Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

Maybe acquitted for time served???

That makes no sense to me. If they're acquitted they're not guilty. You can't sentence someone to anything if they're not guilty, not even time served.

The $64,000 question is whether Hellman is prepared to acknowledge that neither of the defendants was at the cottage at the time Meredith was killed, and neither of them had any knowledge that anything untoward had taken place until Amanda's ill-fated visit there the following morning. That they indeed spent the previous evening and night in Raffaele's flat.

If he does that, he's throwing the investigators under the bus, and hopefully opening up Perugian law enforcement to the flows of the Alpheus and Peneus. Which it so desperately needs. He is also probably opening them up to the father and mother of all lawsuits. I hope he has the guts to do it.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Amanda couldn't be convicted somewhere in the civil suits. She could still be regarded as having falsely accused Patrick, irrespective of her claims of coercion. It's even theoretically possible that the calumny charge relating to the police might stick. Though I think that would be perverse.

Nevertheless it's all about the presence or absence of the defendants at the cottage that night. The truth is obvious, but the politics are murky.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

The prosecution always goes last, as in the U.S., because the burden of proof lies with them. They will do their rebuttal Friday, from the sound of it, and then Knox and Sollecito will give their statements Sat., then the verdict will be pending deliberation. I agree with you: In this case, the thought of them going last is frightening.

I think it will be more along the lines of that famous Julia Child skit where she cuts herself and starts bleeding all over the place. Still she continues on.

 

[RoseMontague]

People see things differently of course. This is how Michael at PMF Dottssa Net sees it:

The thing is, it doesn't get better for the defence from here. I think everyone on all sides agree (one of the few things everyone agrees on) that Sollecito's defence team is the A team, whereas Knox's is the B team. Bongiorno and her lot are the elite. They've given it their best shot...that was it...we've had it. All the defence have left to come is Amanda's team and well...enough said. In contrast, the prosecution's and Maresca's summing up was dynamite. It's looking pretty bleak for the lovebirds right now, it has to be said. It's reflected in the media as well...no longer are they trumpeting about how Amanda is coming home, those headlines have faded away, they are all suddenly unsure.

It's interesting he did not mention Patrick's lawyer, the witch hunter.

 

[smkovalinksy]

That makes no sense to me. If they're acquitted they're not guilty. You can't sentence someone to anything if they're not guilty, not even time served.

The $64,000 question is whether Hellman is prepared to acknowledge that neither of the defendants was at the cottage at the time Meredith was killed, and neither of them had any knowledge that anything untoward had taken place until Amanda's ill-fated visit there the following morning. That they indeed spent the previous evening and night in Raffaele's flat.

If he does that, he's throwing the investigators under the bus, and hopefully opening up Perugian law enforcement to the flows of the Alpheus and Peneus. Which it so desperately needs. He is also probably opening them up to the father and mother of all lawsuits. I hope he has the guts to do it.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Amanda couldn't be convicted somewhere in the civil suits. She could still be regarded as having falsely accused Patrick, irrespective of her claims of coercion. It's even theoretically possible that the calumny charge relating to the police might stick. Though I think that would be perverse.

Nevertheless it's all about the presence or absence of the defendants at the cottage that night. The truth is obvious, but the politics are murky.

Rolfe.

Well, what if he tries to pander to both sides, and then says he feels they were involved to an extent which cannot be proven, and lets them off for time served after charging them as accessories?

 

[smkovalinksy]

People see things differently of course. This is how Michael at PMF Dottssa Net sees it:



It's interesting he did not mention Patrick's lawyer, the witch hunter.

No, he wouldn't , would he?

 

[smkovalinksy]

I think it will be more along the lines of that famous Julia Child skit where she cuts herself and starts bleeding all over the place. Still she continues on.

Thus it appears to us, but will it to the jury?? I sure hope so. I do not trust juries....

 

[Rolfe]

Well, what if he tries to pander to both sides, and then says he feels they were involved to an extent which cannot be proven, and lets them off for time served after charging them as accessories?

If he does that, that is not an acquittal.

It is in fact gross fence-sitting and would demonstrate a complete absence of backbone. The reason being, there's no way that could be said to have occurred beyond reasonable doubt. I hope Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman is better than that.

Rolfe.

 

[smkovalinksy]

If he does that, that is not an acquittal.

It is in fact gross fence-sitting and would demonstrate a complete absence of backbone. The reason being, there's no way that could be said to have occurred beyond reasonable doubt. I hope Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman is better than that.

Rolfe.

I sure hope he is, too; but as I don't know the man, how can I know he in not a spineless coward?

 

[LondonJohn]

People see things differently of course. This is how Michael at PMF Dottssa Net sees it:



It's interesting he did not mention Patrick's lawyer, the witch hunter.

Hahaha! Truly reminiscent of the Soviet propaganda machine at its finest! I wonder what the likes of Fulcanelli will do once the acquittals are announced? I hope that people like him come to realise in time that either they were incredibly over-invested in their belief in the guilt of Knox/Sollecito, or they were incapable of properly assimilating all the information necessary to hold an informed opinion.

The actual truth of the matter is that prosecutors and lawyers for the civil plaintiffs were utterly unable to make any convincing arguments for proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Knox/Sollecito's guilt. The trial could really have ended as soon as Maresca sat down, in fact. But process dictates that the defence teams can point out to the court just how much doubt there is in the guilt of Knox/Sollecito, and indeed how much evidence there is that tends to support the idea that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Incidentally, I saw elsewhere that an ignorant individual believes that the defence teams have to prove (or even show) how Guede got into the cottage - he seems to be of the opinion that the judicial panel in this trial really need to know this, otherwise the default conclusion is that Knox let Guede in (and therefore by extensio Knox and Sollecito must be guilty). But this ignorant individual seems unaware that this is the trial of Knox and Sollecito. The only thing the judicial panel has to decide is whether there is proof beyond all doubt of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the murder. Hellmann's court does not have to consider how and when Guede entered the cottage, and nor do Knox's/Sollecito's defence teams have to present their arguments on this issue. As far as Hellmann's court is concerned, Guede may have broken in through the window, or he may have been let in by Meredith (and broken the window afterwards to deflect attention towards a random burglar). But it's not for Hellmann's court to decide on this. All they have to consider is whether the totality of the evidence proves beyond all doubt based in reason that Knox and/or Sollecito participated in Meredith's murder.

 

[Justinian2]

That makes no sense to me. If they're acquitted they're not guilty. You can't sentence someone to anything if they're not guilty, not even time served.

I believe the 'Memphis Three' were able to plead 'guilty but innocent' and got out after serving 18 years. They also had to sign an agreement that they would not sue.

I'll research and edit this post.

From Wikipedia:

The West Memphis Three are three men who were tried and convicted as teenagers in 1994 of the 1993 murders of three boys in West Memphis, Arkansas. Damien Echols was sentenced to death, Jessie Misskelley, Jr. was sentenced to life imprisonment plus two 20-year sentences, and Jason Baldwin was sentenced to life imprisonment. During the trial, the prosecution asserted that the children were killed as part of a satanic ritual.[1][2][3] A number of documentaries have been based on the case, and celebrities and musicians have held fund raisers in the belief that they are innocent.

In July 2007, new forensic evidence was presented in the case and a status report jointly issued by the State and the Defense team stated, "Although most of the genetic material recovered from the scene was attributable to the victims of the offenses, some of it cannot be attributed to either the victims or the defendants." On October 29, 2007, the defense filed a Second Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus, outlining the new evidence.[4]

After a series of appeals regarding the DNA evidence,[5][6][7] including an argument before the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2010, the West Memphis Three reached a deal with prosecutors. On August 19, 2011, they entered Alford pleas, which allow them to assert their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them. Judge David Laser accepted the pleas and sentenced the three to time served. They were released with ten-year suspended sentences, having served 18 years and 78 days in prison.[8]

Does Italy have anything similar to an 'Alford plea'?

 

[Ammonitida]

Does anyone know if the luminol footprints were addressed by the defense team for Sollecito today? I've read nothing to indicate that they did, so I'm assuming that this task will be handled by Knox's lawyers on Thursday. If so, I'm really hoping that they point out that Knox's feet do not match the only clear footprint found by the luminol. That footprint is far more useful for identification purposes than that bathmat print and it clearly excludes Knox as the one who left it (as her second toe is noticeably bigger than her big toe whereas the luminol print has a noticeably smaller second toe). All this talk about whether they were made in blood, bleach, or copper dust would be pointless if they can show the jury that at least one of them doesn't match Knox's feet. They would then have to accept that these prints were made in some type of substance that is highly unlikely to be Meredith's blood.

 

[Rolfe]

I believe the 'Memphis Three' were able to plead 'guilty but innocent' and got out after serving 18 years. They also had to sign an agreement that they would not sue.

That was a very strange version of an "Alford plea" which I think is unique to the US justice system. It was offered in very very bizarre circumstances which simply do not apply in this case.

On August 19, 2011, they entered Alford pleas, which allow them to assert their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them.

1. There's no such thing as an Alford plea in Italy as far as I know.
2. The WM3 agreed to that deal to get Damian Echols off death row.
3. The circumstances in that case were very different from the present one in a number of very important respects.
4. Even in the USA, this use of the Alford plea seems to be unique. The chances of the prosecution offering anything like that to Knox and Sollecito are beyond non-existent.

Rolfe.

 

[pilot padron]

Seems to be confused

For nearly 4 years, the side that supports innocence has done everything possible to show respect for Meredith Kercher. You will never see a photo or video clip of Meredith's body with regard to anything produced by FOA or IIP. We have this policy because when it is all said and done it is our side that is Pro-Meredith.

Maresca's stunt was extremely disrespectful to Meredith Kercher and the outcry should be loud and clear from all sides. It is very telling that only one side of this debate is speaking out against Maresca's extremely poor decision.

Thanks, Bruce.

I think it is a clear sign of integrity and fair thinking when people are willing to speak out on occasion contrary to what the others in their group are saying. For no one on the pro-guilt side to disagree with this disgusting tactic by Maresca, and some to cheer it on, shows clearly who has respect for Meredith, and who is just on a vendetta against an innocent couple.

To address the confusion lest it become accepted as anything other than just that:

1) Your argument illogically boasts that your side has been "pro Meredith Kercher" for four years.
Why is it then that your side has so viciously attacked her family every time they ever dare speak publicly about anything concerning their murdered daughter/sister..
This particularly since their public speaking is probably less than 1% of what supertanker Marriott...err... "schedules" for the Mellox family.

2) Your argument illogically boasts that only your side speaks against Attorney Maresca's photos.
Attorney Maresca has been subjected to some of the most vicious vitriol of the entire case.
This has been all from your side.
Why should you now be so surprised?
Why should any informed observer attach an iota of significance to your self serving declaration that your side now whines loudest and longest about Attorney Maresca showing photos.
Kinda reminds me of male 3rd graders measuring urinating distance abilities.

3) Your argument illogically boasts that your side showed restraint about the crime scene photos.
Few if any of the objectionable pictures of the slain Meredith were available anywhere before yesterday.
Why should we be then impressed with the confused boasts about how considerate and respectful your side was in not showing them.
Can anyone show what they probably do not even have ? ?

BTW:
Maybe we should have a color enhanced post cut n' pasting the definition of 'vendetta'
As used above, it could understandably be applied as describing every single person who disagrees with a defense lawyer's arguments on behalf of his fully indicted client.

 

[LondonJohn]

That was a very strange version of an "Alford plea" which I think is unique to the US justice system. It was offered in very very bizarre circumstances which simply do not apply in this case.

Rolfe.

Very true. And an Alford plea is only relevant where there a sentencing reduction for a guilty plea: it allows the defendant to receive the lesser sentence for entering a guilty plea, while not requiring the defendant to actually admit guilt (although this sounds paradoxical, it isn't paradoxical in law). That's totally irrelevant in this case, and anyhow all the conditions are different. Hellmann will acquit.

Incidentally, I see that most pro-guilt commentators can't get their heads round the fact that Hellmann's suggestion of a Saturday verdict can only imply one verdict, given that Hellmann has spoken before half the defence closing argument has even been heard. It only takes a second to think about this in order for any logical person to realise that Hellmann can only be thinking in terms of acquittal.

After all, think of the situation if Hellmann thought the judicial panel was heavily leaning towards guilty verdicts: to announce that such guilty verdicts would be possible before the defence arguments have even been entirely heard would be grossly improper, as well as illogical: how could Hellmann know that Knox's defence teams wouldn't raise sufficient arguments on Thursday to introduce reasonable doubt?

No, the only possible reasonable inference is that Hellmann's court has now heard the prosecution's (and civil parties') best shot at arguing for guilt. And he and the judicial panel have concluded that these arguments have fallen very well short of proof of guilt. He doesn't therefore even need to hear the defence arguments: he already knows that acquittals are assured. And that's why he is able to prime everyone for a very fast verdict, hopefully as early as Saturday. It's obvious, to me at least.

 

[Rolfe]

It's quite surreal reading this thread and the two PMF forums at the same time. One set of posters thinks it's going one way, and the other thinks it's going the other. Each set greets each new development as being favourable to its own point of view.

It's very hard to see beyond the confirmation bias.

Rolfe.

 

[Justinian2]

I've been disappointed too many times to uncork the Champaign just yet.

The Patriots hadn't lost all year and then they played the Giants in the Super. A 3rd rate receiver made a miracle catch and the Partiots' reign ended.

 

[Rolfe]

Saturday - damn. I'm going on a madrigal-singing course all day. No access to news feeds at all.

Rolfe.

 

[theRealBob]

Good to catch up with the coven again.

Word is that Mignini is saving the timeline of the night for the final appeal. It will include Amanda Knox and Raffael riding to the cottage on the mop and dispel any doubts that they couldn't have been there for the earlier TOD to commit the crime.....

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's quite surreal reading this thread and the two PMF forums at the same time. One set of posters thinks it's going one way, and the other thinks it's going the other. Each set greets each new development as being favourable to its own point of view.

It's very hard to see beyond the confirmation bias.

Rolfe.

Well, that's true. And an uninformed observer might see fit to suggest that the true position therefore lies somewhere in the middle. But that would be incorrect. For many years now, the BBC has suffered from an overt attempt to appear unbiased/impartial. Thus in most debated issues, both sides are very ostensibly given equal platforms and timings to put their case. This has undoubtedly led to undue prominence (and assumed equal credibility) of discredited groups such as certain extremist animal rights groups or homeopaths.

In this case, the objective, reasoned point of view is that acquittals are likely. I am willing to go beyond that to say that acquittals are inevitable - based on what I see as a logical assimilation of all the available evidence. But I'm entirely prepared to accept that I go beyond the accepted middle ground. However, nobody should make the mistake of thinking that just because one group says acquittals are likely (or assured), while another group says convictions are likely (or assured), these two positions somehow cancel each other out. In this instance, one group of people (pro-acquittal) are right, while the other group (pro-conviction) are wrong. And yes, I know that the famous Mandy Rice-Davies remark might be applicable to me*, but I truly believe that a proper, balanced, reasoned, objective, unemotional assessment of all the evidence can only lead to one conclusion: Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted.

* "Well he would say that, wouldn't he."