Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

In principle, there's nothing unjust or anti-judicial from one defendant in a joint enterprise trial (here, Guede) electing for a different trial process from the other defendants. Here in England & Wales it happens extremely frequently, if one defendant decides to plead guilty prior to trial.

BUT........ where it goes so spectacularly wrong in the Italian system is that the outcome of the "splitter-offer" (i.e. Guede here) is not only made public knowledge in advance of the trial of the remaining defendants, but it also is materially allowed to impact upon the verdicts of the triers of the trials of the remaining defendants.

What could and should have happened in this case would have been that Guede elected for a short track trial, which would have been held in camera (i.e. in a closed court with no reporting). The outcome of the trial would have been kept secret, not only from the public, but also from all judges involved in the Knox/Sollecito trials. Only once the Knox/Sollecito trials had been absolutely concluded (i.e. only after SC affirmation) should the results of Guede's trial process have been made public or made available to the judges trying Knox and Sollecito.

I would recommend that where there may be several defendants and one opts for a fast-track or separate trial, no prosecutor should be allowed to prosecute both cases. This is to prevent a prosecutor (like Mignini did) from compromising/undermining the state's prosecutorial case with a defendant in one trial in order to maintain fiction in the second suspect's trial.

 

[katy_did]

Thanks for this information!

And yes, regarding the highlighted part, it's now fully apparent that what actually happened some years ago was that the Art 530 of the Italian criminal code was clumsily revised to reflect the legislative changes which abolished any distinction between levels of acquittal. But the dreadful, cack-handed way in which it was done (and I don't fully discount the possibility that this was deliberate*...) opened up a huge door of ambiguity and scope for misrepresentation.

As you say, it's now in fact the case that for every single acquittal where a crime took place but where a given defendant was acquitted of committing that crime, it has by definition got to be a 530.2 acquittal. That's the case whether a court deems that there was no credible evidence against the defendant, or whether a court deems that there was indeed evidence, but not sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That distinction is usually addressed in either the judge's remarks or in the motivations report (or both).

* I suspect that there were many within the Italian criminal justice system who were unhappy with the changes being foisted upon them; perhaps some such people felt a need to rig the rewriting on 530 such that all acquittals might carry the stench of "no smoke without fire" - by rewriting the old 530.2 ("no smoke without fire") paragraph as the new all-in-one acquittal paragraph.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the BIB isn't quite right: a 530:1 acquittal is possible when a defendant is acquitted of a crime which nonetheless took place - in fact, Hellmann's acquittal was a 530:1 acquittal. This is assumed if there's no mention of paragraph two, notwithstanding Maresca's pretence after the Hellmann verdict that he didn't know which paragraph applied!

It is true to say that all such acquittals are "for not having committed the offence", however, whether they fall under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2. Both types of acquittal are considered "full acquittals", i.e. there's no equivalent to the Scottish "not proven" verdict.

 

[LondonJohn]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the BIB isn't quite right: a 530:1 acquittal is possible when a defendant is acquitted of a crime which nonetheless took place - in fact, Hellmann's acquittal was a 530:1 acquittal. This is assumed if there's no mention of paragraph two, notwithstanding Maresca's pretence after the Hellmann verdict that he didn't know which paragraph applied!

It is true to say that all such acquittals are "for not having committed the offence", however, whether they fall under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2. Both types of acquittal are considered "full acquittals", i.e. there's no equivalent to the Scottish "not proven" verdict.

Yes, I agree with your interpretation. But I think the only way in which a defendant can be acquitted on (the new version of) 530.1 where there actually was a crime committed is where the court can be satisfied that the defendant did not commit the crime - and that, almost by definition, means that there's sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's innocence.

And given that in the overwhelming majority of cases that reach charges and a trial, the defendant cannot prove his/her innocence (after all, if the defendant could prove innocence, then it's extremely hard to see how a case would get as far as a trial), this by definition also implies that very few acquittals will ever be on 530.1. Note also (though of course I know you understand this ) that "zero credible/reliable evidence of guilt" does not equate to "proof of innocence".

As you say, the Hellmann acquittals were particularly noteworthy for their 530.1 nature. I suspect that this might even have played a part in the SC annulling Hellmann and sending the case back for another appeal trial. It's clear that Hellmann thought there was no way that Knox and Sollecito could have participated in the murder - and while he was correct to think so, it might have been too audacious of him to use 530.1 in his acquittals. I wonder if Hellmann also knows that 530.2 is still widely viewed as a "not proven" style of verdict, even though it's now not that at all, and that he wanted to make a bold statement by using 530.1?

 

[katy_did]

Yes, I agree with your interpretation. But I think the only way in which a defendant can be acquitted on (the new version of) 530.1 where there actually was a crime committed is where the court can be satisfied that the defendant did not commit the crime - and that, almost by definition, means that there's sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's innocence.

And given that in the overwhelming majority of cases that reach charges and a trial, the defendant cannot prove his/her innocence (after all, if the defendant could prove innocence, then it's extremely hard to see how a case would get as far as a trial), this by definition also implies that very few acquittals will ever be on 530.1. Note also (though of course I know you understand this ) that "zero credible/reliable evidence of guilt" does not equate to "proof of innocence".

As you say, the Hellmann acquittals were particularly noteworthy for their 530.1 nature. I suspect that this might even have played a part in the SC annulling Hellmann and sending the case back for another appeal trial. It's clear that Hellmann thought there was no way that Knox and Sollecito could have participated in the murder - and while he was correct to think so, it might have been too audacious of him to use 530.1 in his acquittals. I wonder if Hellmann also knows that 530.2 is still widely viewed as a "not proven" style of verdict, even though it's now not that at all, and that he wanted to make a bold statement by using 530.1?

I'd interpret it slightly differently: paragraph 1 would be where there's no evidence of guilt, rather than that there's evidence of innocence. In a paragraph 2 acquittal there's some evidence of guilt, but it doesn't reach the necessary standard to convict. Of course that's a broad category, and could range from barely any evidence at all to almost enough to convict, something which would be detailed in the judge's report.

It comes back to the two categories of evidence under Italian law: indizi, or indications of guilt, and prova, proof of guilt, the standard needed to convict. If there are some of the former but they're very weak, then the acquittal might still be under paragraph 2. Hellmann obviously decided there was no evidence at all, hence the paragraph 1 acquittal. As you point out, that doesn't necessarily equate to a positive assertion of innocence, though given the existence of paragraph 2 it might be interpreted that way.

I'm not all that surprised the SC chose to acquit under paragraph 2, simply because acquitting at all was a very radical decision, so perhaps it's not too surprising they chose the less radical of two radical options! Particularly given that the Court isn't supposed to enter into the merits of the case in any depth anyway, so it may have been a step too far to overturn a conviction by saying there was no evidence at all.

My guess is that the DNA evidence relating to the knife and bra clasp was the decisive factor here, probably because that evidence was too contradictory to be considered valid. An independent review completely destroyed them, after all, and could hardly have contradicted the prosecution argument more. And once you remove those pieces of evidence from the equation, the rest of the evidence is far too weak too convict - I'd wager every judge in the case would agree on that point, even Massei and Nencini. That would be my prediction as to what the SC report will say.

 

[carbonjam72]

I agree with your analysis. I think that the best hope for redress, and one which Amanda and Raffaele should pursue, is redress including compensation from Italy. The motivation report for the acquittal may (one hopes) detail the abuses of procedure and violations of Italian law and the Convention. If it does not satisfactorily do so, it seeks unlikely that ECHR would necessarily find violations of fair trial provisions for acquitted persons. However, if there is an application for violation of the right to a reasonable length of trial, then the causes of this violation could be specified by the applicant(s) as the numerous violations of procedural law and Convention rights during the trials. My thought is that the applicant(s) should ask that the ECHR recognize these fair trial violations as continuing if not clearly enough addressed by the motivation report [a long shot] or, if that is precluded, for the ECHR to point out that such irregularities or violations of the Convention occurred during the course of the trial and contributed to the excessive length of the trial, and should not have been allowed by the domestic judicial authorities. The ECHR should point out that the domestic judicial authorities have the responsibility of following the Convention and avoiding violations at each pre-trial and trial stage.

Also the pre-trial incarceration seemed punitive, including solitary confinement. That alone is an injury that isn't addressed through payment alone, because it doesn't address the malice of the state's actors.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder has often pointed out to me that you don't need motive...and he's right...well sort of. If those shoe prints matched Raffaele's shoes and Amanda's fingerprints were found in Meredith's blood....then of course, even I would say that they are guilty. I guess the question is, do we need stronger evidence to convict when there is little or no motive?

I would like Bayesian analysis of this and this time I mean it. There is no doubt in my mind that if a strong motive is clear people convict with less evidence, but should they?

If Amanda had a clear motive, I still wouldn't have convicted on the basis of the DNA or any of evidence linking her to the murder. Obviously if the bath print actually matched Raf I'd convict him on that alone. Matched not compatible.

Convicting people based on motive and/or background makes me uncomfortable as does the opposite.

 

[Grinder]

Lumumba

Curatolo or a dead Albanian

 

[anglolawyer]

I would like Bayesian analysis of this and this time I mean it. There is no doubt in my mind that if a strong motive is clear people convict with less evidence, but should they?

If Amanda had a clear motive, I still wouldn't have convicted on the basis of the DNA or any of evidence linking her to the murder. Obviously if the bath print actually matched Raf I'd convict him on that alone. Matched not compatible.

Convicting people based on motive and/or background makes me uncomfortable as does the opposite.

Motive and/or the lack of it are surely important, though. In one case motive might be irrelevant but in another it might tip the scales. Are you speaking generally or specifically about this case?

 

[Grinder]

It's fascinating how to the pro-guilt community any attempt to argue that Knox and Sollecito might be anything less than completely guilty is tantamount to a war crime, but it's perfectly acceptable in their community to argue for Guede being innocent.

One would think that because the evidence against Guede is by any accounting more direct and powerful than that against Knox and Sollecito, trying to whitewash his role in the killing ought to be a much worse offence.

One possible explanation is that the pro-guilt side is substantially directed by patsies for the ILE community, and hence much more concerned with laundering the ILE's botching of the case that in, say, true justice for Meredith Kercher.

Another is that the pro-guilt side is substantially directed by the Maresca/Kercher financial interest in suing Sollecito for millions of Euros, and hence much more concerned with keeping Sollecito in the frame than the penniless Guede, or for that matter true justice for Meredith Kercher.

The one thing we can say for certain is that trying to get Guede off the hook is fundamentally, utterly incompatible with seeking true justice for Meredith Kercher.

Last graph is spot on. I think they are so full of venom and they want AK to be a racist that somewhere in their head they have to think Guede was manipulated by her at worst and innocent at best from their POV. They need the "confession" to as racist as possible.

 

[Grinder]

Motive and/or the lack of it are surely important, though. In one case motive might be irrelevant but in another it might tip the scales. Are you speaking generally or specifically about this case?

Generally. I recognize that motive is important but it still makes me uncomfortable to convict mostly on motive or acquit mostly for the lack of it.

In this case if Amanda had a motive, say Meredith had replaced her at the bar leaving Amanda without work, it wouldn't change my mind at all that she was guilty BARD. Conversely if the DNA was solid (knife tested positive for blood) and footprints in blood matched her I would convict with no APPARENT motive.

Motive seems more of a cherry on top.

ETA - motive is a key for focusing the investigation which may lead to bad arrests etc.

ETA2 - Anglo thanks for pushing the point a bit. Upon further reflection I think I definitely am overly concerned by the usual suspects and motive approach. I did think Scott Peterson was guilty mostly because of motive and behavior.

 

[JREF2010]

The PLE can partially save face for botching the case by coming up with a new accomplice to blame; thus pretending that their analysis of multiple attackers is correct - just that they got the wrong accomplices. I can hear Mignini now. "Find someone to substitute for Knox. Where's that guy, Kokoman? Bring me Kokoman.".

There you go, again a choice of:

1) accept Rudy's story that someone else did it, and ignore the scientific evidence (at least what was not hidden by Stefonani?currently no accomplice traces to support Rudys claim)

2) accept Rudy is a liar about everything and he did this act alone, which aligns to the scientific evidence of only Rudy and no accomplices. (and his other burglarys with knifes where he was alone (MO).)

3) Rudy and others...like the prison yard chat with Alessi, scenario. But here again, there arent traces of this "accomplice" to support it. But this scenario does include Rudy, a more believable scenario imo. Two guys harrassing a female, things got out of hand, she fought back....

Who was the man running from the cottage who bumped into Alessandra Formica? Some claimed she testified it was not Rudy, while other reports claim it could have been Rudy.
No Parking Garage video of someone running away from the cottage, at 9:30-945?

Or is it more suppressed evidence by the opaque Perugia police force?

 

[carbonjam72]

There you go, again a choice of:

1) accept Rudy's story that someone else did it, and ignore the scientific evidence (at least what was not hidden by Stefonani?currently no accomplice traces to support Rudys claim)

2) accept Rudy is a liar about everything and he did this act alone, which aligns to the scientific evidence of only Rudy and no accomplices. (and his other burglarys with knifes where he was alone (MO).)

3) Rudy and others...like the prison yard chat with Alessi, scenario. But here again, there arent traces of this "accomplice" to support it. But this scenario does include Rudy, a more believable scenario imo. Two guys harrassing a female, things got out of hand, she fought back....
Who was the man running from the cottage who bumped into Alessandra Formica? Some claimed she testified it was not Rudy, while other reports claim it could have been Rudy.
No Parking Garage video of someone running away from the cottage, at 9:30-945?

Or is it more suppressed evidence by the opaque Perugia police force?

#3 is only possible if any others did not participate in the assault, because there is zero evidence of anyone else in the room, and only Rudy's footrpints in wet blood.

Also, the Meredith's bloody sweatshirt, which Katy-D had a pic of, I think up a few threads at this point, but showed what I thought were Rudy's handprint in wet blood on the jacket, and streaks of blood on the floor leading up to it, suggesting it was used to try to clean up the blood, at a time where according to Rudy, he was trying to help Meredith staunch her wounds. So a clean-up at that point would be of no help to Meredith, and seems to me to contradict Rudy's story as a practical matter.

But what's relevant, is there is no evidence of anyone else "helping" with any clean-up. So unless a theoretical accomplice was waiting outside, like Koko for example, evidence in the cottage, so far as I can tell, suggests the crime was all Rudy, with no assistants.

And the only reason anyone thinks it was more than one person, is based purely on Mignini's fantasies of staged break-ins and satanic/Halloween orgy rites, etc. So in other words, zippo - no evidence of multiple attackers whatsoever.

I don't see any evidence of multiple attackers of any kind at the crime scene. the only testimony I'm aware of is the civil party coroner claiming it had to be more than one person, and idiot judges taking that lone opinion over 6 other experts all saying it could have been one person attacking, or had to be one person attacking.

I don't see the menu options of multiple attackers here being supported in evidence or reasonably supported in testimony.

I'm also requesting you please change your avatar of Crazy Rudy playing Dracula, it so freak show, and creepy to look at. Thanks -

 

[Grinder]

The disrespect for Meredith and the kids on the PGP continues to amaze me. A recent transplant from .org to .net first request was for more smileys including the essential slapping the floor. A .org stalwart is regaling the audience with new photo-shopped pictures of Fischer on t-shirts wearing furs. Of course the animated smilies that she fills the post with must give the Kerchers a good laugh. Not.

I have no real problem with them making a case against A&R or anyone else but they should do it with respect. The fact that a former poster here who was thrown off said something against the Kerchers pales next the ongoing trivializing of the case and therefore the murder of Meredith done by the PGP.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is the best I can do with the Dispositivo Cassazione Annullamento Senza Rinvio - from March 27, 2015


Esito Statistico: Annullamento Senza Rinvio

Visto L'art. 620 Lett.A) C.P.P.; Annulla la Sentenza impugnata in ordine al reato di cui al capo B) della rubrica per essere il reato estinto per prescrizione; visti gli art. 620 Lett. L) E 530, comma il C.P.P.; esclusa l'aggravante di cui all'art. 61 N. 2 C.P. in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine al reati di cui ai capi A), D) ed E) della rubrica per non avere I ricorrenti commesso il fatto; ridetermina la pena inflitta alla ricorrente Amanda Marie Knox per il delitto di calunnia in anni tre di reclusione.


Statistical Outcome: Canceling Without Referral

Article seen. 620 letter a) C.P.P .; Quash the judgment under appeal in relation to the offense referred to in Chapter B) of the address book to be the crime extinguished by prescription; having regard to art. 620 Lett. L) E 530, paragraph the C.P.P .; Excluding the aggravating circumstance of art. 61 No. 2 C.P. in relation to the crime of slander, cancel without referring the contested judgment regarding the offenses referred to heads A), D) and E) of the section not to have the applicants committed the crime; restates the sentence imposed on the applicant Amanda Marie Knox for the crime of slander in three years' imprisonment.

(I am wondering if charge C) was not judged upon because of statute of limitations?)

 

[Anode]

Thank you! However it reads, it's an acquittal. Interesting on the knife charge expiring.

The knife charge expiring sounds like a technicality to me. It can be derived that this crime didn't occur regardless of the expiration of the charge.

The court says they weren't involved in the murder. If the knife was the murder weapon and they transported to the crime scene, then they would have been involved in the murder and the SC would not have acquitted them.

If they transported it to the cottage earlier for innocent reasons like to cook with for instance, and then someone else used it for the murder without their knowledge, then that's not a crime for them. If it were a crime then how on earth would anyone buy a knife in a store and transport it home without being guilty of a crime?

 

[anglolawyer]

Generally. I recognize that motive is important but it still makes me uncomfortable to convict mostly on motive or acquit mostly for the lack of it.

In this case if Amanda had a motive, say Meredith had replaced her at the bar leaving Amanda without work, it wouldn't change my mind at all that she was guilty BARD. Conversely if the DNA was solid (knife tested positive for blood) and footprints in blood matched her I would convict with no APPARENT motive.

Motive seems more of a cherry on top.

ETA - motive is a key for focusing the investigation which may lead to bad arrests etc.

ETA2 - Anglo thanks for pushing the point a bit. Upon further reflection I think I definitely am overly concerned by the usual suspects and motive approach. I did think Scott Peterson was guilty mostly because of motive and behavior.

Cherry on top is too weak IMO. But it will vary from case to case and will rarely be (hard to imagine it ever being) the sole evidence. The arguments about motive in this case are so fierce not necessarily because they decide the case but because of the inconvenience to the PGPs of the apparent niceness (for want of a better word) of A & R. So they launch in with the noise ticket, 'hazing', manga, knife collection and inappropriate behaviour and the defenders parry in familiar fashion, but this is a timeline, DNA, eye witness, footprint and luminol case.

Peterson is locked in by one coincidence too many, especially the one where Laci and foetus bob up more or less where he went fishing. The motive is very handy in rounding off the picture. The case would be a puzzle without it. Would you still convict him in that case?

 

[komponisto]

Do you have the PDF? Can you post it here?

I somehow forgot that one can post attachments here:

 

[komponisto]

This is the best I can do with the Dispositivo Cassazione Annullamento Senza Rinvio - from March 27, 2015

See my earlier post.

 

[acbytesla]

I would like Bayesian analysis of this and this time I mean it. There is no doubt in my mind that if a strong motive is clear people convict with less evidence, but should they?

If Amanda had a clear motive, I still wouldn't have convicted on the basis of the DNA or any of evidence linking her to the murder. Obviously if the bath print actually matched Raf I'd convict him on that alone. Matched not compatible.

Convicting people based on motive and/or background makes me uncomfortable as does the opposite.

I can certainly understand your thinking on this. I sort of feel the same way.But would we feel differently, if Amanda was Meredith's lesibian lover and they had many fights and Amanda had just taken a life insurance policy out on Meredith. I'd agree with you that there still wouldn't be enough evidence to convict Amanda, but it was the absence of such motivating factors for me that made it very easy to disregard the DNA evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

See my earlier post.