Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[JREF2010]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/29/world/europe/italy-knox-appeal/I wonder how long after the statements? In the U.S., deliberation can drag on for days and even up to 2 weeks. Why are they so sure the verdict will even come on Monday? I must say, reading over at PMF, their predictions of life sentences, of Knox screaming at the verdict, are beginning to make me feel ill. ...

as someone posted, in Italy the Judges discuss this case during the hearing, continually through the entire process.
In the US of course, they wait until its over and then begin discussions.

...so this Italy approach would help reduce the verdict time after closing.
(it also allows for leaks of the machine calling a dishonest insider to call a "reduction in sentence " is already known.)

off topic...
AmyStrange, mentions the Judge/Jury interraction tells the story and he claims obvious acquittal. The post intrigues me because the last jury did as he said , no eye contact.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/AmandaKnox/amanda-knoxs-family-judge-eye/story?id=9255726

Where as this case, the total opposite. They are laughing with the defense, agreeing, the C&V report totally in their favor.

This is a interesting view/note.


I feel the ill too....but the logical side of me says it has to be an acquittal.

As one poster really struck me, saying
"in every trial the prosecution needs 3 things to convict."
1. Motive, 2. Witness 3. Forensic/Science
Massei had no motive, and the only eye witness was Curatolo....but that courtroom had this abundance of Forensic/Science unattested.
Massei refused study.

Hellman , with the C&V report coming back in the defense favor, not just a little, but completely discrediting all the Forensic by their very own video, in addition to C&V "umpire" call....the Forensic / Science was destroyed.

so I cant possibly see how this court can convict? it seems impossible.

I can see an acquit if its a fully unbiased, non-politically motived verdict.

however if politics are involved, it means the system is ill.
And Frank wrote a very depressing article about the Multi-Level courts a long time ago and explains how "pass-the-verdict" to the next Judge is common.

I find it disturbing how they pushed the verdict out until Monday, that would be excruciating for the defendants. That seems like its not a good thing for some reason, unless its only for the Kerchers, then it should respect their request and needs.

 

[Kaosium]

I find it disturbing how they pushed the verdict out until Monday, that would be excruciating for the defendants. That seems like its not a good thing for some reason, unless its only for the Kerchers, then it should respect their request and needs.

I read it somewhat different. The verdict was originally Monday and then Hellmann wanted to set it back to Saturday--right after the prosecution rebuttals. That sends a message, as LJ noted, the prosecution can't help but miss the signal either. They're getting 'we'll be doing the verdict right after your rebuttal, and would you hurry it up about that too?' So they respond, like scalded maggots, with insisting the family of the victim needs travel time, something that wouldn't be denied and one last petty cruelty to be visited upon Raffaele and Amanda--just because they can.

 

[Dougm]

off topic...
AmyStrange, mentions the Judge/Jury interraction tells the story and he claims obvious acquittal. The post intrigues me because the last jury did as he said , no eye contact.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/AmandaKnox/amanda-knoxs-family-judge-eye/story?id=9255726

Where as this case, the total opposite. They are laughing with the defense, agreeing, the C&V report totally in their favor.

Do we have reliable confirmation of the jurors laughing along with the defense presentation, or just Amanda and some observers. I think if the jurors were actually laughing at what Ghirga was saying, that would be a very good sign.

If I were a juror, I would not laugh at a presentation by someone who's client is about to get found guilty of murder.

 

[Dougm]

I read it somewhat different. The verdict was originally Monday and then Hellmann wanted to set it back to Saturday--right after the prosecution rebuttals. That sends a message, as LJ noted, the prosecution can't help but miss the signal either. They're getting 'we'll be doing the verdict right after your rebuttal, and would you hurry it up about that too?' So they respond, like scalded maggots, with insisting the family of the victim needs travel time, something that wouldn't be denied and one last petty cruelty to be visited upon Raffaele and Amanda--just because they can.

I think that people are likely reading too much into the day of the verdicts being read. They have been at this for 9 months, and although it appears that the judge wants to finish it, things happen that make him have to move it back and forth. It is a bit interesting that he tried to move it up, especially by limiting the rebuttal time, but who knows? He might have wanted to move it up, and something happened, so he had to move it back. It might be the Kerchers needing to get there, or the media requests, or something else.

I don't think it indicates how they are going to vote.

 

[codyjuneau]

I read it somewhat different. The verdict was originally Monday and then Hellmann wanted to set it back to Saturday--right after the prosecution rebuttals. That sends a message, as LJ noted, the prosecution can't help but miss the signal either. They're getting 'we'll be doing the verdict right after your rebuttal, and would you hurry it up about that too?' So they respond, like scalded maggots, with insisting the family of the victim needs travel time, something that wouldn't be denied and one last petty cruelty to be visited upon Raffaele and Amanda--just because they can.

The Kerchers had probably made plans to arrive Sunday for Monday's verdict. Then the court moved the verdict date forward to Saturday which prompted the Kerchers to request the originally scheduled date.

The extra delay will be stressful for the Knox family and supporters but I think it is a reasonable request by the Kerchers and a reasonable response by judge Hellmann.


I think judge Hellmann is a reasonable man who understands the concepts of:
- burden of proof and
- proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judge Hellmann will also ensure that his lay jurors understand and implement these concepts when making their decision. I don't think judge Massei did this with his lay jurors because Massei himself did not seem to understand the concepts.

 

[lionking]

I don't think judge Massei did this with his lay jurors because Massei himself did not seem to understand the concepts.

A judge of a first world, G8 country did not understand these concepts? Really?

 

[HumanityBlues]

A judge of a first world, G8 country did not understand these concepts? Really?

A judge of a first world country thought it was constitutional in the United States to give someone the choice between church and prison.

There are stupid judges in every country, even first world, G8 ones, that often don't understand simple concepts.

I didn't even read whatever prompted your earlier response, but suffice it to say, the whole "first world, G8" line is a stupid talking point.

 

[lionking]

A judge of a first world country thought it was constitutional in the United States to give someone the choice between church and prison.

There are stupid judges in every country, even first world, G8 ones, that often don't understand simple concepts.

I didn't even read whatever prompted your earlier response, but suffice it to say, the whole "first world, G8" line is a stupid talking point.

Evidence? Come on, if a judge had such obvious shortcomings, if he didn't understand burden of proof, there would be some evidence.

What strikes me about the innocent viewpoint is that there is a tendency not to see examples of some mistakes by a few, but to see virtually everyone involved in the investigation, prosecution and judgement as either stupid or corrupt. A judge who doesn't understand basic principals of jurisprudence? Come on.

 

[Poppy1016]

First world country? At this point I think that is questionable. Perugia certainly lacks first world credentials. Their standing in the worlds eyes will improve if they do the right thing in this terrible injustice. Admitting errors and overhauling their justice system, especially in Perugia. A system without checks and balances allowed this mess. Everyone in the system must be held accountable, especially prosecutors and police. Their forensic work in this case was abysmal and not first world at all imo.

 

[RWVBWL]

This little snippet was very interesting and something I do not recall:

''...Also on 4/11/2007. There is a recording at police. The marche region guys. One boy says "is it premeditated?" "no, it is one who knew noone was there, or crazy". "which is the window of Meredith? ... it is the room of Marta's room [ girl living there before]" "there is a little window even I went up there once"

Hi Scorpion NITE,
<snip>
I too had noticed the mention of the previous tenant Marta,
and thought that the guy who lived downstairs was just saying that he went inside her bedroom once.

But your bolding "there is a little window even I went up there once" caught my eye and I wonder if it means something else?
What do you think that it means?

Apologies for the late reply RWVBWL - this thread moves so quickly, it's hard to keep up!

To be honest, I am not sure - it's possible that I was barking up the wrong tree, as no-one else seemed to comment on this or notice it. Maybe it is the wording - I just wondered whether it could possibly mean that he had actually gone up to the window from the outside - as in accessing it? Then again, maybe it is just the way it has been translated and he actually meant that he had gone up to the room? I dunno...

Greetings again, Scorpion NITE,
I too had the same feeling when I re-read your original post, and instead of writing a brief visualization, I thought I'd wait for you 1st. Since we seem to agree on the possibility:

The boys downstairs liikd to party a bit, they smoke, drink, shoot hoops. From what I've read, Giacomo, with his long hair, played in a local band, he also grew pot plants. With women living above, we know that at least 1 of the guys downstairs hooked up with someone from above, that being Giacomo. Might another of the boyz have done so too?

With that said, and using the statement we're curious about, how's this?:
After thev've been partying a bit, 1 of the guys, who was friendly with Marta above, climbs up onto the window security bars, Marta opens the window above, he climbs up and on in and they hook up, all without the knowledge of whomever else was in the apartment above also. Afterwards, he has to climb back down again.

This is the stuff of legends, the stuff that guys sometimes talk about when shootin' the crap as they drink a few beers, smoke a fatty. "Dude, check out this story. On night I hooked up with some hot chick named Marta, who used to live upstairs, climbed up the wall, into the window and it was on!" Did 1 of them brag about this conquest later on when they were partyin' and Rudy Guede had come over? If so, maybe the guy who made mention of this did not want to tell it to the cops, for he did not want to get involved, become a suspect in Meredith Kercher's murder and get harrassed by the police. I'm sure that the police would be just a little bit interested in him if they knew that he had climbed up that wall and into that window before, and it wasn't that hard.

However, it seems like this statement was recorded by the police. Was it ever investigated? For some reason I doubt it, for IIRC, they didn't even fingerprint or was that neglect to take DNA samples(?) of the guys who lived downstairs...

Somehow Rudy got the idea to break-in upstairs. How so though?
Might this visualization of mine been what had 1st sparked the idea to break into the gals upstairs apartment? Or was Rudy just cruising around town, casing any and every place he saw? Or did Rudy start looking at places where only females lived, such as his neighbor, who had her place burglarized and set aflame also?

I don't know, but in this interesting case we dscuss, I'll keep this in the back of my mind. As I still do with that mysterious car seen parked at the top of the cottage driveway. And still do with the cats blood found on the wall and light switch, and also on the napkins/TP found outside also. And still do when I wonder who broke into the apartment and stole Meredith Kercher's mattress...

See you,
RW

 

[Poppy1016]

Greetings again, Scorpion NITE,
I too had the same feeling when I re-read your original post, and instead of writing a brief visualization, I thought I'd wait for you 1st. Since we seem to agree on the possibility:

The boys downstairs liikd to party a bit, they smoke, drink, shoot hoops. From what I've read, Giacomo, with his long hair, played in a local band, he also grew pot plants. With women living above, we know that at least 1 of the guys downstairs hooked up with someone from above, that being Giacomo. Might another of the boyz have done so too?

With that said, and using the statement we're curious about, how's this?:
After thev've been partying a bit, 1 of the guys, who was friendly with Marta above, climbs up onto the window security bars, Marta opens the window above, he climbs up and on in and they hook up, all without the knowledge of whomever else was in the apartment above also. Afterwards, he has to climb back down again.

This is the stuff of legends, the stuff that guys sometimes talk about when shootin' the crap as they drink a few beers, smoke a fatty. "Dude, check out this story. On night I hooked up with some hot chick named Marta, who used to live upstairs, climbed up the wall, into the window and it was on!" Did 1 of them brag about this conquest later on when they were partyin' and Rudy Guede had come over? If so, maybe the guy who made mention of this did not want to tell it to the cops, for he did not want to get involved, become a suspect in Meredith Kercher's murder and get harrassed by the police. I'm sure that the police would be just a little bit interested in him if they knew that he had climbed up that wall and into that window before, and it wasn't that hard.

However, it seems like this statement was recorded by the police. Was it ever investigated? For some reason I doubt it, for IIRC, they didn't even fingerprint or was that neglect to take DNA samples(?) of the guys who lived downstairs...

Somehow Rudy got the idea to break-in upstairs. How so though?
Might this visualization of mine been what had 1st sparked the idea to break into the gals upstairs apartment? Or was Rudy just cruising around town, casing any and every place he saw? Or did Rudy start looking at places where only females lived, such as his neighbor, who had her place burglarized and set aflame also?

I don't know, but in this interesting case we dscuss, I'll keep this in the back of my mind. As I still do with that mysterious car seen parked at the top of the cottage driveway. And still do with the cats blood found on the wall and light switch, and also on the napkins/TP found outside also. And still do when I wonder who broke into the apartment and stole Meredith Kercher's mattress...

See you,
RW

All good questions that I too still wonder about. Strange case with many unanswered questions.

 

[JREF2010]

Do we have reliable confirmation of the jurors laughing along with the defense presentation, or just Amanda and some observers. I think if the jurors were actually laughing at what Ghirga was saying, that would be a very good sign.

If I were a juror, I would not laugh at a presentation by someone who's client is about to get found guilty of murder.

reliable at this point would be a video of it, and no ...i havent seen a video of this happening.

the numerous articles can be found by simple searches, mainly Toto and the "courtroom began laughing"..."ripples of laughter in the courtroom" etc.. as the courtroom watched the Perfect Squad & the bra clasp video, Girgha today was mentioned as effective with humor, i would guess sarcasm would be effective and considered by some as humor.

I'll take the odd's that if the courtroom was grinning, the judges were too, or at least made aware of the fact.

yes, its a good sign for the defense when the courtroom laughs at the video of the prosecutions only eye witness, defending heroin usage or their video of how they collected the clasp created laughter "from the courtroom".

A good question, but better detail could be obtained from those in the courtroom? I'd like to see the video proof too.

But like those sleeping in court, its mentioned it happens, but no videos yet.....

 

[DarkStar2011]

The boys downstairs liikd to party a bit, they smoke, drink, shoot hoops. From what I've read, Giacomo, with his long hair, played in a local band, he also grew pot plants. With women living above, we know that at least 1 of the guys downstairs hooked up with someone from above, that being Giacomo. Might another of the boyz have done so too?

With that said, and using the statement we're curious about, how's this?:
After thev've been partying a bit, 1 of the guys, who was friendly with Marta above, climbs up onto the window security bars, Marta opens the window above, he climbs up and on in and they hook up, all without the knowledge of whomever else was in the apartment above also. Afterwards, he has to climb back down again.

This is the stuff of legends, the stuff that guys sometimes talk about when shootin' the crap as they drink a few beers, smoke a fatty. "Dude, check out this story. On night I hooked up with some hot chick named Marta, who used to live upstairs, climbed up the wall, into the window and it was on!" Did 1 of them brag about this conquest later on when they were partyin' and Rudy Guede had come over? If so, maybe the guy who made mention of this did not want to tell it to the cops, for he did not want to get involved, become a suspect in Meredith Kercher's murder and get harrassed by the police. I'm sure that the police would be just a little bit interested in him if they knew that he had climbed up that wall and into that window before, and it wasn't that hard.

Interesting theory. The fly in the ointment, of course, is that they're saying that Kercher's window is the same as "Marta"'s, the one they could climb in for midnight visits. But, of course, the window where the break-in occurred was Filomena's room. So, unless the guys misidentified "the window of Meredith," they were saying there was a way you could get to the window of her room, not Filomena's, from the outside...which is not how the break-in occurred.

 

[Bob001]

Can it get worse?

I heard a radio news report in which the commentator said if Knox loses this appeal (I certainly hope she wins and goes home) she will automatically be sentenced to life in prison. Can that possibly be right? If you lose an appeal in Italy you're worse off than if you hadn't appealed at all? And the new sentence is preordained? That can't be right, can it?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I heard a radio news report in which the commentator said if Knox loses this appeal (I certainly hope she wins and goes home) she will automatically be sentenced to life in prison. Can that possibly be right? If you lose an appeal in Italy you're worse off than if you hadn't appealed at all? And the new sentence is preordained? That can't be right, can it?

It's not correct. The life sentence is not automatic. That is what the prosecution is asking for though. Doesn't mean they'd get it if the verdict was upheld. And I would say if it is upheld, that the sentence isn't going to be increased.

 

[Malkmus]

Evidence? Come on, if a judge had such obvious shortcomings, if he didn't understand burden of proof, there would be some evidence.

What strikes me about the innocent viewpoint is that there is a tendency not to see examples of some mistakes by a few, but to see virtually everyone involved in the investigation, prosecution and judgement as either stupid or corrupt. A judge who doesn't understand basic principals of jurisprudence? Come on.

The evidence is Hellman himself:

in his ruling the judge referred to the Italian penal code which said that a "conviction could only be secured against an accused if it was beyond all reasonable doubt".
He said the refusal by the original court to refuse independent analysis of the DNA evidence, which defence lawyers had requested, had violated that principle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...les-evidence-against-her-can-be-reviewed.html

Massei was the one who denied independent analysis. Hellman says that violated the principle of reasonable doubt.

 

[DarkStar2011]

I heard a radio news report in which the commentator said if Knox loses this appeal (I certainly hope she wins and goes home) she will automatically be sentenced to life in prison. Can that possibly be right? If you lose an appeal in Italy you're worse off than if you hadn't appealed at all? And the new sentence is preordained? That can't be right, can it?

In Italy, either side can appeal a conviction, including the prosecution, if they think the sentence of the original court was too lenient. At the appeals trial, no matter which side requested it originally, the prosecution can ask for a stiffer sentence than that handed down the first time, but the judge and jury are under no requirement to do so.

In this case, yes, the prosecutor has called for life sentences for the pair. However, in Italy, "life" is a rather odd sentence because it apparently can't be longer than thirty years, so it would only amount to a four-year extension of Knox's sentence, and a five-year extension of Sollectio's.

And an appeals court can not only increase a sentence, it can also reduce it. There was some speculation (on what basis I don't know) that this trial might end with a "face-saving" compromise where the two would be found guilty again, but only as "accessories to murder" or some such. In such speculation, a new motivations report (just as ludicrous as the first, IMHO) would describe Guede as the actual murderer, but say that Knox and Sollecido were in the cottage at the time and knew Kercher was being attacked but did nothing to come to her aid, and tried to cover up their involvement afterward. Therefore, their convictions would be on a lesser charge, and their sentences would be reduced to something like five years or so, so that they could be released with credit for time served in a little over a year. I don't think this conclusion is too likely, as it would satisfy no one, but it's an example of what Italian appeals courts could do if they so chose.

 

[snook1]

Was it resolved already how many lawyers are speaking today for each side?

Was it upheld that only one per side?

Mignini is up and, as usual, have nothing interesting to say. The same old BS.

 

[komponisto]

In Italy, either side can appeal a conviction, including the prosecution, if they think the sentence of the original court was too lenient. At the appeals trial, no matter which side requested it originally, the prosecution can ask for a stiffer sentence than that handed down the first time, but the judge and jury are under no requirement to do so.

In this case, yes, the prosecutor has called for life sentences for the pair. However, in Italy, "life" is a rather odd sentence because it apparently can't be longer than thirty years, so it would only amount to a four-year extension of Knox's sentence, and a five-year extension of Sollectio's.

And an appeals court can not only increase a sentence, it can also reduce it. There was some speculation (on what basis I don't know) that this trial might end with a "face-saving" compromise where the two would be found guilty again, but only as "accessories to murder" or some such. In such speculation, a new motivations report (just as ludicrous as the first, IMHO) would describe Guede as the actual murderer, but say that Knox and Sollecido were in the cottage at the time and knew Kercher was being attacked but did nothing to come to her aid, and tried to cover up their involvement afterward. Therefore, their convictions would be on a lesser charge, and their sentences would be reduced to something like five years or so, so that they could be released with credit for time served in a little over a year. I don't think this conclusion is too likely, as it would satisfy no one, but it's an example of what Italian appeals courts could do if they so chose.

Well put, and thank you for fleshing out the often-heard (but vague and ill-justified) speculation about a reduced sentence.

But, as you say, it isn't very likely. I suppose it's more likely than a full confirmation (or more) of the Massei verdict, but that isn't saying much.

Remember that Hellmann and Zanetti will have to specifically address the points raised in the appeal briefs in their motivation document. That means, in particular, that (if they render a verdict such as you suggest) they're going to have to come up with an explanation -- good enough to survive Cassazione scrutiny -- of how they reached their decision starting from the presumption of innocence (i.e. not requiring the defendants to prove their lack of guilt). (So "possible indeed probable" won't cut it.) And they're going to have to explain why there isn't any reasonable doubt about their guilt, despite having said that there was such doubt before appointing Conti and Vecchiotti! (If they didn't think that respect for the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' permitted them to convict without an independent review of the DNA, how in the heck could they possibly think it permits them to convict now, after their independent review produced these results?)

In order for the Hellmann court to re-convict Knox and Sollecito, they will have to find them guilty of some specific crime. "Being vaguely suspected of involvement in murder by incompetent authorities and a credulous public" isn't illegal.

 

[billyryan]

I read it somewhat different. The verdict was originally Monday and then Hellmann wanted to set it back to Saturday--right after the prosecution rebuttals. That sends a message, as LJ noted, the prosecution can't help but miss the signal either. They're getting 'we'll be doing the verdict right after your rebuttal, and would you hurry it up about that too?' So they respond, like scalded maggots, with insisting the family of the victim needs travel time, something that wouldn't be denied and one last petty cruelty to be visited upon Raffaele and Amanda--just because they can.

I agree fully Kaosium that the prosecution managing to find a way to add two more days of torture to what Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito and their families have suffered is despicable,I find it hard to believe that the presence of anybody in court accept the innocent wrongly convicted defendants should matter to a judge who I hope is going to reverse this terrible wrong