In my opinion, it would be ridiculous to presume that this heartfelt declaration by Judge Hellmann does not presage a bigger story.

Hellmann: I was practically forced to. Our decision was received with reactions of contempt. I can still remember the whistling and the shouting by a claque that had gathered outside the Court house on the evening of the verdict. From the next day I felt surrounded by a growing hostility. In the bars of Perugia they were saying I had sold out to the Americans, that I had yielded to the pressures of the CIA. Tall tales, of course, but what hit me more than the defamatory lynching that lasted years, was the reaction of colleagues in the judiciary. Nearly all of them stopped greeting me. In particular those who in various roles had been involved in the case. I realized that my Court had been a lone voice in a Courthouse where all the judges, starting with the GUP (Judge of the Preliminary hearing) up to those of various review courts, while criticizing the investigation, had endorsed the charges. In addition I had good possibilities of becoming the President of the Tribunal and naturally that position was assigned to another colleague who certainly was very worthy but I had some suspicion that it was a retaliation. So, six months after the sentence I decided to retire.
 
Annella said:
Raffaele has just announced that anybody who refers to him as a murderer or even accused, will be sued. Bongiorno has just announced that Judges at previous trials who were 'wrong' will be investigated. With no haste. :)
Click to expand...

Well, I applaud that in spades. I hope he hunts those thugs down relentlessly. Why would he not? They deserve to be financially destroyed.
 
Annella said:
Raffaele has just announced that anybody who refers to him as a murderer or even accused, will be sued. Bongiorno has just announced that Judges at previous trials who were 'wrong' will be investigated. With no haste. :)
Click to expand...

Awesome!
 
Machiavelli said:
They should do something else. They may sue the State of Italy in an Italian Civil court, because of a Cassazione verdict contrastig with another previous one. And that way, pursue the truth about the murder.
Click to expand...

Nah. The Kerchers would have to fund 8 more years of litigation. Not gonna happen.
 
katy_did said:
The second paragraph of Article 530 is the one which refers to insufficient evidence; the acquittal is still "for not having committed the offence" even if this paragraph applies. It would be very helpful to have the dispositivo so that we could know for sure, though. There's some possibility the journalists are relying on Maresca saying the acquittals were for insufficient evidence, and he's not exactly trustworthy (i.e. he also tried to claim Hellman's acquittal might have been for insufficient evidence, when he knew full well it wasn't). Still the Italian media do seem to be saying that the judge cited paragraph 2 - maybe the foreign media just hasn't understood what that means.
Click to expand...

thank you
 
katy_did said:
The second paragraph of Article 530 is the one which refers to insufficient evidence; the acquittal is still "for not having committed the offence" even if this paragraph applies. It would be very helpful to have the dispositivo so that we could know for sure, though. There's some possibility the journalists are relying on Maresca saying the acquittals were for insufficient evidence, and he's not exactly trustworthy (i.e. he also tried to claim Hellman's acquittal might have been for insufficient evidence, when he knew full well it wasn't). Still the Italian media do seem to be saying that the judge cited paragraph 2 - maybe the foreign media just hasn't understood what that means.
Click to expand...

Maresca has told the Kerchers, as I previously posted, that there are no further avenues for them to pursue. Whether his advice to them is true - and it would seem to be true (with regard to further litigation) given the comprehensive nature of the exonerations most people seem to think has been adjudicated, the clear indication is that they will not take up arms again in this matter.

In any case, what can they afford to do, financially? I would doubt much.
 
Last edited:
I really think the onus ought to be on Mach to prove that there's still an avenue for a civil suit, given his track record of inaccuracy*.

Let him show that the verdict was only reasonable doubt and cite the laws that leave that open for further litigation.




*a charitable way of putting it.
 
RoseMontague said:
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.
Click to expand...
Welcome back, RoseM! People of the cloth everywhere are now shaking! Just saying......
 
pro-authority posters, please explain

lionking said:
What does this have to do with my post? I agreed that there is nothing more to discuss. This thread may well linger. And linger.....
Click to expand...
lionking,

IIRC you have said words to the effect, "I can participate in this thread any way I wish." The same goes for me. However, I had a second point. Many posters here initially took the line that the authorities were certainly right, and those of us who challenged the 2009 decision were at best wrongheaded (and some indicated that we were conspiracy theorists or biased against Europe, or whatnot). So, if the court in 2009 was right, does that mean that the court in 2015 was right? The pro-authority posters here have some 'splainin' to do, as Ricky Ricardo used to say.

-C
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom