Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

They certainly can. The fact is they won't. Why?

Because they know they have no case.

IMHO, it's just because they need to fully assess what is in their interest. Lawyers know it's easy to win against Knox, but also know that AK & RS are not going to pay their damages.

 

[Mike1711]

That of course isn't true.

http://www.the-line-up.com/10-killer-kids-that-will-creep-you-the-eff-out/

I would refuse to call the killers of James Bulger "kids". You are of course correct that killers can be any age but using a term of endearment in reference to them is anybodies right.

 

[Grinder]

Questioning Guede as a witness is vastly different from questioning him when he is the accused. My reference was to questioning him in his own trial....which would be lunacy for AK and RS.

Obviously one can only be questioned when giving testimony as a witness. They couldn't question him in his trial even if/when he took the stand but they clearly wanted to question him.

It would not have been lunacy as they could have tripped him up.

What is the difference between his FT and their appeal?

 

[Mike1711]

IMHO, it's just because they need to fully assess what is in their interest. Lawyers know it's easy to win against Knox, but also know that AK & RS are not going to pay their damages.

You are entitled to be wrong. Lawyers would scramble to take on a case against Knox pro bono if there was a hint of possible victory. The Kercher family would take it all the way if they thought there was any merit because for them it's not about the money.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen is right. The SC cannot overturn fact findings, insofar that would an assessment directly about evidence. The SC can annul decisions because of the way they were carried on and order courts to re-assess facts.
Chieffi noted that Hellmann's reasoning was based on attributing credibility to a source that was manifestly unreliable even according to Hellmann itself, to counter elements that were instead credible, and the reasoning was manifestly illogical. It's the reason Hellmann employs what Chieffi censures, not the conclusion.

Similarly, it is the reason Nencini employs which Marasca/Bruno censures, in overturning the conviction.

Examples in the M/B report of just two of these findings....

Now, for all that the sentimental relationship between Sollecito and Knox is
undisputed, and for all that it has been established that the young woman did have
occasion to meet Guede in a few instances, there is no proof at all that Sollecito was
acquainted with or had ever frequented the Ivorian. On this point it is certainly
contradictory and manifestly illogical to [on the one hand] acknowledge (at f. 91)
the unreasonableness of hypothesising the participation in such a “gory” murder in
complicity with a stranger in ruling out any notion of involvement on the part of
flatmates Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti (who, certainly, did not know
Guede), and [on the other hand] not extend the same argument to Sollecito, who
turns out never to have even met the Ivorian.
6.2. Another judicial error is to be found in the finding that the establishment of
Kercher’s exact time of death was irrelevant, in the belief that the approximate
timing offered by the expert investigations was sufficient, for all that this may have
been correct at the trial stage​

 

[acbytesla]

They certainly can. The fact is they won't. Why?

Because they know they have no case.

In the US, it is said you can always file a case, but that doesn't mean a judge will hear it. Opposing council need only make a motion to dismiss. My guess is that pretty much is the case here. This is just more guilter wishful thinking.

 

[acbytesla]

IMHO, it's just because they need to fully assess what is in their interest. Lawyers know it's easy to win against Knox, but also know that AK & RS are not going to pay their damages.

You're living in fantasy land.

 

[Numbers]

Well as I understand it, Mach is saying that the preliminary hearing IS Rudi's trial. It appears from the quotes I provided the kids' defense presented expert testimony on issues such as the single killer.

Do you have information on what witnesses testified not allowed to be crossed by the defense of the kids?

One point of potential confusion should be cleared up - the hearing where all three accused apparently were present may be called the "pre-trial preliminary hearing" to avoid confusion with the "preliminary arrest hearing".

The fast-track trial is based primarily upon the documents and statements from the pretrial preliminary hearing. The Italian procedural law for fast-track (or summary) trial is given in CPP Articles 438 - 444. Here are some relevant excerpts:

CPP Art. 438
1. The accused may request that the decision on the accusation be taken at the preliminary hearing based on the available elements of evidence {but certain other evidence may be gathered at the decision of the judge} ....
2. The request may be submitted, orally or in writing, until the time when {conclusions are formulated by the judge on the pretrial preliminary hearing}....
3. {The accused's intention shall be authenticated by his signature.}
4. The judge shall decide on the request by means of an order whereby he directs a summary trial.

CPP Art. 441
3. The summary trial shall be held in closed sessions; the judge shall order that the trial be held in open court if requested by the accused persons.

So, the summary or fast-track trial is a trial that follows, perhaps immediately, the pretrial preliminary hearing. It may include elements of evidence beyond the pretrial preliminary hearing, but is based primarily on the evidence as presented at the pretrial preliminary hearing. The fast-track trial is normally closed (unless a public trial is requested by the accused), so that only the motivation report is available to the public.

The lack of information on exactly what happened during Guede's fast-track trial is explained if the trial was closed as allowed by CPP Art. 441.

Micheli was the judge for Guede's fast-track trial and for the pretrial preliminary hearing. The motivation report (Micheli court MR) is available:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

 

[Mike1711]

Obviously one can only be questioned when giving testimony as a witness. They couldn't question him in his trial even if/when he took the stand but they clearly wanted to question him.

It would not have been lunacy as they could have tripped him up.

What is the difference between his FT and their appeal?

Not sure what FT stands for but....

To question Guede in his own trial brings into play a vested interest in him lying and limitations in questioning common to cross examination procedures. I doubt the RS/AK defence team would risk their own case being more contaminated than it already proved to be. (Bearing in my mind that examination and cross examination are vastly different angles).

Being examined (as opposed to cross examined) as a (hostile) witness in the RS/AK trial involves a completely different dynamic from defence.
The prosecution were never going to call Guede as a witness for obvious reasons so if Guede was to appear in the RS/AK trial/s it would be as a hostile witness called by the defence. As we know Guede refused to testify.

I wonder why?????

 

[Mike1711]

In the US, it is said you can always file a case, but that doesn't mean a judge will hear it. Opposing council need only make a motion to dismiss. My guess is that pretty much is the case here. This is just more guilter wishful thinking.

Agree.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are entitled to be wrong. Lawyers would scramble to take on a case against Knox pro bono if there was a hint of possible victory. The Kercher family would take it all the way if they thought there was any merit because for them it's not about the money.

Well I somewhat disagree with your final sentence, but I entirely agree that if any lawyers - in Italy, US or UK thought there was a good case to being civil action against Knox and/or Sollecito, they would be keen to take the work. And as you say, there are plenty who would be prepared to take it on either pro bono or (more likely) on a contingency fee (no-win-no-fee) basis.

So I therefore agree with you that Machiavelli's premise here is fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, his assertion that "lawyers know it's easy to win against Knox" smacks comically of a kid in the schoolyard puffing up his chest and saying "Yeah, I could beat you in a fight any day...... but erm I can't do it right now because something urgent has just come up"

 

[LondonJohn]

In the US, it is said you can always file a case, but that doesn't mean a judge will hear it. Opposing council need only make a motion to dismiss. My guess is that pretty much is the case here. This is just more guilter wishful thinking.

Likewise in Italy I imagine. Maybe Machiavelli can enlighten us on this aspect.

And on the matter of frivolous/vexatious civil suits, I wonder what has/will become of that civil action instigated in Italy in relation to the Marasca verdict, launched by a private Italian citizen, as reported by Vogt...?

 

[acbytesla]

Well I somewhat disagree with your final sentence, but I entirely agree that if any lawyers - in Italy, US or UK thought there was a good case to being civil action against Knox and/or Sollecito, they would be keen to take the work. And as you say, there are plenty who would be prepared to take it on either pro bono or (more likely) on a contingency fee (no-win-no-fee) basis.

So I therefore agree with you that Machiavelli's premise here is fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, his assertion that "lawyers know it's easy to win against Knox" smacks comically of a kid in the schoolyard puffing up his chest and saying "Yeah, I could beat you in a fight any day...... but erm I can't do it right now because something urgent has just come up"

Machiavelli did make one good point and that is that Amanda wouldn't pay. She'd walk into a US court and request an injunction against any enforcement. And I'm sure a court would grant it.She probably would be able to get a US judge to declare preemptively that Knox is exempt from having to answer an Italian court on anything to do with the Kercher murder.

 

[LondonJohn]

The exception proves the rule. In the Yeates case - I am glad you mentioned this - the newspapers, in particular THE SUN and THE DAILY MIRROR did indeed stick their necks out and witch hunt caretaker Chris Jeffries as being the killer, pointing to his camp style and eccentricities, and even labelled him "a peeping Tom". As you know, after the real killer, Vincent Tabak, a Dutch national, was convicted and jailed, Mr Jeffries received a very handsome payout in libel and defamation damages and is now a millionaire.

As you're possibly aware, that is not one of the aspects of the Yeates case to which I was referring when I used the word "aspects". So what you've written above, while true, is wholly irrelevant in the circumstances.

The DAILY MAIL lobbied for the killers of Stephen Lawrence to be brought to justice.

After those men had been officially acquitted by the E&W criminal justice system. Are you actually aware of that? Because if you were aware of that, you would be able to see that this is actually a reasonable comparator:

People were acquitted of an infamous murder, but a newspaper thought those people were factually culpable and should be found judicially culpable, and therefore stuck its neck out against a legal ruling in order to accuse the people directly and to demand that they be brought to justice via another route. The Mail (or any media outlet) could just as equally do exactly the same in the case of Knox and Sollecito: there might be a Mail headline front page, published post-Marasca, with photos of Knox and Sollecito and a single 30-point word "GUILTY". But no media outlet of any importance has done anything along those lines in the case of Knox or Sollecito. Do you ever even stop to wonder why that might be.......?

As for "Bill", I was educated to put assumed names and colloquiallisms in quotation marks. I was also brought up to consider teaching other people manners extremely rude.

But that's not the issue. The issue is why you do it for "Bill" but not for, say, "Grinder" or "acbytesla". Or are you under the mistaken impression that the latter two use their real names as their screen names here? If you're going to follow your own "rule" here, as stated above, then you need to do it for pretty much every single screen name on ISF, don't you? After all, I was brought up to consider treating one person differently from others for no valid reason to be extremely rude.

 

[LondonJohn]

Machiavelli did make one good point and that is that Amanda wouldn't pay. She'd walk into a US court and request an injunction against any enforcement. And I'm sure a court would grant it.She probably would be able to get a US judge to declare preemptively that Knox is exempt from having to answer an Italian court on anything to do with the Kerchief murder.

Oh I absolutely agree. And I also suspect it might be hard to get much money out of Sollecito at this stage (for various reasons). But at the same time, I suspect that there would still be plenty of legal firms who'd be prepared to represent the Kerchers under those circumstances - but only if those firms thought there was a reasonable chance of winning the case.

And of course the key to the whole thing is in that last clause above. No civil case against Knox or Sollecito is reasonably winnable, which explains everything about why no legal firms are offering to bring such a case on the Kerchers' behalf.

 

[Numbers]

Not sure what FT stands for but....

To question Guede in his own trial brings into play a vested interest in him lying and limitations in questioning common to cross examination procedures. I doubt the RS/AK defence team would risk their own case being more contaminated than it already proved to be. (Bearing in my mind that examination and cross examination are vastly different angles).

Being examined (as opposed to cross examined) as a (hostile) witness in the RS/AK trial involves a completely different dynamic from defence.
The prosecution were never going to call Guede as a witness for obvious reasons so if Guede was to appear in the RS/AK trial/s it would be as a hostile witness called by the defence. As we know Guede refused to testify.

I wonder why?????

FT probably stands for fast-track trial in this context.

Posters here may be missing an important point: in Italy, as in the US, an accused person (defendant in a criminal case, in the US) can not be made to testify, and certainly not against himself. {In the US, a defendant in a criminal case can be made to testify on certain issues if granted partial or total immunity to prosecution on those issues.}

The point of concern for the Knox - Sollecito case was the introduction and acceptance in one or more Italian trials of Knox and Sollecito as (in US terms) co-conspirators with Guede based on the statements of Guede that were not subject to examination. This was contrary to the Article 111 of the Italian Constitution and Italian procedural law, and ECHR case-law (Luca v Italy). This was done under a subterfuge of accepting a prior definitive CSC judgment accepting Guede's fast-track trial conviction and the affirming appeal conviction. The motivation report of the Marasca CSC panel thoroughly condemned this incorporation of Guede's unexamined statements that the Nencini court allowed, and this was one of the Marasca's CSC panel's reasons for annulling the Nencini court's conviction.

 

[Vixen]

My guess is that those convicted of murder lose the right to be called a "kid" regardless of age.

The context was, if Amanda and Raff are "kids" then you ought to call Rudy a "kid", too, being three years younger than Raff.

 

[Vixen]

Personally, I don't see how it is even remotely possible for the Kerchief to press any kind of action against Amanda. The criminal case for murder and the civil case for wrongful death against them was DECIDED in court.

This is not the OJ case where OJ was only acquitted in the criminal case and not the civil case.
Courts in the US and I believe the UK would not even hear the case and if they did, it is extremely doubtful that any judgment would be enforceable. It would also cost a large fortune to effectively press the suit.

Every time I hear this suggestion, all I can think is the people are morons. That said, we've seen some bizarre things from the courts. I like to think that is just Italy. So maybe they're not. It certainly does seem like at least massive wishful thinking.

Nowhere in the Bruno-Marasca case is the civil ruling overturned.

 

[Desert Fox]

The context was, if Amanda and Raff are "kids" then you ought to call Rudy a "kid", too, being three years younger than Raff

In that respect, you seem to have a point.

 

[Vixen]

This is scandalous and an outrageous lie. Regardless of this it is a completely illogical proposition. How can two completely opposed verdicts both have validity?

Machiavelli is right. Bruno and Marasca do not have the power to trump the ruling of another Supreme Court judge.