Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

It is also important to note that by saying it was not necessarily Sollecito and Knox that were involved the Supreme court has in effect, told the lower court that they have not yet proven the case against these two, regardless of who else the "real" accomplices may have been. If it gets to the supreme court with this still unproven then they are likely to dismiss the case.

I completely agree with your point. However, who else has been arrested, investigated and sent to trial, found guilty subject to their appeal apart from Amanda and Raffaele, as we say in the UK no one else is in the frame for Meredith’s murder; no other suspects have been mentioned by the defence other than Guede.

 

[RoseMontague]

I completely agree with your point. However, who else has been arrested, investigated and sent to trial, found guilty subject to their appeal apart from Amanda and Raffaele, as we say in the UK no one else is in the frame for Meredith’s murder; no other suspects have been mentioned by the defence other than Guede.

It makes no difference. The prosecution has to prove their case against these two. The defense does not have to prove it against these unknown others.

 

[LondonJohn]

As I have said elsewhere you are not in a position to state categorically that I am wrong until either defence teams continues with the lone wolf theory, simply this has not happened, by all means disagree, but let’s wait and see who is wrong!

No - I'm correct to say that you are wrong when you stated that Knox's/Sollecito's defence teams CANNOT claim the lone wolf scenario after the Supreme Court's ruling in Guede's case. Whether they actually do make this claim or not is moot. I'm arguing about a point of jurisprudence, not about the defence strategy. And I'm quite certain that the Supreme Court's ruling re. Guede absolutely does not affect any defence propositions in Knox's/Sollecito's appeals. As I mentioned before, look at the ToD discrepency between the two trials as a counter-example to disprove your position.

The Supreme Court can disagree with either lower courts, an example being Amanda’s “I was there” statement, that allegedly appears in Guede’s final appeal.

It is important to bear in mind that all the evidence from Guede’s trial, first appeal and final appeal can now be used as evidence by either defence or prosecution, so in that context how would you propose either defence team could argue that Guede did it on his own or that other undiscovered individuals are responsible, when the higher court has ruled that he did not act alone and no one else has been arrested and tried for Meredith murder other than Amanda and Raffaele.

Of course they can do so, in exactly the same way as the defence in Knox's/Sollecito's trial cannot claim that the ToD is earlier than 10.30pm simply because Guede's ruling said that was the case (of course, the ToD is earlier than 10.30, but Knox's/Sollecito's defence teams will have to demonstrate this from first principles, rathern than simply pointing to Guede's trial verdict).

 

[CoulsdonUK]

No - I'm correct to say that you are wrong when you stated that Knox's/Sollecito's defence teams CANNOT claim the lone wolf scenario after the Supreme Court's ruling in Guede's case. Whether they actually do make this claim or not is moot. I'm arguing about a point of jurisprudence, not about the defence strategy. And I'm quite certain that the Supreme Court's ruling re. Guede absolutely does not affect any defence propositions in Knox's/Sollecito's appeals. As I mentioned before, look at the ToD discrepency between the two trials as a counter-example to disprove your position.



Of course they can do so, in exactly the same way as the defence in Knox's/Sollecito's trial cannot claim that the ToD is earlier than 10.30pm simply because Guede's ruling said that was the case (of course, the ToD is earlier than 10.30, but Knox's/Sollecito's defence teams will have to demonstrate this from first principles, rathern than simply pointing to Guede's trial verdict).

Ok you say it is a moot point. Please outline how you think the defence would do what you suggest?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It makes no difference.

Sorry isn’t the context of the appeal that Amanda and Raffaele have been convicted subject to their appeal?

The prosecution has to prove their case against these two. The defense does not have to prove it against these unknown others.

Sorry isn’t the defence appealing against ruling of the trial and as such are going to refute the prosecution’s case? As far as the prosecution and the trial are concerned Amanda and Raffaele are the unknown others referred to by the Supreme Court.

 

[RoseMontague]

Sorry isn’t the context of the appeal that Amanda and Raffaele have been convicted subject to their appeal?



Sorry isn’t the defence appealing against ruling of the trial and as such are going to refute the prosecution’s case? As far as the prosecution and the trial are concerned Amanda and Raffaele are the unknown others referred to by the Supreme Court.

The appeals are stating that the prosecution has not proven the case against them and outlines why this is so. They do not have to offer proof of innocence. The appeal judge in opening the court said he was starting with only one assumption and that was that Meredith was murdered.

 

[Justinian2]

I don't think that we can predict what the courts will say. All we can say is that the courts haven't been correct and may not be correct.

I also don't think someone is right or wrong based on what the courts say, unless that is the argument. If someone says that the courts will not find that Guede acted alone and is in agreement with the court decision, then he is right.

What I'm saying is that the courts have been wrong before and will be wrong in the future. It's an unfortunate truth.

I just hope the court is correct about this case. Maybe I should expect synchronization; I should expect a court finding that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. {Re: The Twelth Insight}

 

[LondonJohn]

Ok you say it is a moot point. Please outline how you think the defence would do what you suggest?

The defence teams in Knox's/Sollecito's appeal trial don't have to propose how the crime occurred. All they have to do is demonstrate that there's at least reasonable doubt that their clients are culpable of the offences with which they are charged. If I were one of their defence team, I might point out to the appeal court that it's immaterial whether Meredith was killed by one person alone (Guede) or by a group of people: the material point is that it cannot be proven that my client was involved in the murder - however many people committed it.

Incidentally, the same applies from the prosecution's side. Even if the prosecutor in Knox's/Sollecito's appeal introduces the opinion from Guede's trials that this was a group murder, it doesn't move him any closer to proving that Knox and Sollecito were the other participants in the murder. And it's still incumbent upon the prosecutor to prove that Sollecito and Knox were involved - the prosecution could, if it wished, even propose that Knox and Sollecito committed the murder without Guede's involvement, despite his having been found guilty of direct involvement in a separate trial.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The appeals are stating that the prosecution has not proven the case against them and outlines why this is so. They do not have to offer proof of innocence. The appeal judge in opening the court said he was starting with only one assumption and that was that Meredith was murdered.

I don’t understand your conclusion. The prosecution’s case was largely accepted by the judges and lay judges in the trial, hence the conviction subject to the first appeal, therefore, doesn’t the defence have to argue or raise reasonable doubt against the motivational report of the trial; is this inaccurate?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The defence teams in Knox's/Sollecito's appeal trial don't have to propose how the crime occurred. All they have to do is demonstrate that there's at least reasonable doubt that their clients are culpable of the offences with which they are charged. If I were one of their defence team, I might point out to the appeal court that it's immaterial whether Meredith was killed by one person alone (Guede) or by a group of people: the material point is that it cannot be proven that my client was involved in the murder - however many people committed it.

Incidentally, the same applies from the prosecution's side. Even if the prosecutor in Knox's/Sollecito's appeal introduces the opinion from Guede's trials that this was a group murder, it doesn't move him any closer to proving that Knox and Sollecito were the other participants in the murder. And it's still incumbent upon the prosecutor to prove that Sollecito and Knox were involved - the prosecution could, if it wished, even propose that Knox and Sollecito committed the murder without Guede's involvement, despite his having been found guilty of direct involvement in a separate trial.

That's interesting points you’ve raised. However, can we agree we are both in the realms of speculation and the only way to prove either position is the outcome of the appeal?

 

[LondonJohn]

I don’t understand your conclusion. The prosecution’s case was largely accepted by the judges and lay judges in the trial, hence the conviction subject to the first appeal, therefore, doesn’t the defence have to argue or raise reasonable doubt against the motivational report of the trial; is this inaccurate?

No, it's not an appeal of the same type as an appeal in a UK court. In Italy, the first appeal is what's known as a trial de novo - a totally new trial, but based largely on the evidence and testimony produced in the first trial. The court can also choose to supplement the evidence/testimony from the first trial with additional evidence and testimony - which is what's happened in the case of the bra clasp and knife and Curatolo's testimony (so far). Both sides will argue again based on the evidence and testimony (plus the supplemental evidence/testimony), and the appeal court will make its judgement based on these arguments and its own opinions.

It's said that in Italy nobody's ever considered properly guilty until the first appeal. I think it's actually a strange facet of the Italian justice system, and not necessarily one that's conducive to decent (or swift) justice. I prefer the anglo-saxon method of having a single thorough trial with a single verdict, then the possibility of appeals if either new evidence comes to light or impropriety of evidence, testimony or procedure in the first trial is discovered.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don’t understand your conclusion. The prosecution’s case was largely accepted by the judges and lay judges in the trial, hence the conviction subject to the first appeal, therefore, doesn’t the defence have to argue or raise reasonable doubt against the motivational report of the trial; is this inaccurate?

It's in essence a completely new trial. The new judges are free to say that the evidence in the first trial does not exceed the reasonable doubt threshold regardless of the first court's opinion. They can just review the same evidence or accept new evidence if they feel it is needed. The failure of the prosecution in the first trial to prove it's case and the judges failure to give a fair judgment is the main point of Raffaele's appeal.

Naturally, in all judgments the exposition of the facts is an essential part of the provision. However, when one is faced with an in-depth illustration of hearings and witness testimonies (quotes which in this case are partial or inaccurate), whilst the space dedicated to the reasoning that guided the Judges to accept one theory rather than another is almost non-existent, this signifies that the judgment has not fulfilled its duty to explain its reasoning.
The imbalance between the exposition of evidence and reasoning requires that the provision be reprimanded because, alongside the extremely long summary of the trial, the enunciation of the choice to embrace one theory [rather than another] translates into a sort of act of faith in one of the various hypotheses under consideration.
To this it must be added that, in the rare portions of the provision in which the sentencing report gives credit to a hypothesis, it displays a second defect: the contested judgment proposes a reversal of logical procedure in its evaluation of the criminal responsibility of the accused.
Rather than beginning with an objective analysis of the evidence which emerged during the course of the trial, and from this proceeding to an evaluation of the importance it assumes in the verification of the facts, the contested judgment has begun with the fact that the accused are unable to conclusively demonstrate their lack of involvement in the crime and deduces their guilt as an immediate consequence.
Ultimately, the reasoning guiding the entire judgment rests on the inability of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox to disprove the charge [against them].

 

[LondonJohn]

That's interesting points you’ve raised. However, can we agree we are both in the realms of speculation and the only way to prove either position is the outcome of the appeal?

Well, we're both speculating on potential strategic positioning of the prosecution and defence in the appeal trial, of course. But the important rule of justice isn't open to debate: it's up to the prosecution* to prove Sollecito's and/or Knox's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the appeal court (and nowhere else) in order to secure a guilty verdict. It's not up to the defence to prove the defendants' innocence, nor is it incumbent upon the defence to posit an alternative explanation for the crime which does not involve the defendants.


* Although this actually isn't strictly true: in Italy, the court itself can choose its own interpretation of the case when assessing the guilt or non-guilt of the accused - as indeed Massei's court did in some elements in the first trial. However, the court must still be satisfied that the burden of proof has been achieved, and usually this proof is largely based on the prosecution's case (for obvious reasons).

 

[CoulsdonUK]

No, it's not an appeal of the same type as an appeal in a UK court. In Italy, the first appeal is what's known as a trial de novo - a totally new trial, but based largely on the evidence and testimony produced in the first trial. The court can also choose to supplement the evidence/testimony from the first trial with additional evidence and testimony - which is what's happened in the case of the bra clasp and knife and Curatolo's testimony (so far). Both sides will argue again based on the evidence and testimony (plus the supplemental evidence/testimony), and the appeal court will make its judgement based on these arguments and its own opinions.

It's said that in Italy nobody's ever considered properly guilty until the first appeal. I think it's actually a strange facet of the Italian justice system, and not necessarily one that's conducive to decent (or swift) justice. I prefer the anglo-saxon method of having a single thorough trial with a single verdict, then the possibility of appeals if either new evidence comes to light or impropriety of evidence, testimony or procedure in the first trial is discovered.

Sorry but this is stalemate, we cannot prove either position as being wrong or inaccurate until the appeal has progressed further.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry but this is stalemate, we cannot prove either position as being wrong or inaccurate until the appeal has progressed further.

Huh? I am 100% certain that the first appeal in Italy is a trial de novo, rather than an appeal in the UK justice system sense. Was this reply aimed at another post of mine?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It's in essence a completely new trial. The new judges are free to say that the evidence in the first trial does not exceed the reasonable doubt threshold regardless of the first court's opinion. They can just review the same evidence or accept new evidence if they feel it is needed. The failure of the prosecution in the first trial to prove it's case and the judges failure to give a fair judgment is the main point of Raffaele's appeal.

Please see my response in post #4515

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Huh? I am 100% certain that the first appeal in Italy is a trial de novo, rather than an appeal in the UK justice system sense. Was this reply aimed at another post of mine?

No I am referring to the fact that we require more from the appeal.

Look I believe the ruling on Guede's appeal is significant. However, that could be nullified if for example the DNA of the bra clasp and knife is thrown out, equally if either is accepted then it would be depend on how Hellmand rules on other evidence or witnesses etc.

 

[LondonJohn]

No I am referring to the fact that we require more from the appeal.

Look I believe the ruling on Guede's appeal is significant. However, that could be nullified if for example the DNA of the bra clasp and knife is thrown out, equally if either is accepted then it would be depend on how Hellmand rules on other evidence or witnesses etc.

Helmand is a province in Afghanistan

The judge's name is Hellmann (or Claudio Pratillo Hellmann in full) - although it's amazing how many people (including media outlets) refer to him as "Hellman". Heck, even the mayonnaise is spelt "Hellmann's"!

 

[RoseMontague]

Please see my response in post #4515

We can discuss the facts of the case and the arguments presented in the various motivations as well as in the appeals. There is nothing preventing me from drawing my own conclusions. If the only argument that will convince you one way or the other is that the court decides one way or the other then I would have to say that since I am not the court, I will not be able to convince you. In my opinion, you have limited yourself in the discussion. That is certainly your option but the stalemate is a roadblock you have placed in front of your own reasoning.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

We can discuss the facts of the case and the arguments presented in the various motivations as well as in the appeals. There is nothing preventing me from drawing my own conclusions. If the only argument that will convince you one way or the other is that the court decides one way or the other then I would have to say that since I am not the court, I will not be able to convince you. In my opinion, you have limited yourself in the discussion. That is certainly your option but the stalemate is a roadblock you have placed in front of your own reasoning.

No it's not my option. But it is your opinion. It's late I need to get some sleep, can continue tomorrow if you so wish.