Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[Stacyhs]

Here's today's laugher from TJMK courtesy of, um, "Krissy". This one shows a remarkable level of cluelessness, even by "Krissy" standards. RE: Ryan Ferguson:

$11m is not much compared to what he should have got if it was a genuine finding of innocence. Ferguson’s case was merely ‘vacated’. He has no certificate of innocence, and his co-defendant remains in jail.

$11m is more to do with technical issues rather than recompense for wrongful time served (surely that would be worth >$55K).

I don’t see Ferguson as a good example of a wrongful conviction.

Let's see now....11 million dollars is "not much"? On what planet? Maybe I'm being forgetful here but I don't recall too many exonerated(yes, Krissy) individuals getting more than that. Even the Central Park 5 got "only" about $7M each. And I dare say that 11 million dollars had one hell of a lot more "to do" than with mere "technical issues".

" Ferguson’s case was merely ‘vacated’. He has no certificate of innocence, and his co-defendant remains in jail."

I'm amused, but not surprised, by the use of merely 'vacated' in an attempt to minimize the fact that his conviction was thrown out and the prosecution declined to prosecute again because there was no evidence against him. For some people, once convicted, always guilty... no matter what.

As for not having a certificate of innocence, that is not something that is just automatically given out. Ferguson would have to apply for it. Maybe he has, maybe not. We don't know that he hasn't. If not, perhaps he just doesn't feel the need for it seeing how his case is so well-known. There is nothing indicating guilt in the fact he doesn't have one. But that won't stop some people from reading that into it and wanting others to do the same.

 

[TruthCalls]

" Ferguson’s case was merely ‘vacated’. He has no certificate of innocence, and his co-defendant remains in jail."

I'm amused, but not surprised, by the use of merely 'vacated' in an attempt to minimize the fact that his conviction was thrown out and the prosecution declined to prosecute again because there was no evidence against him. For some people, once convicted, always guilty... no matter what.

As for not having a certificate of innocence, that is not something that is just automatically given out. Ferguson would have to apply for it. Maybe he has, maybe not. We don't know that he hasn't. If not, perhaps he just doesn't feel the need for it seeing how his case is so well-known. There is nothing indicating guilt in the fact he doesn't have one. But that won't stop some people from reading that into it and wanting others to do the same.

Well of course "Krissy" wouldn't think Ryan was a good example of a wrongful conviction. I mean, come on - just because there was DNA and prints available and they didn't match Ryan or Erickson... just because there was video surveillance that didn't match Ryan or Erickson... just because Erickson couldn't provide any correct details of the crime unless the police told him or he heard them on the news... just because Erickson was passed out from drinking and couldn't remember a thing... Just because of all these things there's no reason we should ignore that he still had a 'dream' and as a result of this dream he implicated Ryan. That's some real powerful stuff.

 

[Matthew Best]

"Krissy" is an idiot. Thank goodness she doesn't post here or I'd have to refrain from saying so.

 

[Matthew Best]

NM

 

[Numbers]

" Ferguson’s case was merely ‘vacated’. He has no certificate of innocence, and his co-defendant remains in jail."

I'm amused, but not surprised, by the use of merely 'vacated' in an attempt to minimize the fact that his conviction was thrown out and the prosecution declined to prosecute again because there was no evidence against him. For some people, once convicted, always guilty... no matter what.

As for not having a certificate of innocence, that is not something that is just automatically given out. Ferguson would have to apply for it. Maybe he has, maybe not. We don't know that he hasn't. If not, perhaps he just doesn't feel the need for it seeing how his case is so well-known. There is nothing indicating guilt in the fact he doesn't have one. But that won't stop some people from reading that into it and wanting others to do the same.

As far as I could tell from a very brief search, there is no "certificate of innocence" (or "certificate of actual innocence") given under Missouri law. Not all states have such a document; it is used in some states to clear a wrongful criminal record and/or to obtain compensation from the state.

Wikipedia provides this information on the vacation of conviction against Ryan Ferguson:

"Ferguson's conviction was vacated in November 2013 on the basis that the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense team. Following the reversal, the Attorney General of Missouri announced he does not plan to refile charges against Ferguson.

The Attorney General of Missouri dismissed the charges because Ferguson presented overwhelming evidence of his innocence in his habeas petition to that court."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_W._Ferguson

 

[Stacyhs]

As far as I could tell from a very brief search, there is no "certificate of innocence" (or "certificate of actual innocence") given under Missouri law. Not all states have such a document; it is used in some states to clear a wrongful criminal record and/or to obtain compensation from the state.

Wikipedia provides this information on the vacation of conviction against Ryan Ferguson:

"Ferguson's conviction was vacated in November 2013 on the basis that the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense team. Following the reversal, the Attorney General of Missouri announced he does not plan to refile charges against Ferguson.

The Attorney General of Missouri dismissed the charges because Ferguson presented overwhelming evidence of his innocence in his habeas petition to that court."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_W._Ferguson

I also could find nothing on Missouri having a certificate of innocence even available. So much for the "merely vacated" but not having a cert of innocence innuendo. Sheesh.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well of course "Krissy" wouldn't think Ryan was a good example of a wrongful conviction. I mean, come on - just because there was DNA and prints available and they didn't match Ryan or Erickson... just because there was video surveillance that didn't match Ryan or Erickson... just because Erickson couldn't provide any correct details of the crime unless the police told him or he heard them on the news... just because Erickson was passed out from drinking and couldn't remember a thing... Just because of all these things there's no reason we should ignore that he still had a 'dream' and as a result of this dream he implicated Ryan. That's some real powerful stuff.

Doh! Of course! Dreams and what people imagine in their minds are far more credible than DNA, fingerprints, credible witnesses, and correct knowledge of crime details! What was I thinking?

 

[LondonJohn]

I also could find nothing on Missouri having a certificate of innocence even available. So much for the "merely vacated" but not having a cert of innocence innuendo. Sheesh.

I have to say I find this "certificate of innocence" thing to be a rather disgusting act on the part of those US states that use/require them in respect of exonerated convicts. And that's because NOBODY should ever need to prove his/her innocence - and indeed it's often impossible for a factually-innocent person to prove his/her innocence.

The simple fact is that if the state accepts that the person should not have been convicted of the crime, then the state also must accept the unbroken presumption of innocence of that person. And the state should act as if the person had been acquitted in court (and obviously not imprisoned from the point of the end of the trial). Frankly, it doesn't even matter whether the person was factually innocent or whether the person actually did commit the crime but there was not proof BARD of guilt: the criminal justice system in modern liberal democracies puts the entire burden of proof on the state, and a private citizen must safely be found guilty BARD before being convicted.

And to bring things back to the case at hand here: not only did the Marasca SC panel not have the task/remit to declare Knox or Sollecito "innocent" - neither Knox nor Sollecito themselves have any obligation to prove themselves "innocent". If they were together alone in Sollecito's apartment all the evening/night of the murder with their phones either switched off or out of signal range and not online - and I think that's an entirely feasible and reasonable proposition - then almost by definition they will never be able to PROVE they didn't participate in the Kercher murder. Nor, I repeat, should they have to or need to.

 

[Stacyhs]

I have to say I find this "certificate of innocence" thing to be a rather disgusting act on the part of those US states that use/require them in respect of exonerated convicts. And that's because NOBODY should ever need to prove his/her innocence - and indeed it's often impossible for a factually-innocent person to prove his/her innocence.

The simple fact is that if the state accepts that the person should not have been convicted of the crime, then the state also must accept the unbroken presumption of innocence of that person. And the state should act as if the person had been acquitted in court (and obviously not imprisoned from the point of the end of the trial). Frankly, it doesn't even matter whether the person was factually innocent or whether the person actually did commit the crime but there was not proof BARD of guilt: the criminal justice system in modern liberal democracies puts the entire burden of proof on the state, and a private citizen must safely be found guilty BARD before being convicted.

And to bring things back to the case at hand here: not only did the Marasca SC panel not have the task/remit to declare Knox or Sollecito "innocent" - neither Knox nor Sollecito themselves have any obligation to prove themselves "innocent". If they were together alone in Sollecito's apartment all the evening/night of the murder with their phones either switched off or out of signal range and not online - and I think that's an entirely feasible and reasonable proposition - then almost by definition they will never be able to PROVE they didn't participate in the Kercher murder. Nor, I repeat, should they have to or need to.

I agree.
While everyone is entitled to their opinion about whether Knox, Sollecito, or anyone else is guilty of a crime, to continue to publicly denigrate, insult, smear their reputations, and wage a campaign (as TJMK does) against them is despicable. It's nothing but a hate fueled, sick obsession.

 

[Numbers]

I have to say I find this "certificate of innocence" thing to be a rather disgusting act on the part of those US states that use/require them in respect of exonerated convicts. And that's because NOBODY should ever need to prove his/her innocence - and indeed it's often impossible for a factually-innocent person to prove his/her innocence.

The simple fact is that if the state accepts that the person should not have been convicted of the crime, then the state also must accept the unbroken presumption of innocence of that person. And the state should act as if the person had been acquitted in court (and obviously not imprisoned from the point of the end of the trial). Frankly, it doesn't even matter whether the person was factually innocent or whether the person actually did commit the crime but there was not proof BARD of guilt: the criminal justice system in modern liberal democracies puts the entire burden of proof on the state, and a private citizen must safely be found guilty BARD before being convicted.

And to bring things back to the case at hand here: not only did the Marasca SC panel not have the task/remit to declare Knox or Sollecito "innocent" - neither Knox nor Sollecito themselves have any obligation to prove themselves "innocent". If they were together alone in Sollecito's apartment all the evening/night of the murder with their phones either switched off or out of signal range and not online - and I think that's an entirely feasible and reasonable proposition - then almost by definition they will never be able to PROVE they didn't participate in the Kercher murder. Nor, I repeat, should they have to or need to.

Some states use the "certificate of innocence" as a way of expunging a criminal record. Why that wouldn't happen automatically when charges are dropped, I don't know.

Here's some information from a law office in the state of Indiana on that state's certificate:

A Certificate of Actual Innocence is the utmost and highest form of criminal record expungement. Not only does it lawfully seals a conviction or arrest from a person’s criminal record, it recognizes that the person was innocent of the crime to begin with and should not have been arrested in the first place. It conceals a past criminal mark on a person’s record, while stating that the criminal mark should never have existed at all.

These certificates are awarded to those who were arrested for charges they did not commit, and whose charges were later dropped. These individuals can choose to have this particular arrest sealed permanently on their personal record and legally indicated that it should never have occurred to begin with. For those arrested and charged with a crime they were found guilty of, criminal record expungement may be possible, but a certificate of innocence is not.
....

Source: http://www.expungecriminalrecordindiana.com/blog/what-is-a-certificate-of-actual-innocence/

 

[Bill Williams]

Some states use the "certificate of innocence" as a way of expunging a criminal record. Why that wouldn't happen automatically when charges are dropped, I don't know.

One theory of their use is when a criminal records check is required for a job or volunteer position. Some CRC's also give data on arrests or appearances in court. Even a wrongful arrest would disqualify an applicant in the eye of some employers, who'd have too many other applicants to bother drilling down on the particulars of a check which came back hot.

Certificates of innocence would only have marginal impact anyway.

 

[Numbers]

One theory of their use is when a criminal records check is required for a job or volunteer position. Some CRC's also give data on arrests or appearances in court. Even a wrongful arrest would disqualify an applicant in the eye of some employers, who'd have too many other applicants to bother drilling down on the particulars of a check which came back hot.

Certificates of innocence would only have marginal impact anyway.

I don't know how many US states issue "certificates of innocence" or "certificates of actual innocence". However, I have found that they are available in the State of Illinois and are described under Illinois law (Illinois Compiled Statutes 735 ILCS 5/2-702).

According to the Illinois law, the certificate of innocence was instituted to provide an avenue to assure that a person who had been wrongfully convicted would not need to apply for a pardon to have the record of his conviction expunged. Apparently that was the former Illinois law.

Here's an excerpt (about 1/3 of the text):

(735 ILCS 5/2-702)
Sec. 2-702. Petition for a certificate of innocence that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated.
(a) The General Assembly finds and declares that innocent persons who have been wrongly convicted of crimes in Illinois and subsequently imprisoned have been frustrated in seeking legal redress due to a variety of substantive and technical obstacles in the law and that such persons should have an available avenue to obtain a finding of innocence so that they may obtain relief through a petition in the Court of Claims. The General Assembly further finds misleading the current legal nomenclature which compels an innocent person to seek a pardon for being wrongfully incarcerated. It is the intent of the General Assembly that the court, in exercising its discretion as permitted by law regarding the weight and admissibility of evidence submitted pursuant to this Section, shall, in the interest of justice, give due consideration to difficulties of proof caused by the passage of time, the death or unavailability of witnesses, the destruction of evidence or other factors not caused by such persons or those acting on their behalf.
(b) Any person convicted and subsequently imprisoned for one or more felonies by the State of Illinois which he or she did not commit may, under the conditions hereinafter provided, file a petition for certificate of innocence in the circuit court of the county in which the person was convicted. The petition shall request a certificate of innocence finding that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated.
(c) In order to present the claim for certificate of innocence of an unjust conviction and imprisonment, the petitioner must attach to his or her petition documentation demonstrating that:
(1) he or she has been convicted of one or more
felonies by the State of Illinois and subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and has served all or any part of the sentence; and
(2) his or her judgment of conviction was reversed or
vacated, and the indictment or information dismissed or, if a new trial was ordered, either he or she was found not guilty at the new trial or he or she was not retried and the indictment or information dismissed; or the statute, or application thereof, on which the indictment or information was based violated the Constitution of the United States or the State of Illinois; and
(3) his or her claim is not time barred by the
provisions of subsection (i) of this Section.
....

Source: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=073500050K2-702

 

[Numbers]

I don't know how many US states issue "certificates of innocence" or "certificates of actual innocence". However, I have found that they are available in the State of Illinois and are described under Illinois law (Illinois Compiled Statutes 735 ILCS 5/2-702).

According to the Illinois law, the certificate of innocence was instituted to provide an avenue to assure that a person who had been wrongfully convicted would not need to apply for a pardon to have the record of his conviction expunged. Apparently that was the former Illinois law.

Here's an excerpt (about 1/3 of the text):

(735 ILCS 5/2-702)
Sec. 2-702. Petition for a certificate of innocence that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated.
(a) The General Assembly finds and declares that innocent persons who have been wrongly convicted of crimes in Illinois and subsequently imprisoned have been frustrated in seeking legal redress due to a variety of substantive and technical obstacles in the law and that such persons should have an available avenue to obtain a finding of innocence so that they may obtain relief through a petition in the Court of Claims. The General Assembly further finds misleading the current legal nomenclature which compels an innocent person to seek a pardon for being wrongfully incarcerated. It is the intent of the General Assembly that the court, in exercising its discretion as permitted by law regarding the weight and admissibility of evidence submitted pursuant to this Section, shall, in the interest of justice, give due consideration to difficulties of proof caused by the passage of time, the death or unavailability of witnesses, the destruction of evidence or other factors not caused by such persons or those acting on their behalf.
(b) Any person convicted and subsequently imprisoned for one or more felonies by the State of Illinois which he or she did not commit may, under the conditions hereinafter provided, file a petition for certificate of innocence in the circuit court of the county in which the person was convicted. The petition shall request a certificate of innocence finding that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated.
(c) In order to present the claim for certificate of innocence of an unjust conviction and imprisonment, the petitioner must attach to his or her petition documentation demonstrating that:
(1) he or she has been convicted of one or more
felonies by the State of Illinois and subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and has served all or any part of the sentence; and
(2) his or her judgment of conviction was reversed or
vacated, and the indictment or information dismissed or, if a new trial was ordered, either he or she was found not guilty at the new trial or he or she was not retried and the indictment or information dismissed; or the statute, or application thereof, on which the indictment or information was based violated the Constitution of the United States or the State of Illinois; and
(3) his or her claim is not time barred by the
provisions of subsection (i) of this Section.
....

Source: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=073500050K2-702

In the State of New York, there is apparently no such certificate of innocence. Criminal records are never expunged in New York, but apparently are "sealed" (not open to the public) in the case of a wrongful conviction.

Source: https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com...ng-your-criminal-record-in-new-york-state.htm

The point is, however, that the comment by the guilter, in a different forum, that Ryan Ferguson's case was only vacated and that he lacked a certificate of innocence, thus indicating some inferior status of exoneration, makes absolutely no sense. It's a false statement by that guilter.

 

[Vixen]

I have to say I find this "certificate of innocence" thing to be a rather disgusting act on the part of those US states that use/require them in respect of exonerated convicts. And that's because NOBODY should ever need to prove his/her innocence - and indeed it's often impossible for a factually-innocent person to prove his/her innocence.

The simple fact is that if the state accepts that the person should not have been convicted of the crime, then the state also must accept the unbroken presumption of innocence of that person. And the state should act as if the person had been acquitted in court (and obviously not imprisoned from the point of the end of the trial). Frankly, it doesn't even matter whether the person was factually innocent or whether the person actually did commit the crime but there was not proof BARD of guilt: the criminal justice system in modern liberal democracies puts the entire burden of proof on the state, and a private citizen must safely be found guilty BARD before being convicted.

And to bring things back to the case at hand here: not only did the Marasca SC panel not have the task/remit to declare Knox or Sollecito "innocent" - neither Knox nor Sollecito themselves have any obligation to prove themselves "innocent". If they were together alone in Sollecito's apartment all the evening/night of the murder with their phones either switched off or out of signal range and not online - and I think that's an entirely feasible and reasonable proposition - then almost by definition they will never be able to PROVE they didn't participate in the Kercher murder. Nor, I repeat, should they have to or need to.

The problem is the US' harsh system, where not so long ago children could be jailed for life without parole and 'three strikes' for relatively minor crimes attract life. This gives rise to courts freeing such prisoners more out of compassion than anything else.

For example, Sunny Jacobs did supply a gun to a felon who did shoot dead two policemen (whether it was her husband or her friend). The sentence of death by electric chair was perceived as harsh, as her husband fried, and the system being inherently sexist probably thought that he and his chum being male and felons were more culpable than their moll. She was commuted to life and then freed. But she is not innocent. She did do it, and two young policemen lost their lives.


This harsh sentencing isn't true of Europe, as evidenced by Rudy Guede being freed after just twelve years. Even Knox and Raff could be heading for parole by now had they served their sentence.


It is not anything to do with 'proving innocence'. The vast majority of vacated convictions are to do with technicalities (legal loopholes, lapses in police procedure) not because there is any exonerating evidence, such as someone else's DNA.

It is no coinicidence that behind Ferguson is the crafty 'death bed confessions extractor' Kathleen Zellner, who knows how to get key witnesses to retract their witness statements or get others to 'confess' in their place.

 

[Vixen]

Here's today's laugher from TJMK courtesy of, um, "Krissy". This one shows a remarkable level of cluelessness, even by "Krissy" standards. RE: Ryan Ferguson:

$11m is not much compared to what he should have got if it was a genuine finding of innocence. Ferguson’s case was merely ‘vacated’. He has no certificate of innocence, and his co-defendant remains in jail.

$11m is more to do with technical issues rather than recompense for wrongful time served (surely that would be worth >$55K).

I don’t see Ferguson as a good example of a wrongful conviction.

Let's see now....11 million dollars is "not much"? On what planet? Maybe I'm being forgetful here but I don't recall too many exonerated(yes, Krissy) individuals getting more than that. Even the Central Park 5 got "only" about $7M each. And I dare say that 11 million dollars had one hell of a lot more "to do" than with mere "technical issues".

No, when you compare it to Steven Avery's $55m claim.

AIUI Ferguson has only had $2.5m so far. I expect Zellner has lined her pockets with half of that.

 

[bagels]

It is not anything to do with 'proving innocence'. The vast majority of vacated convictions are to do with technicalities (legal loopholes, lapses in police procedure) not because there is any exonerating evidence, such as someone else's DNA.

Lol this is why I love the PGP. They genuinely can't comprehend their own arguments.

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem is the US' harsh system, where not so long ago children could be jailed for life without parole and 'three strikes' for relatively minor crimes attract life. This gives rise to courts freeing such prisoners more out of compassion than anything else.

For example, Sunny Jacobs did supply a gun to a felon who did shoot dead two policemen (whether it was her husband or her friend). The sentence of death by electric chair was perceived as harsh, as her husband fried, and the system being inherently sexist probably thought that he and his chum being male and felons were more culpable than their moll. She was commuted to life and then freed. But she is not innocent. She did do it, and two young policemen lost their lives.


This harsh sentencing isn't true of Europe, as evidenced by Rudy Guede being freed after just twelve years. Even Knox and Raff could be heading for parole by now had they served their sentence.


It is not anything to do with 'proving innocence'. The vast majority of vacated convictions are to do with technicalities (legal loopholes, lapses in police procedure) not because there is any exonerating evidence, such as someone else's DNA.

It is no coinicidence that behind Ferguson is the crafty 'death bed confessions extractor' Kathleen Zellner, who knows how to get key witnesses to retract their witness statements or get others to 'confess' in their place.

Ermmmm..... you're still labouring under a huge dose of misunderstanding/misrepresentation/ignorance about criminal appeals. Simply put: if someone has his/her conviction overturned on appeal, it effectively means that the appeal court has determined that if the case was put before a lower court with all the mistakes corrected, omissions included, falsification excluded, etc..... then any properly-constituted court would acquit.

I know this nonsense about "getting off on a technicality" creates some sort of self-reinforcing warm glow to law-and-order fanatics, but there's no such thing in reality. Courts of appeal do not quash convictions on "technicalities".

If indeed there were certain errors (for example, misdirection of a jury), then an appeal court sends the case back to be retried. But if an appeal court quashes a conviction, then without exception the appeal court will have determined that the person never should have been convicted, and never could be convicted by any other lower court. That's not a "technicality".

Oh and lastly, appeal courts are well known to err strongly on the side of refusing appeals (so as to try to preserve the sanctity of the system). So for a court of appeal to go so far as to quash a conviction, it's a racing certainty that the court will have concluded that the evidence pointing to rightful acquittal was extremely significant.

 

[bagels]

I'm still waiting for the Florence police in the Ashley Olsen murder case to find her British friend Amy's DNA somewhere benign in the apartment and question her why she couldn't remember to the minute when she had dinner and then throw her in the slammer for the murder despite the case being solved since the killer was found thanks in part to

evidence, such as someone else's DNA.

It would be a mirror-image of the Knox case (American victim, British wrongfully convicted friend). But unfortunately in that case the police prosecuted the male killer who left all the evidence without incident and without contemplating if the girl friend was the secret mastermind despite having no connection with the actual killer, surprisingly enough.

Strangely no PGP has ever wondered if Amy might be secretly guilty, despite the logic in that case being their own. It's almost like they don't even buy their own evidentiary reasoning. Knox is guilty for one reason to them, they don't like her.

 

[Vixen]

I'm still waiting for the Florence police in the Ashley Olsen murder case to find her British friend Amy's DNA somewhere benign in the apartment and question her why she couldn't remember to the minute when she had dinner and then throw her in the slammer for the murder despite the case being solved since the killer was found thanks in part to



It would be a mirror-image of the Knox case (American victim, British wrongfully convicted friend). But unfortunately in that case the police prosecuted the male killer who left all the evidence without incident and without contemplating if the girl friend was the secret mastermind despite having no connection with the actual killer, surprisingly enough.

Strangely no PGP has ever wondered if Amy might be secretly guilty, despite the logic in that case being their own. It's almost like they don't even buy their own evidentiary reasoning. Knox is guilty for one reason to them, they don't like her.

In addition, the head of police who solved the Olsen case within days was...Wassisname again, whom PIP's claim 'rushes to conclusions'.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

No, when you compare it to Steven Avery's $55m claim.

AIUI Ferguson has only had $2.5m so far. I expect Zellner has lined her pockets with half of that.

What an idiotic comment. As if an actual award of 11 million dollars should be compared to a mere claim...for any amount.

And I couldn't possibly care less regarding your understanding or expectations about Ferguson.