Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[HumanityBlues]

What country is it that you live in where this is the case? We have established that it isn't the U.S.

@ Fulcanelli.

Do you know if this is a valid interpretation of the law in Italy? It isn't here. Guilty is guilty. Until such time as an appeals court actually overturns a verdict the convicted defendant isn't 'a little bit' guilty, or 'almost' guilty or 'purty near just about' guilty. Even when an appeal returns a verdict to the originating court for review the defendant is still viewed as "convicted". They are deserving of all of the rights and privileges available to the "guilty", and exactly none of those extended only to the "innocent", or even the "accused".

(Although some may argue that they acquire rights unavailable to the latter two, but that is a different discussion. )

In Italy you are still presumed innocent until all appeals have been exhausted (I think that even includes the Supreme Court). There is also no such thing as plea bargaining as we have in the United States, which is one of the reasons cases are expedited much more slowly in Italy (also Italy has no right to speedy trial). I believe, and someone can correct me, that all 3 suspects would be out of jail right now until their final verdict if the court hadn't had deemed them flight risks.

 

[stilicho]

That's, apparently, perfectly normal. Must be an Italian thing *shrug*

In all fairness to nicole, she ran "Playful Pervert" Raffaele up the flagpole to see who would salute. Nobody has and I expect this is the last we'll have heard of it.

 

[piktor]

It just dawned on me how ridiculous the whole "playful perv" scenario is.
Consider how much coincidence is needed to ensure a) that DNA from Raffaele rubs off when he smells the bra (or whatever he is supposed to have done) b) the DNA does not get removed by washing or other means and c) Meredith chooses to wear it on the night she gets murdered and the bra clasp is removed.
Does that really seem likely?

Its the "Too Many Odd Things Happening All At The Same Time" theory.

Works only if you're innocent and the judges think you are innocent. In the real world, sounds like you're toast.

 

[stilicho]

In Italy you are still presumed innocent until all appeals have been exhausted (I think that even includes the Supreme Court). There is also no such thing as plea bargaining as we have in the United States, which is one of the reason cases are expedited much more slowly in Italy (also Italy has no right to speedy trial). I believe, and someone can correct me, that all 3 suspects would be out of jail right now until their final verdict if the court hadn't had deemed them flight risks.

Here's a bit of helpful information: http://italy.usembassy.gov/acs/emergency/emergency-arrest.asp.

You might be thinking of release during investigation but that's virtually impossible anywhere in the world if the crime is murder. RS and AK were not detained for a few days following Meredith's murder as the authorities watched and listened.

 

[piktor]

The prosecution didn't ask for 30 years, they asked for life. However, the prosecution never have argued premeditation.

Isn't "life" a maximum of 30 years in Italy?

 

[quadraginta]

Unlurking for a moment - I have read that in lesser crimes than this, the accused will not go to jail after being found guilty at trial until all appeals have been exhausted.

ETA: Found this, on a different case (to do with drug smuggling and extradition):


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/caldar-1.htm

Thank you for that.

I wonder what circumstances lead to incarceration after the trial verdict in cases such as this one as opposed to "lesser crimes". Is it because it was a violent crime? I could see Knox being considered a flight risk, but not so much Sollecito, except perhaps by association.

I suppose the fact that they were kept incarcerated prior to the trial is indicative of something.

 

[piktor]

HumanityBlues @ 3941:

"also Italy has no right to speedy trial"

Guede got a "fast track" trial and was found guilty in a few weeks by judge Micheli.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Here's a bit of helpful information: http://italy.usembassy.gov/acs/emergency/emergency-arrest.asp.

You might be thinking of release during investigation but that's virtually impossible anywhere in the world if the crime is murder. RS and AK were not detained for a few days following Meredith's murder as the authorities watched and listened.

By "out of jail" I mean house arrest, and I do believe even those charged with murder can get house arrest. Even in the U.S. you can be let out on bail if you're charged of murder; mind you, it's not likely you're going to get any bail at all, but it happens.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Secondary transfer

The DNA on the clasp could not have possibly been the result of contamination. The quantity and quality of the Sollecito DNA on the clasp had to come directly from Sollecito himself. Police scientists identified it as coming from finger sweat as the most likely source for it to adhere and because of the ammount of the sample gathered. It also was good quality DNA, prosecutor Comodi said.

Piktor,

I think that both secondary transfer and contamination need to be examined as possibilities. There are a number of questions I have. First, if the greater quantity of Mr. Sollecito’s DNA over the unknown DNA indicates a different mechanism of deposit, then why doesn’t the same logic hold for Ms. Kercher’s DNA, which is greater in quantity over Mr. Sollecito’s by about the same ratio? Second, if the unknown DNA depositors are male, as indicated in the article in The Independent, then how could this be secondary transfer, the other flatmates being female? The most serious question I have is that I have never heard anyone make the claim that a certain amount of DNA rules out contamination, except from the prosecution in this case. I have quoted from experts who say the opposite. What expert opinion (primary literature, textbook, or other) is the support for your position?

 

[HumanityBlues]

HumanityBlues @ 3941:

"also Italy has no right to speedy trial"

Guede got a "fast track" trial and was found guilty in a few weeks by judge Micheli.

A "fast track" trial is not the same as the right to speedy trial. Italy does not have a right to speedy trial. You have an option for a fast track trial. There's a difference. I'm not saying one is better than the other.

 

[stilicho]

In Italy you are still presumed innocent until all appeals have been exhausted (I think that even includes the Supreme Court). There is also no such thing as plea bargaining as we have in the United States, which is one of the reasons cases are expedited much more slowly in Italy (also Italy has no right to speedy trial). I believe, and someone can correct me, that all 3 suspects would be out of jail right now until their final verdict if the court hadn't had deemed them flight risks.

Actually, here you go. This is probably a better explanation for the three suspects being held until trial: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4566125&page=1. I am looking for an example where a sexual assault/murder suspect was ever allowed bail until their trial. I am sure there is one, somewhere, but I don't know where it could be.

I would hate to be the judge who set bail when the stakes are that high.

 

[quadraginta]

In Italy you are still presumed innocent until all appeals have been exhausted (I think that even includes the Supreme Court). There is also no such thing as plea bargaining as we have in the United States, which is one of the reasons cases are expedited much more slowly in Italy (also Italy has no right to speedy trial). I believe, and someone can correct me, that all 3 suspects would be out of jail right now until their final verdict if the court hadn't had deemed them flight risks.

Thanks to you, as well.

A remarkably enlightened approach for such a primitive, benighted legal system.
[/sarcasm]

This adds even more weight to my belief that Knox should count herself fortunate she was tried in Italy, instead of the U.S.

 

[piktor]

Thank you for that.

I wonder what circumstances lead to incarceration after the trial verdict in cases such as this one as opposed to "lesser crimes". Is it because it was a violent crime? I could see Knox being considered a flight risk, but not so much Sollecito, except perhaps by association.

I suppose the fact that they were kept incarcerated prior to the trial is indicative of something.

Italian law allows incarceration for up to a year prior to trial for certain crimes .

Knox went to several judges for a granting of bail and all judges denied bail for her.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Here's a bit of helpful information: http://italy.usembassy.gov/acs/emergency/emergency-arrest.asp.

You might be thinking of release during investigation but that's virtually impossible anywhere in the world if the crime is murder. RS and AK were not detained for a few days following Meredith's murder as the authorities watched and listened.

The basics is that there is no right to bail in the US, but a right against excessive bail. If it is a capitol offense, meaning the death penalty can be applied, your odds are almost zilch but it can happen. There will be variances in the rule depending on whether it's a state charge or a federal charge (except for excessive bail because its constitutional).

Here are some examples: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/07/bart.officer.bail/index.html
http://cbs11tv.com/local/Colette.Reyes.Arthur.2.1358220.html
http://www.king5.com/news/local/MurderSuspectMayBail-78474807.html
http://cbs5.com/crime/angel.villalona.giants.2.1302437.html

It'll cost you a lot of money obviously.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What country is it that you live in where this is the case? We have established that it isn't the U.S.

@ Fulcanelli.

Do you know if this is a valid interpretation of the law in Italy? It isn't here. Guilty is guilty. Until such time as an appeals court actually overturns a verdict the convicted defendant isn't 'a little bit' guilty, or 'almost' guilty or 'purty near just about' guilty. Even when an appeal returns a verdict to the originating court for review the defendant is still viewed as "convicted". They are deserving of all of the rights and privileges available to the "guilty", and exactly none of those extended only to the "innocent", or even the "accused".

(Although some may argue that they acquire rights unavailable to the latter two, but that is a different discussion. )

Well, it's the other way around in Italy. One is not considered 'legally' guilty until upheld as such in the third and final degree. This is why most, even those found guilty of murder in their first degree, remain free, perhaps under house arrest, or with lesser restrictions (for up to several years) until pronounced guilty in their third degree trial. Technically, Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy are not serving their 'sentence' right now, legally they are in jail because they are accused of murder with sexual violence (in the Italian system, the sexual element means there is a danger they may re-offend and therefore are a danger to the public) and because they have been deemed flight risks. So, their being in jail as they await completion of the appeals is the exception rather then the rule. Naturally, if guilt is confirmed in the third degree, time served already will be deducted off of their sentence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Italian law allows incarceration for up to a year prior to trial for certain crimes .

Knox went to several judges for a granting of bail and all judges denied bail for her.

It can even possibly be two. At the end of the first year, if more time is required to investigate, the prosecutor can apply to the court for an extra year, although he'd need to justify it. In reality this happens very rarely and if it does, often the suspect is freed while awaiting trial. The exceptions are those accused of Mafia crimes, terrorism and sexually aggravated murder, or those demonstrated to be flight risks.

 

[stilicho]

It'll cost you a lot of money obviously.

Wow. Did you read the Comments sections on a few of those?

Again, imagine being the judge who accepts those arrangements. I would bet the bondsman is standing right outside the perp's house, too. Locked 'n' loaded.

Crazy, absolutely crazy.

 

[piktor]

Piktor,

I think that both secondary transfer and contamination need to be examined as possibilities. There are a number of questions I have. First, if the greater quantity of Mr. Sollecito’s DNA over the unknown DNA indicates a different mechanism of deposit, then why doesn’t the same logic hold for Ms. Kercher’s DNA, which is greater in quantity over Mr. Sollecito’s by about the same ratio? Second, if the unknown DNA depositors are male, as indicated in the article in The Independent, then how could this be secondary transfer, the other flatmates being female? The most serious question I have is that I have never heard anyone make the claim that a certain amount of DNA rules out contamination, except from the prosecution in this case. I have quoted from experts who say the opposite. What expert opinion (primary literature, textbook, or other) is the support for your position?

My heartfelt position is that the bra clasp discussion is similar to Medieval debates about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin.

I personally would discard the bra clasp evidence and the knife DNA evidence altogether. To me, they are both sufficiently suspect as to be useless and unserious.

I have no idea what the Sollecito Y chromosome found on the clasp means but it is surely not happy news for Sollecito.

These two pieces of evidence will really be discussed in depth if the Knox/Sollecito 'Sentenza' mentions them as elements pointing to guilt.

If the knife and bra clasp are not mentioned as elements of the guilty verdict I would not mention them ever again. They do not work for me.

 

[Fulcanelli]

A "fast track" trial is not the same as the right to speedy trial. Italy does not have a right to speedy trial. You have an option for a fast track trial. There's a difference. I'm not saying one is better than the other.

Normally, the fast track trial is opted for by those who wish to plead guilty (or realise the evidence against them is so strong a conviction is pretty much a guarantee). It's very rare someone pleading innocent opts for the fast track route. Guede did so out of desperation. It was the only way he could be tried separately to the other two and he and his lawyers knew the other teams would attempt to blame everything on him. Therefore, the fast track route meant he would only have to take on the prosecution and possibly the team for the victims. A full trial would have meant he'd have to take on 'everybody'. In a sense it paid off, since the way the verdict went against the others he'd have certainly been found guilty had he opted for the full trial and he wouldn't have got the 1/3 discount. Hence, he's facing 16 years instead of 24.

 

[piktor]

A "fast track" trial is not the same as the right to speedy trial. Italy does not have a right to speedy trial. You have an option for a fast track trial. There's a difference. I'm not saying one is better than the other.

I see what you mean.

The "right to a speedy trial" is a constitutional right to be processed by the Court system sooner rather than later.

The U.S. does have trials with no jury which are similar to the fast track trials in Italy.