Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Numbers here's an old post I made:

Amanda's afterword. It was one quote.

ETA - Here you go Bill from her own book - "Does 'acquitted' mean not enough evidence to convict?" I asked him (Dalla Vedova) "Or did they find us innocent?" "They found you innocent, Amanda!" he said. "It's the best result possible!

So Bill it would seem Amanda understood the difference between para 1 and 2.

Dalla Vedova said it after the verdict in public as well. Here you can read it over and over - where he was quoted as saying "it couldn't be better than this"

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...a+knox+"+it+couldn't+be+better+than+this"+530

Clearly he gave the impression it was the best possible result in public and Amanda reported she asked specifically if it was reasonable doubt or innocent. There can be no doubt he left the impression it was a paragraph one.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers here's an old post I made:

Amanda's afterword. It was one quote.

ETA - Here you go Bill from her own book - "Does 'acquitted' mean not enough evidence to convict?" I asked him (Dalla Vedova) "Or did they find us innocent?" "They found you innocent, Amanda!" he said. "It's the best result possible!

So Bill it would seem Amanda understood the difference between para 1 and 2.

Dalla Vedova said it after the verdict in public as well. Here you can read it over and over - where he was quoted as saying "it couldn't be better than this"

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...a+knox+"+it+couldn't+be+better+than+this"+530

Clearly he gave the impression it was the best possible result in public and Amanda reported she asked specifically if it was reasonable doubt or innocent. There can be no doubt he left the impression it was a paragraph one.

Grinder,
Very interesting. But I don't buy your interpretation.

Here is one statement....but it is from the article's writer, not a quote from Amanda or a lawyer:

"In a rare decision, the supreme Court of Cassation overturned last year's convictions by a Florence appeals court and declined to order another trial. The judges declared that the two did not commit the crime, a stronger exoneration than merely finding that there wasn't enough evidence to convict."

Source: http://kfoxtv.com/news/local/amanda-knox-murder-conviction-overturned-by-italy-high-court-01-21-2016

The problem is with the article writer's understanding of Italian law.
There is no such verdict specification as "there wasn't enough evidence to convict". When there is not enough evidence to convict or there is absolutely no evidence to convict or the accused "proves his innocence", the verdict specification is always "the accused did not commit the act (crime)". The same specification applies to whether the acquittal is under CPP Article 530.1 or 530.2.

What was rare in the acquittal was that there was no referral - the CSC used CPP Article 620.1 (L).

 

[Numbers]

Grinder, here is another, similar comment.

Source: http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/...tion-overturned-by-italy-high-court/21158712/

1. "Finished!" Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova exulted after the decision was read out late Friday. "It couldn't be better than this."

2. In a rare decision, the supreme Court of Cassation overturned last year's convictions by a Florence appeals court and declined to order another trial. 3. The judges declared that the two did not commit the crime, a stronger exoneration than merely finding that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

In a statement issued from her home in Seattle, Knox said she was "relieved and grateful" for the decision.

4. "The knowledge of my innocence has given me strength in the darkest times of this ordeal," she said, thanking her supporters for believing in her.
1. Amanda's lawyer says "it couldn't be better than this" ... but my reading is that this applies to "Finished!", that is, there will be no referral trial (which was a real possibility) and it is an acquittal, which means there can be no further criminal trials on the charges (and no new civil trials on the matter either, if one believes that the Italian courts will follow the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure). The "Finished" agrees with the point the author of the article makes in statement 2.

The writer's statement 3 is plain wrong. An acquittal verdict specification in Italy never states that there was not enough evidence to convict. Remember, this was written before the reasoning was released, and only the short-form verdict was available, and it clearly cites CPP Article 530.2 as well as stating that "the applicants did not commit the act". That statement is the standard specification of acquittal due to failure of the prosecution to prove the case against the accused BARD, whether under Article 530.1 or 530.2.

4. Having been acquitted, Amanda is to be considered legally innocent - not guilty - of the alleged crimes. This is called the presumption of innocence. In fact, she was legally innocent throughout the trial. One is only guilty in Italy if finally convicted. It is in the Italian Constitution, Article 27.

You may not like these points of law, but they are the law.

And look out for media writers who don't fully understand what they are writing about.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,
Very interesting. But I don't buy your interpretation.

Let's see. Amanda writes that her LAWYER called and told her the results and she asked "was I found not guilty for lack of evidence" (paragraph 2) or was I found innocent (para 1) and he replied innocent. She doesn't use C.P.P. code but nothing could clearer as what Dalla was communicating.

I don't give a rat's ass what a reporter writes on something that wasn't on point. You repeatedly asked for me to provide evidence that the defense lawyers were communicating that the verdict was innocent and not "not guilty" which I did.

I also provided his public quotes saying it doesn't "get better than this".

There was no interpretation. Dalla told her she was found innocent AND not just not guilty.

Tesla - I don't really care about the gang-up what I find sad is that when a point is proven as clearly as the one above you and others don't acknowledge it.

 

[Grinder]

You may not like these points of law, but they are the law.

And look out for media writers who don't fully understand what they are writing about.

First of all you don't know Italian law. You can cut and paste all you want. Nothing could have been written that was more clear than what Amanda wrote in her afterward. As I said the defense lawyers initially communicated it was a para one INNOCENT not a para two "not guilty" or "not proven".

You asked for proof they were communicating innocence and not just "not proven" and I provided it. Clearly Amanda understood there was a difference.

 

[Numbers]

Here's a news source that gave a much better explanation of what happened and the significance of the lack of referral and the acquittal verdict:

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/conviction-overturned-for-amanda-knox-again/

1. In a written statement released shortly after the decision, Knox said she was "relieved and grateful" for the decision. "The knowledge of my innocence has given me strength in the darkest times of this ordeal," she said, thanking her supporters for believing in her.

2. Experts have said such a complete exoneration is unusual for the high court, which could have upheld the conviction or ordered a new trial as it did in 2011 when the case first came up to its review on appeal.
Play Video
Amanda Knox: The untold story

3. "Finished!," Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova exulted after the decision was read out. "It couldn't be better than this."
4. The decision by the supreme Court of Cassation could well be the final ruling in the case, ending the long legal battle waged by Knox and co-defendant Sollecito.
5. The Court overturned last year's convictions by a Florence appeals court, and declined to order another trial.
6. The decision means the judges concluded that a conviction could not be supported by the evidence.
1. Amanda is legally innocent. If you believe otherwise, that is your opinion; it has no support under Italian law. She is in my opinion totally actually innocent of the alleged crimes.

2. It was unusual for the CSC to acquit without referral; it is more common for it to refer a case. Later (remember, this new item was written March 27, based only on the short-form verdict), the MR showed the reasoning of the CSC and it explained that essentially, the evidence did not justify a referral and the Nencini court verdict was absolutely wrong. Therefore, it was acquitting without referral, under CPP Article 620.1 (L) and CPP Article 530.2.

3. Again, Dalla Vedova seems to me to be referring to the acquittal without referral. He is not stating that the acquittal is based on Article 530.1. He has seen the short-form verdict and knows it is 530.2. He has no problem or concern with this, based on his statement.

4. The writer of the news article waffles on this. I have read the CPP enough to be convinced that there will be no further legal action of any kind against Knox or Sollecito for the Kercher murder/rape. There will be further legal issues relating to the calunnia against the police and calunnia against Lumumba cases; but the eventual outcome will be in the ECHR and potentially an Italian revision court for the calunnia against Lumumba.

5. Correct.

6. Correct. This is how the media should have stated this decision, rather than the incorrect impression given by some news sources.

I hope this has resolved your problem with number 2 compared to number 1 in relation to statements made by the real defense, in contrast to statements made by media, PGP, or PIP which may not be totally accurate.

 

[Numbers]

Let's see. Amanda writes that her LAWYER called and told her the results and she asked "was I found not guilty for lack of evidence" (paragraph 2) or was I found innocent (para 1) and he replied innocent. She doesn't use C.P.P. code but nothing could clearer as what Dalla was communicating.

I don't give a rat's ass what a reporter writes on something that wasn't on point. You repeatedly asked for me to provide evidence that the defense lawyers were communicating that the verdict was innocent and not "not guilty" which I did.

I also provided his public quotes saying it doesn't "get better than this".

There was no interpretation. Dalla told her she was found innocent AND not just not guilty.

Tesla - I don't really care about the gang-up what I find sad is that when a point is proven as clearly as the one above you and others don't acknowledge it.

Well, you are associating "paragraph 1" and "paragraph 2" with Amanda's statements. It is not in the original, is it?

And I didn't see Amanda's statement that you are allegedly quoting in your citation. Is it in the new afterword of her book? I'll take a look, if it's available. Do you have a citation?

ETA

I checked the afterword; parts are available on Amazon.com. It says nothing explicitly about 530.1 compared to 530.2. It does state that she asked her lawyer:

"Does acquitted mean not enough evidence to convict? Or did they find us innocent?"

Dalla Vedova replied:

"They found you innocent. Amanda! It's the best result possible!"

Now what can this exchange mean, since Dalla Vedova knew that the acquittal was given under CPP Article 530.2?

I suggest that possibly Amanda thought that somehow "acquitted" in Italy could mean "not enough evidence to convict" rather than "not guilty". So she may have shared that misapprehension with others. Or maybe she was just seeking reassurance, or making a point for her book. But "acquitted" means one of five specifications in Italy, and she and Raffaele were acquitted under the specification "the accused did not commit the act", which means not guilty or legally innocent.

Other specifications include: the act did not occur; there was a legal right to commit the act; the act is no longer considered a crime; and the accused did not have mental capacity. Again, one is not acquitted in Italy under the specification "there was not enough evidence to convict the accused". If the court judges that there is not enough evidence to convict the accused, the acquittal verdict specification is "the accused did not commit the crime."

Grinder, if you don't comprehend these legal principles, I can only suggest that you do more reading. And don't limit yourself to news articles or even books by non-lawyers, such as Amanda. You can start by reading the Italian Constitution, the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, and follow-up with discussions with actual experts in Italian law, such as Italian lawyers. Don't rely on anonymous posters on the Internet, such as the author of this post.

 

[Grinder]

Here's a news source that gave a much better explanation of what happened and the significance of the lack of referral and the acquittal verdict:

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/conviction-overturned-for-amanda-knox-again/

1. In a written statement released shortly after the decision, Knox said she was "relieved and grateful" for the decision. "The knowledge of my innocence has given me strength in the darkest times of this ordeal," she said, thanking her supporters for believing in her.

2. Experts have said such a complete exoneration is unusual for the high court, which could have upheld the conviction or ordered a new trial as it did in 2011 when the case first came up to its review on appeal.
Play Video
Amanda Knox: The untold story

3. "Finished!," Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova exulted after the decision was read out. "It couldn't be better than this."
4. The decision by the supreme Court of Cassation could well be the final ruling in the case, ending the long legal battle waged by Knox and co-defendant Sollecito.
5. The Court overturned last year's convictions by a Florence appeals court, and declined to order another trial.
6. The decision means the judges concluded that a conviction could not be supported by the evidence.
1. Amanda is legally innocent. If you believe otherwise, that is your opinion; it has no support under Italian law. She is in my opinion totally actually innocent of the alleged crimes.

2. It was unusual for the CSC to acquit without referral; it is more common for it to refer a case. Later (remember, this new item was written March 27, based only on the short-form verdict), the MR showed the reasoning of the CSC and it explained that essentially, the evidence did not justify a referral and the Nencini court verdict was absolutely wrong. Therefore, it was acquitting without referral, under CPP Article 620.1 (L) and CPP Article 530.2.

3. Again, Dalla Vedova seems to me to be referring to the acquittal without referral. He is not stating that the acquittal is based on Article 530.1. He has seen the short-form verdict and knows it is 530.2. He has no problem or concern with this, based on his statement.

4. The writer of the news article waffles on this. I have read the CPP enough to be convinced that there will be no further legal action of any kind against Knox or Sollecito for the Kercher murder/rape. There will be further legal issues relating to the calunnia against the police and calunnia against Lumumba cases; but the eventual outcome will be in the ECHR and potentially an Italian revision court for the calunnia against Lumumba.

5. Correct.

6. Correct. This is how the media should have stated this decision, rather than the incorrect impression given by some news sources.

I hope this has resolved your problem with number 2 compared to number 1 in relation to statements made by the real defense, in contrast to statements made by media, PGP, or PIP which may not be totally accurate.

I have no problem you do. The defense clearly told Amanda it was innocent and not just a not guilty. You can find all the articles you wish but nothing will trump Amanda's own words and the words of Dalla.

Amanda's question was straightforward.

"Does 'acquitted' mean not enough evidence to convict?" I asked him (Dalla Vedova) "Or did they find us innocent?" "They found you innocent, Amanda!" he said. "It's the best result possible!​

You asked for proof the defense claimed innocence not just not proven.

When you are shown proof you move into CPP recitations and arguments about whether future actions can be brought. This isn't about that. You asked about whether the defense alluded to a complete verdict of innocence or if that was just PIPs and PGPs.

It is moronic to argue Amanda's written afterword doesn't make it clear it was being forward as an innocent. Btw can you prove that Dalla read the verdict before the call?

 

[Desert Fox]

Where do you get the idea he's Mormon?

Do a google search "Marriott Mormon"

 

[Grinder]

Do a google search "Marriott Mormon"

No tell me your source for David Marriott of Marriott Gogerty being Mormon.

 

[Grinder]

http://www.amazon.com/Waiting-Be-Heard-A-Memoir/dp/0062217216

Check it Numbers. Do you know how to find the quote in the book?

 

[Numbers]

I have no problem you do. The defense clearly told Amanda it was innocent and not just a not guilty. You can find all the articles you wish but nothing will trump Amanda's own words and the words of Dalla.

Amanda's question was straightforward.

"Does 'acquitted' mean not enough evidence to convict?" I asked him (Dalla Vedova) "Or did they find us innocent?" "They found you innocent, Amanda!" he said. "It's the best result possible!​

You asked for proof the defense claimed innocence not just not proven.

When you are shown proof you move into CPP recitations and arguments about whether future actions can be brought. This isn't about that. You asked about whether the defense alluded to a complete verdict of innocence or if that was just PIPs and PGPs.

It is moronic to argue Amanda's written afterword doesn't make it clear it was being forward as an innocent. Btw can you prove that Dalla read the verdict before the call?

You obviously do not believe that "legally innocent" (colloquially, "innocent") is the same as "not guilty". You should look through your dictionaries and perhaps some law books about this.

Here is some help so you can begin your search for meaning:

Innocent typically refers to a finding that a criminal defendant is not guilty of the charges, but may also refer to a finding that a civil defendant isn't liable for the accusations of the plaintiff, such as being found not negligent in a personal injury case. It is synonymous with acquit, which means to find a defendant in a criminal case not guilty. The decision to exonerate the defendant may be made either by a jury or a judge after trial. A prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A decision to acquit means that the judge or jury had a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. It may be based on exculpatory evidence or a lack of evidence to prove guilt.

Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/innocent/

So Grinder, enjoy your combat with the windmills of "innocent" not meaning "not guilty", and/or "not guilty" not meaning "[legally] innocent".

Frankly, I am disappointed in the lack of substance in so many of your posts.

 

[Grinder]

You obviously do not believe that "legally innocent" (colloquially, "innocent") is the same as "not guilty". You should look through your dictionaries and perhaps some law books about this.

Here is some help so you can begin your search for meaning:

Innocent typically refers to a finding that a criminal defendant is not guilty of the charges, but may also refer to a finding that a civil defendant isn't liable for the accusations of the plaintiff, such as being found not negligent in a personal injury case. It is synonymous with acquit, which means to find a defendant in a criminal case not guilty. The decision to exonerate the defendant may be made either by a jury or a judge after trial. A prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A decision to acquit means that the judge or jury had a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. It may be based on exculpatory evidence or a lack of evidence to prove guilt.

Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/innocent/

So Grinder, enjoy your combat with the windmills of "innocent" not meaning "not guilty", and/or "not guilty" not meaning "[legally] innocent".

Frankly, I am disappointed in the lack of substance in so many of your posts.

You have no substance only cut and pastes. You can't even track a discussion. If you wish to argue about "not guilty" and "innocent" take it up with Dalla and Amanda.

 

[Desert Fox]

No tell me your source for David Marriott of Marriott Gogerty being Mormon.

Oops, you are right and I was wrong. There was a bit of confusion on my part with Amanda having a good friend who is a Mormon.

I will specifically argue that some pro guilters may try to argue an Amanda Konx Mormon conspiracy based on the name Marriott.

 

[Numbers]

You have no substance only cut and pastes. You can't even track a discussion. If you wish to argue about "not guilty" and "innocent" take it up with Dalla and Amanda.

Please provide your dictionary definitions with citations that show the difference between "[legally] innocent" and "not guilty".

Please provide text with citation of any Italian acquittal in which the specification was "there was not enough evidence to convict the accused".

I'm pleased you noticed my use of cut and paste methods. My intent is to provide information from original and apparently reliable sources, rather than merely my personal opinions.

 

[Grinder]

Please provide your dictionary definitions with citations that show the difference between "[legally] innocent" and "not guilty".

Please provide text with citation of any Italian acquittal in which the specification was "there was not enough evidence to convict the accused".

I'm pleased you noticed my use of cut and paste methods. My intent is to provide information from original and apparently reliable sources, rather than merely my personal opinions.

We currently are not discussing the above. We are discussing whether the source of the idea that the verdict came solely from PIPs and PGPs. You contested my statement that the defense had early-on indicated the verdict was innocent as in a para one.

Amanda's quote clearly shows that minutes after the live broadcast Dalla called and in response to a direct question answered it was not an insufficient evidence but rather innocent. He also said publicly after the verdict that it doesn't get any better than this. No one in his right mind would say that a para 1 isn't better.

All Para 2 verdicts imply "there was not enough evidence to convict the accused"

Do you believe OJ was found innocent?

Do you have a link to verdicts using 530?

 

[Stacyhs]

Oops, you are right and I was wrong. There was a bit of confusion on my part with Amanda having a good friend who is a Mormon.

I will specifically argue that some pro guilters may try to argue an Amanda Konx Mormon conspiracy based on the name Marriott.

I'm waiting for the "It was the Masons!" argument.

 

[Numbers]

We currently are not discussing the above. We are discussing whether the source of the idea that the verdict came solely from PIPs and PGPs. You contested my statement that the defense had early-on indicated the verdict was innocent as in a para one.

Amanda's quote clearly shows that minutes after the live broadcast Dalla called and in response to a direct question answered it was not an insufficient evidence but rather innocent. He also said publicly after the verdict that it doesn't get any better than this. No one in his right mind would say that a para 1 isn't better.

1. All Para 2 verdicts imply "there was not enough evidence to convict the accused"

2. Do you believe OJ was found innocent?

3. Do you have a link to verdicts using 530?

My views:

1. I disagree with the statement. The wording of Article 530.2 goes far beyond what you write above. You are focusing on only the specification "the accused did not commit the crime" when 530.2 covers other specifications as well. The text of 530.2 has been presented (by me, and I had to type it out, copying the book, so it wasn't literally a computer software-enabled cut and paste) in this forum several times before. According to the translation by Gialuz et al., the text is:

"The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof (1) that the criminal act occurred, (2) {that} the accused committed it, (3) {that} the act is deemed an offense by law, (4) {that} the offense was committed by a person with mental capacity."

In the quote above, I added numbers in parentheses to show that there are FOUR acquittal specifications listed in Article 530.2, and I have highlighted each of them. I also added "{that}" for clarity before three of the specifications.

So, to be accurate and precise, the language states that 530.2 requires acquittal when the evidence of guilt (which is equivalent to "proof" in this context) is "insufficient, contradictory or lacking" which includes the special case of "not enough evidence" which itself may mean that there was anywhere from zero evidence to not quite enough.

2. O. J. was found not guilty of criminal charges of murder, which means he was found "legally innocent" of those charges, or, "innocent" of those charges.

He was subsequently found to have civil liability for wrongful death of the murdered persons in a later civil trial. Despite that, he was found innocent and remains innocent by law in relation to the criminal charges of murder.

3. I don't know how to find Italian verdicts of any variety. And the Knox - Sollecito case has been my first exposure to Italian law. I believe that verdicts may be accessible through the CSC website:

http://www.cortedicassazione.it/corte-di-cassazione/

There's a button on the site labeled "SentenzeWeb" which leads to a list of verdicts and then to a PDF of the selected verdict. But I don't know enough Italian or Italian legal terminology to understand how to do a search!

ETA: I have looked at a few of the criminal verdicts on the site, and checked the PQM (bottom line at the end) but none of those that I checked had CPP numbers cited in the PQM.

 

[Bill Williams]

You obviously do not believe that "legally innocent" (colloquially, "innocent") is the same as "not guilty". You should look through your dictionaries and perhaps some law books about this.

Here is some help so you can begin your search for meaning:

Innocent typically refers to a finding that a criminal defendant is not guilty of the charges, but may also refer to a finding that a civil defendant isn't liable for the accusations of the plaintiff, such as being found not negligent in a personal injury case. It is synonymous with acquit, which means to find a defendant in a criminal case not guilty. The decision to exonerate the defendant may be made either by a jury or a judge after trial. A prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A decision to acquit means that the judge or jury had a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. It may be based on exculpatory evidence or a lack of evidence to prove guilt.

Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/innocent/

So Grinder, enjoy your combat with the windmills of "innocent" not meaning "not guilty", and/or "not guilty" not meaning "[legally] innocent".

Frankly, I am disappointed in the lack of substance in so many of your posts.

Ditto. There's no point in engaging Grinder on this. And please, please don't get into a dictionary war with him. That'll close the thread for sure.

 

[toto]

First of all you don't know Italian law. You can cut and paste all you want. Nothing could have been written that was more clear than what Amanda wrote in her afterward. As I said the defense lawyers initially communicated it was a para one INNOCENT not a para two "not guilty" or "not proven".

You asked for proof they were communicating innocence and not just "not proven" and I provided it. Clearly Amanda understood there was a difference.

I think we should remember the context of the words between Amanda and her lawyer. Nearly everyone was extremely surprised that they were definitively aquitted at that time and were overjoyed. Thus it was not spin Amanda was writing but a genuine reflection about how the verdicts were interpreted at the time, and which have not changed in any mainstream Italian website that I have seen: that they are definitively aquitted because they did not commit the act, which were the words used before the motivation report came out. I quote below The Guardian, and then an Italian source, which I got from IIP. Also There is a link to NBC which had an interview with Amanda's lawyer. I think the reason why para 1 and para 2 are not discussed much is because it is essentially irrelevant.

The judges reached their decision after 10 hours of deliberations. The presiding judge, Gennaro Marasca, read the decision – repeating the word “annulled” several times. Initially, the tense assembly of lawyers and journalists, including many who are not native Italian speakers, fell silent.
Then there was a burst of activity as many went racing out of the grand courtroom, ready to call in the news, even as journalists desperately looked at one another, wondering if their ears had failed them.

Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecito’s lawyer, who has solidified her reputation as one of the best defence attorneys in Italy, began screaming in joy and ran out of the courtroom, journalists chasing behind her.
When a seemingly stunned Carlo Dalla Vedova, the lawyer for Knox, came out of the courtroom behind her, she turned around and leapt into his arms and the two embraced..
After the decision was read, Dalla Vedova remained calm, slowly walking down the corridor toward the lift. In a hushed tone he said that such a bold decision was nearly unprecedented. Indeed, he had largely dismissed such a result before the court of cassation hearing began in Rome, saying it was practically unthinkable.
Minutes later, he emerged from the court, which overlooks Piazza Cavour, and told the swarm of journalists that he had spoken to Knox and that she was “very happy”.
“It’s a fair verdict. It’s a victory of justice. This was a mistake from the beginning,” he said.

"Obviously we were right": Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, President of the Court of Assizes of Perugia in 2011 acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito murder of Meredith Kercher comments on the decision of the Supreme Court. "There was hoping, after so many judicial errors committed by other judges on the Court of Cassation has shown that in Italy there is still justice" said Pratillo Hellmann, now retired judge. "I'm happy - said the former president of the Court - was avoided because a miscarriage of justice and those two unfortunate Amanda and Raffaele have come out because innocent.

http://www.today.com/video/today/57177360#5717736