Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

-

...and thank you for sharing Diocletus,

but to me they definitely deserve much more of a free pass than a lot of the other pro-guilt folks who never knew Meredith and are only using her death as an excuse to be just plain mean. Not saying all pro-guilters are mean, but there are certainly many whose only agenda is pure unadulterated hatred, IMHO anyway,

Dave

-

I respect your approach.

When I look at the issue, I see differences, too.

As to motivation, the Kerchers are motivated by vengence--to see someone punished who they think has done their daughter wrong. That's a pure motivation. The guilters, at least the most evident of them, are motivated by hate. That's dirty.

Both are wrong about the case.

As to the magnitude of harm they have caused, I think we have to say that the Kerchers through Maresca did some damage (that we can't quantify). The guilters are a bunch of people on the internet who might have contributed some negative PR, but probably had less of an effect on the wrongful imprisonment of the defendants.

So, we get this:

Kerchers = Pure motive, but wrong. Hurt innocent people.

Guilters = Hateful and wrong. But less likely to have accomplished actual harm.

It's an interesting comparison in terms of intent and magntitude of harm.

 

[Justinian2]

Amanda got 26 years for a imaginary conspiricy in a mythical sex 'game'. Raffaele got 25 years for his imaginary involvement.

If convicted, Breivik is facing a maximum of 21 years sentence under the Norwegian law for killing more than seventy people. (ANI)

World 'justice' is junk justice at best.

 

[Justinian2]

A recent report said that the State Department was keeping a close eye on the Amanda Knox trial.

Could they precipitate a sudden release of Amanda?

It seems as if politicians would want to get involved. 61% of the world thinks she should be released or will be released and another 20% have no opinion.

I remember not long ago when many guilters thought Guede was no more guilty than Amanda.

 

[Rolfe]

The last thing anyone needs is the USA interfering in another country's justice system. Things are looking positive, and messing up by coming the heavy-handed international bully would be a seriously bad idea.

Rolfe.

 

[snook1]

Diocletus,
I kind off agree with what you wrote about Hellmann letting them go.

I mean, it is he who appointed the experts. They did come back with the result-no DNA evidence. Now, it would be more than silly to throw it out and decide that they're still guilty. I just can't imagine that scenario. Not that it didn't happen before, at the first trial, but most definitely, I just can't see Hellmann convicting them.

Also, Curatolo's laughable appearance works in favour of Amanda and Raffaele. There's just too many "buts" to say that they're guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

@Justinian2 - it is sad indeed that Breivik will spend only 21 years in prison for what he did. It's a travesty. However, there are some legal ways to keep him in prison after these 21 years. Can't remember right now how it works, but I do remember seeing that on TV.

 

[Fine]

Amanda got 26 years for a imaginary conspiricy in a mythical sex 'game'. Raffaele got 25 years for his imaginary involvement.

If convicted, Breivik is facing a maximum of 21 years sentence under the Norwegian law for killing more than seventy people. (ANI)

World 'justice' is junk justice at best.

__________________

Justinian,

Mr.Breivik is likely to be charged with committing a crime against humanity, which carries a 30 year sentence in Norway.

And it should be noted. Convicted of murder or a crime against humanity "the sentence can be extended for up to five years at a time if there is risk of repeat offences." Dailymail


///

 

[Justinian2]

delete

 

[Justinian2]

The last thing anyone needs is the USA interfering in another country's justice system. Things are looking positive, and messing up by coming the heavy-handed international bully would be a seriously bad idea.

Rolfe.

My biggest objection to what you said is that you called the Italian Kangaroo courts a 'justice' system. Heck, I don't even call the USA's punishment system a 'justice' system. Restitution is my idea of justice; not punishment and especially not punishment rationalized from a lunatic’s fantasy and fiction.

My point is that a politician would gain for asking for Amanda's release. Not every international relationship needs to be done with bombs and heavy handed tactics. Time for our politicians to actually try the novel approach of leadership.

 

[JREF2010]

Diocletus,
I kind off agree with what you wrote about Hellmann letting them go.

I mean, it is he who appointed the experts. They did come back with the result-no DNA evidence. Now, it would be more than silly to throw it out and decide that they're still guilty. I just can't imagine that scenario. Not that it didn't happen before, at the first trial, but most definitely, I just can't see Hellmann convicting them.

This is my assumption too. These are his experts chosen to end the conflict.

The results could have gone either way.

It would be silly to toss out their results or ignore his own experts results.

My thoughts are wondering if he'll continue to review more or will he stop and say we have enough to go to the chambers with.

 

[Diocletus]

LMFAO. Frank is reporting on Perugia Shock that the Perugian cops went down and did a kind of a raid on La Sapienza today to get a copy of Conti's presentation. Attempted witness intimidation.

Boy is Hellmann going to be pissed. What a bunch of clowns.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is my assumption too. These are his experts chosen to end the conflict.

The results could have gone either way.

It would be silly to toss out their results or ignore his own experts results.

My thoughts are wondering if he'll continue to review more or will he stop and say we have enough to go to the chambers with.

As far as I can tell, this is simply not possible (and nor is it judicially ethical either). I would repeat for the zillionth time: this is NOT an appeal in the UK/US definition of the term. It is a normal trial, with a prosecution, defence and judicial panel.

The trial will therefore absolutely definitely proceed through all the normal phases of any criminal trial. We are currently in the evidence/testimony phase. This phase happens to be far shorter that would be usual, owing to the fact that all the evidence and testimony introduced in Massei's court is automatically used as the basis of the evidence/testimony in Hellmann's court. Hellmann can then consider requests from the prosecution/defence for additional evidence/testimony, and will grant the requests if he feels that the additional evidence/testimony will supplement that which is already available via Massei's court. This is what is currently happening in the case of the independent DNA report (together with Curatolo's recall to the stand, and the inmates' appearances).

In any trial, the evidence/testimony phase is completely separate from the argument phase. During the evidence/testimony phase, no party (prosecution, defence, victim's advocate, court) is allowed to argue for guilt or acquittal - the only questioning allowable is to establish the accuracy/truth/reliability/credibility of the evidence/testimony itself. It is only during the argument phase that the parties use the body of evidence/testimony as a basis for arguing for the guilt or non-guilt of the defendant(s).

In this appeal trial, exactly the same thing will happen. When the evidence/testimony phase finishes (which looks like happening at the end of the month, according to current rumours), the trial then moves into the argument phase. All parties will make arguments to the court, based on the entire body of evidence/testimony: i.e. all the evidence/testimony from the first trial, plus the additional evidence/testimony introduced into Hellmann's court. The prosecutors (plus, presumably, Maresca) will argue for guilt, and the defence will argue for reasonable doubt and therefore acquittal. The judicial panel will then deliberate, and will come to a verdict.

And that is how this trial will go. Remember that criminal charges in Italy are brought not by prosecutors but by courts, and I don't think that Hellmann would have the power to withdraw/dismiss the charges at this stage. The prosecutors will (rightly) have the opportunity to argue for guilt, and the defence will argue for acquittal. In my opinion, it's very highly likely that Knox and Sollecito will ultimately be acquitted at the end of this trial, but only after due process has been properly observed.

 

[Justinian2]

Amanda should be called "Saint Amanda" because her martyrdom is doing more to show the flaws in the justice system then any Italian.

I don't want her to be an Italian martyr or a saint, I just want her to be free and home in America.

 

[LondonJohn]

LMFAO. Frank is reporting on Perugia Shock that the Perugian cops went down and did a kind of a raid on La Sapienza today to get a copy of Conti's presentation. Attempted witness intimidation.

Boy is Hellmann going to be pissed. What a bunch of clowns.

At least Sfarzo finally seems to understand just how incompetent and/or duplicitous Stefanoni was in her work and testimony on this case....

 

[snook1]

LMFAO. Frank is reporting on Perugia Shock that the Perugian cops went down and did a kind of a raid on La Sapienza today to get a copy of Conti's presentation. Attempted witness intimidation.

Boy is Hellmann going to be pissed. What a bunch of clowns.

What?! The important question is did they get what they came for?

 

[Onofarar]

__________________

Justinian,

Mr.Breivik is likely to be charged with committing a crime against humanity, which carries a 30 year sentence in Norway.

And it should be noted. Convicted of murder or a crime against humanity "the sentence can be extended for up to five years at a time if there is risk of repeat offences." Dailymail
///

Also if Norwegian law has the concept of consecutive sentences he could be in jail for many times his possible lifetime - 73 murder counts times 21 years each served CONSECUTIVELY is about 1,500 years.

 

[snook1]

Nevermind, I've read the piece on PerugiaShock.

Apparently, the experts contacted Hellmann after the police wanted the DVD, but hey came without the warrant and Conti explained to them that the DVD only contains parts of his report, mainly the videos and pictures that were known from the first trial, so nothing new for the prosecution.

Hellmann agreed to give a copy of the DVD to the prosecution.

I do wonder how it's gonna end on Saturday.

 

[Rolfe]

Also if Norwegian law has the concept of consecutive sentences he could be in jail for many times his possible lifetime - 73 murder counts times 21 years each served CONSECUTIVELY is about 1,500 years.

But it doesn't.

Rolfe.

 

[Diocletus]

Yeah. But not until after C&V called Hellmann on the phone and said "Hey boss, the cops are here and they're demanding that we hand over a copy of the CD that we gave you yesterday. They have guns and fancy uniforms. What should we do?" And Hellmann said "Oh, OK. I see how it is. Give them a copy. We'll take care of the bastards on Saturday." So you see, now C&V and Hellmann are all pissed at the prosecution.

I guess the defendants should have sent the cops to get the EDF from Stefanoni. See--the defendants don't know how to play ball in Perugia.

 

[Onofarar]

As far as I can tell, this is simply not possible (and nor is it judicially ethical either). I would repeat for the zillionth time: this is NOT an appeal in the UK/US definition of the term. It is a normal trial, with a prosecution, defence and judicial panel.

The trial will therefore absolutely definitely proceed through all the normal phases of any criminal trial. We are currently in the evidence/testimony phase. This phase happens to be far shorter that would be usual, owing to the fact that all the evidence and testimony introduced in Massei's court is automatically used as the basis of the evidence/testimony in Hellmann's court. Hellmann can then consider requests from the prosecution/defence for additional evidence/testimony, and will grant the requests if he feels that the additional evidence/testimony will supplement that which is already available via Massei's court. This is what is currently happening in the case of the independent DNA report (together with Curatolo's recall to the stand, and the inmates' appearances).

In any trial, the evidence/testimony phase is completely separate from the argument phase. During the evidence/testimony phase, no party (prosecution, defence, victim's advocate, court) is allowed to argue for guilt or acquittal - the only questioning allowable is to establish the accuracy/truth/reliability/credibility of the evidence/testimony itself. It is only during the argument phase that the parties use the body of evidence/testimony as a basis for arguing for the guilt or non-guilt of the defendant(s).

In this appeal trial, exactly the same thing will happen. When the evidence/testimony phase finishes (which looks like happening at the end of the month, according to current rumours), the trial then moves into the argument phase. All parties will make arguments to the court, based on the entire body of evidence/testimony: i.e. all the evidence/testimony from the first trial, plus the additional evidence/testimony introduced into Hellmann's court. The prosecutors (plus, presumably, Maresca) will argue for guilt, and the defence will argue for reasonable doubt and therefore acquittal. The judicial panel will then deliberate, and will come to a verdict.

And that is how this trial will go. Remember that criminal charges in Italy are brought not by prosecutors but by courts, and I don't think that Hellmann would have the power to withdraw/dismiss the charges at this stage. The prosecutors will (rightly) have the opportunity to argue for guilt, and the defence will argue for acquittal. In my opinion, it's very highly likely that Knox and Sollecito will ultimately be acquitted at the end of this trial, but only after due process has been properly observed.

Once again I agree with you with one exception - since this is a trial de novo - a "do over" if you will of the original trial then I assume the same procedural moves are available to the defense now as were available in the first trial. Therefore, why can't the defense move for a directed verdict of acquittal with the main argument being that with the DNA evidence and Curatolo thrown out the prosecution has not proved it case.

 

[LondonJohn]

Once again I agree with you with one exception - since this is a trial de novo - a "do over" if you will of the original trial then I assume the same procedural moves are available to the defense now as were available in the first trial. Therefore, why can't the defense move for a directed verdict of acquittal with the main argument being that with the DNA evidence and Curatolo thrown out the prosecution has not proved it case.

That's a good point, but I am not even sure that such a motion would be possible in an appeal trial: I think that it's possible in the first trial owing to that trial's original purpose as a preliminary trial. In other words, if the case somehow made it to the preliminary hearing in spite of there being no decent case for guilt, the defence could move to dismiss.

However, the appeal trial is obviously a different kettle of fish. And even if evidence that helped to show guilt in the first trial is successfully challenged, I think it's incumbent on the court to conduct the full trial and reach a proper verdict. And I also personally think that's the right thing to do anyway. The prosecutors must be allowed to argue their case, and the court must reach a properly-informed decision.

I would also add at this point that there is indeed other potentially-incriminating evidence against Knox and Sollecito that needs to be addressed. I'm mainly thinking about the mixed DNA traces in the bathroom sink, the partial print on the bathmat, the testimony of Quintavalle, the time of death, and the issues around the "staging" of the break-in. All of these need to be debated and placed in the proper context - as indeed will happen during the argument phase in September. Merely throwing out the knife/clasp/Curatolo does not necessarily automatically exonerate Knox/Sollecito, and I think it's important to remember that.