The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Stacyhs]

Four years in prison.

Nah...she was sentenced to 26 years by Massei. She only got out after 4 years because Hellmann overturned Massei's ridiculous conviction.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I would argue that that means the penalty is four years, because it (among other factors) led to a clearly false conviction that was inevitably going to be overturned, if necessary by the ECHR had all else failed. I understand your point, too, though.

 

[Stacyhs]

I would argue that that means the penalty is four years, because it (among other factors) led to a clearly false conviction that was inevitably going to be overturned, if necessary by the ECHR had all else failed. I understand your point, too, though.

Ah....but if Hellmann had not recognized the illogical conviction of Massei (as, apparently, Chieffi and Nencini didn't) she would have spent more than 4 years in prison.

 

[TomG]

Ah....but if Hellmann had not recognized the illogical conviction of Massei (as, apparently, Chieffi and Nencini didn't) she would have spent more than 4 years in prison.

I thought that Hellman was a brave man. He put his reputation on the line to get K&S out of jail and home to their families as a priority, damn the torpedoes. H/Z is the most authentic of all the motivations bar the calunnia that he should have banjaxed with the murder charge.

Hoots

 

[Bill Williams]

I thought that Hellman was a brave man. He put his reputation on the line to get K&S out of jail and home to their families as a priority, damn the torpedoes. H/Z is the most authentic of all the motivations bar the calunnia that he should have banjaxed with the murder charge.

Hoots

All Hellmann/Zanetti did was follow the applicable law, the law in how to evaluate evidence. He applied better reasoning to defence requests, the main one being to reverse Massei's ruling that an independent review of Stefanoni's DNA evidence was not needed.

Note hat Massei's reasoning about that had been - that at best the independent review would come back with an analysis favourable to the defence, making it one for, one against. He had reasoned it would still leave him, as the judge, with the judicial responsibility to break the tie.

That had been completely bogus reasoning. Instead, an independent review of Stefanoni's work revealed it to be at best crap, and at worst fraudulent.

"Freeing" the pair had been secondary. It had been the evidence (or lack of same) which had freed the pair.

 

[Planigale]

All Hellmann/Zanetti did was follow the applicable law, the law in how to evaluate evidence. He applied better reasoning to defence requests, the main one being to reverse Massei's ruling that an independent review of Stefanoni's DNA evidence was not needed.

Note hat Massei's reasoning about that had been - that at best the independent review would come back with an analysis favourable to the defence, making it one for, one against. He had reasoned it would still leave him, as the judge, with the judicial responsibility to break the tie.
That had been completely bogus reasoning. Instead, an independent review of Stefanoni's work revealed it to be at best crap, and at worst fraudulent.

"Freeing" the pair had been secondary. It had been the evidence (or lack of same) which had freed the pair.

I think there was a difference in jurisprudential approach between Massei and Helman. Massei followed a more 'traditional' inquisitorial approach, an approach that was supposed to have been replaced by the adversarial system. So we see Massei constructing a theory of the crime not presented by the prosecution, something that should not occur in an adversarial system. If the independent review threw doubt on the prosecution forensics then under ECHR case law any dubiety has to fall in favour of the defence. It should never have been the case that the judge would have to choose between two equally valid views because in that situation the law is that the the judge chooses the 'innocent' option.

Helman adopted a strictly adversarial approach, there was no reconstruction of the case, no change in the motivation from what the prosecution had presented, he just judged the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt, a view upheld by the supreme court.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think there was a difference in jurisprudential approach between Massei and Helman. Massei followed a more 'traditional' inquisitorial approach, an approach that was supposed to have been replaced by the adversarial system. So we see Massei constructing a theory of the crime not presented by the prosecution, something that should not occur in an adversarial system. If the independent review threw doubt on the prosecution forensics then under ECHR case law any dubiety has to fall in favour of the defence. It should never have been the case that the judge would have to choose between two equally valid views because in that situation the law is that the the judge chooses the 'innocent' option.

Helman adopted a strictly adversarial approach, there was no reconstruction of the case, no change in the motivation from what the prosecution had presented, he just judged the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt, a view upheld by the supreme court.

Exactly. The ONLY test that each of the courts in this sorry case was obliged to apply was whether there was sufficient (reliable, credible) evidence to prove guilt BARD on each of the charges.

But that also brings us back to this pathetic (and pathetically incorrect) talking point among the pro-guilt lobby - borne either of ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead - which misrepresents this issue along the lines of "Well the Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence of guilt, which obviously implies that there was lots of evidence of guilt, but just not quite sufficient evidence to prove guilt BARD". And this misrepresentation sits alongside its companion misrepresentation that the acquittals are equivalent to the Scottish "not proven" verdict.

And it appears to be a pointless and fruitless task to demonstrate to pro-guilt commentators - using actual facts and evidence of course - just exactly why both of these things are neither true nor correct......

 

[Welshman]

All Hellmann/Zanetti did was follow the applicable law, the law in how to evaluate evidence. He applied better reasoning to defence requests, the main one being to reverse Massei's ruling that an independent review of Stefanoni's DNA evidence was not needed.

Note hat Massei's reasoning about that had been - that at best the independent review would come back with an analysis favourable to the defence, making it one for, one against. He had reasoned it would still leave him, as the judge, with the judicial responsibility to break the tie.

That had been completely bogus reasoning. Instead, an independent review of Stefanoni's work revealed it to be at best crap, and at worst fraudulent.

"Freeing" the pair had been secondary. It had been the evidence (or lack of same) which had freed the pair.

If Amanda or Raffaele had used the knife to stab Meredith, why did they want independent experts to examine the knife and had no objection to the knife being opened.

 

[Stacyhs]

If Amanda or Raffaele had used the knife to stab Meredith, why did they want independent experts to examine the knife and had no objection to the knife being opened.

Why wouldn't they have gotten rid of the 'murder weapon' in the first place? According to the PGP, it's because they thought the landlord would find it suspicious that it was missing. Which is, of course, ludicrous. All they had to do was say it broke and replace it. Instead, they put the 'murder weapon' back in the kitchen drawer. Uh huh. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......

 

[Planigale]

Why wouldn't they have gotten rid of the 'murder weapon' in the first place? According to the PGP, it's because they thought the landlord would find it suspicious that it was missing. Which is, of course, ludicrous. All they had to do was say it broke and replace it. Instead, they put the 'murder weapon' back in the kitchen drawer. Uh huh. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......

Given the number of rented places I have stayed in all the inventory list would say was something like large kitchen knife -1. No one leaves a set of matching sabatier knives in a rented flat. So easy to replace.

(Except of course Knox did have a set of her own matching knives under her bed none of which seem to have been examined - perhaps because they were still cellophane wrapped? Also presumably knives in Knox's kitchen, none of which were tested. But the knife that left the bloody imprint certainly was disposed of along with Guede's bloody shoes and clothes which he has never said where he disposed of them. It has always been odd that just that single knife should have been chosen and tested especially when the officer who picked it admitted that he had no idea of the size or type of knife that might have been used.)

 

[Samson]

Given the number of rented places I have stayed in all the inventory list would say was something like large kitchen knife -1. No one leaves a set of matching sabatier knives in a rented flat. So easy to replace.

(Except of course Knox did have a set of her own matching knives under her bed none of which seem to have been examined - perhaps because they were still cellophane wrapped? Also presumably knives in Knox's kitchen, none of which were tested. But the knife that left the bloody imprint certainly was disposed of along with Guede's bloody shoes and clothes which he has never said where he disposed of them. It has always been odd that just that single knife should have been chosen and tested especially when the officer who picked it admitted that he had no idea of the size or type of knife that might have been used.)

Coincidence is a big thing in life.
Statistical clustering is a curious thing, so the knife he chose had starch in a miniscule crevice, quite inside a friendly circle of coincidence.

 

[abaddon]

Given the number of rented places I have stayed in all the inventory list would say was something like large kitchen knife -1. No one leaves a set of matching sabatier knives in a rented flat. So easy to replace.

(Except of course Knox did have a set of her own matching knives under her bed none of which seem to have been examined - perhaps because they were still cellophane wrapped? Also presumably knives in Knox's kitchen, none of which were tested. But the knife that left the bloody imprint certainly was disposed of along with Guede's bloody shoes and clothes which he has never said where he disposed of them. It has always been odd that just that single knife should have been chosen and tested especially when the officer who picked it admitted that he had no idea of the size or type of knife that might have been used.)

In my experience the inventory will say something like "Cutlery-assorted".

Nobody wastes the time enumerating every teaspoon. Well, unless they have OCD. Rented accomodation tends to have the ultimate patchwork quilt of cutlery. Hell, my own damn home has cutlery in daily use some of which is 100 years old.

 

[Vixen]

I think there was a difference in jurisprudential approach between Massei and Helman. Massei followed a more 'traditional' inquisitorial approach, an approach that was supposed to have been replaced by the adversarial system. So we see Massei constructing a theory of the crime not presented by the prosecution, something that should not occur in an adversarial system. If the independent review threw doubt on the prosecution forensics then under ECHR case law any dubiety has to fall in favour of the defence. It should never have been the case that the judge would have to choose between two equally valid views because in that situation the law is that the the judge chooses the 'innocent' option.

Helman adopted a strictly adversarial approach, there was no reconstruction of the case, no change in the motivation from what the prosecution had presented, he just judged the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt, a view upheld by the supreme court.

What arrant nonsense. Hellman was hopelessly in way above his head.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think the oddest claim by the police as to why they chose that knife, and only that knife, from the kitchen to test was because it looked "unnaturally clean". What? How does a kitchen knife look "unnaturally clean"? How does it differ from a "naturally clean" knife?

 

[Stacyhs]

What arrant nonsense. Hellman was hopelessly in way above his head.

And yet.......

Given the above-mentioned considerations, it is evident that a new trial would be useless, thus the verdict of annulment without a new trial, in accordance with Article 620 letter I) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, thus applying a sentence of not guilty which would also have been reached by any new referral judge, in accordance with the principles of law set out in this judgment.

(Marasca-Bruno)

You know, the judgment that Hellmann found. It was your beloved Massei and Nencini whose guilty verdicts should never have been found. And thus sayeth the Italian Court of Cassation.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

What arrant nonsense. Hellman was hopelessly in way above his head.

Vixen,
You believe Hellman was "hopelessly in way above his head". Do you also believe:

- The European Court of Human Rights was "hopelessly in way above [its] head"?
- The Italian Supreme Court was "hopelessly in way above [its] head"?
- Peter Gill, the founding father of forensic genetics was "hopelessly in way above his head"?
- Bruce Budowle was "hopelessly in way above his head"?
- John Douglas was "hopelessly in way above his head"?
- Professor Carla Vecchiotti was "hopelessly in way above her head"?
- Professor Stefano Conti was "hopelessly in way above his head"?
- Every independent DNA expert that examined the evidence and said the evidence was flawed and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent was "hopelessly in way above his/her head"?

You can just answer yes/no to each of the above. Thanks.

 

[Vixen]

What's the penalty for doing a cartwheel in a police station?

Pretty sick behaviour after stabbing your room mate in the neck and sexually assaulting her, eh?

I should think 26 years is a doddle compared to the likely death penalty or whole life sentence in your country.

 

[Vixen]

I think the oddest claim by the police as to why they chose that knife, and only that knife, from the kitchen to test was because it looked "unnaturally clean". What? How does a kitchen knife look "unnaturally clean"? How does it differ from a "naturally clean" knife?

This is why they are detectives and forensic scientists and you are not.

 

[Vixen]

And yet.......

(Marasca-Bruno)

You know, the judgment that Hellmann found. It was your beloved Massei and Nencini whose guilty verdicts should never have been found. And thus sayeth the Italian Court of Cassation.

As bent as a nine-dollar bill.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,
You believe Hellman was "hopelessly in way above his head". Do you also believe:

- The European Court of Human Rights was "hopelessly in way above [its] head"?
- The Italian Supreme Court was "hopelessly in way above [its] head"?
- Peter Gill, the founding father of forensic genetics was "hopelessly in way above his head"?
- Bruce Budowle was "hopelessly in way above his head"?
- John Douglas was "hopelessly in way above his head"?
- Professor Carla Vecchiotti was "hopelessly in way above her head"?
- Professor Stefano Conti was "hopelessly in way above his head"?
- Every independent DNA expert that examined the evidence and said the evidence was flawed and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent was "hopelessly in way above his/her head"?

You can just answer yes/no to each of the above. Thanks.

As bent as bent can be.