Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

It looks like she said that in the break, too.

No, she also said it at the end of her rebuttal when she asked for the maximum penalty for Amanda and Raffaele (see the second of the videos Clander posted here at about 0:49*). I wonder if this means she also mentioned the supposed lack of extradition treaty in Court as well as to journalists during the break...?

*Well, strictly speaking she doesn't say in the U.S. there's the death penalty, but she does say that fortunately in Italy there isn't (possibly the one comment from Comodi I agree with!).

 

[bri1]

Er, this is Italy. It is allowed because it is allowed.

Lion King.
There are a great many people on the JREF board who are interested in discussing and understanding justice, rather than just Italy's legal system (one expression of justice).
Those who complain about other posters' approach on the basis that what happens in the UK / USA is irrelevant to this case, are, in a sense right in that legally, they are irrelevant (except for maybe when they intersect, for example at any possible extradition hearing).
However, some posters have been trying to pick out the principles of justice that underpin the law in other legal systems, and arguing that the fact that some of these principles are not recognised in the Italian system, and that therefore Italy's legal system in flawed. This is both useful and interesting and relevant. It's a comparative approach, which is a recognised way of studying criminal justice (as well as other subjects like religion).
You can find out more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_criminal_justice

One of the conclusions by many of the posters here and elsewhere, arrived at through this comparative approach, is that the only appropriate time for victims to address a court (if they are not witnesses able to testify about fact pertaining to the actual crime, which the Kerchers are not) is after culpability has been decided. Their suffering is irrelevant to the question of culpability, and only becomes relevant to proceedings if the defendant(s) has been shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judge is looking at factors relevant to how the defendant(s) should be sentenced.

It's not only the irrelevance that's problematic (in terms of the victim or their family 'weighing in' with their view on culpability), it's the danger that these views might disproportionately affect the deliberations of the jury. This danger stems from:
a) The fact that the family are in no better position to tell the jury what happened that night than anyone who has followed the case closely.
b) The fact that the victim's family is going to be viewed by the jury as impartial, as more interested in the truth than the 'partial' groups (defense and prosecution) - even if the victim's family are actually blinded by emotion and confirmation bias.

 

[icerat]

Is there any evidence at all that the Kercher's are/were struggling financially to attend, with no support, or is it just the prosecution claiming this?

Given their track record of honesty ........

 

[DarkStar2011]

Er, this is Italy. It is allowed because it is allowed.

I was not speaking of the rules in Italy. I was replying to Dave's statement that he would, personally, let them address the court before deliberations begin.

As to your point, I have no indication that it is "allowed," at least in the sense of being mandatory if the victim's family requests it. If it is not mandatory, but at the discretion of Hellmann, and Hellmann opts to allow it, I stand by my observation that it would be a clear sign to me that he had already reached a decision to convict.

 

[bolint]

I realize Barbie is Barbie, but this tweet bothers me.

@BLNadeauBarbie Latza Nadeau
At very int'll dinner with journos frm italy, US, UK & #amandaknox verdict consensus is could go either way
The journalists have seen Hellman and the jury. IF it's true the decision can go either way, I fear the worst.

I agree with them, it can go either way.
The prosecution's position hase become weaker than in the first degree trial but it has not disappeared. The biggest factor, Hellmann's opinion, is however not known.

 

[bolint]

I thought you were following the final arguments.

I was following it, that's why I'm asking, because I don't understand.

What exactly was Hellmann's vice?

I'm not even sure that it is really about Hellmann.
It may be an error of Frank.

Because the chief prosecutor of Perugia did show up to support the prosecution.

The president of the appeal court is however a certain "Antonio Bonajuto, presidente della Corte d'appello di Perugia" (or at least he was in 2009, I don't know the present president http://www.umbrialeft.it/node/13450.)

I did not hear mentioning this name in these days.

Edited:
Now I have found this recent report on the work of the appeal court and the prosecutors.
http://www.giustizia.umbria.it/amm/Documenti/relazioneAnnoGiudiziario2011.pdf

It says (p16) that the current president:

"Il Presidente della Corte di Appello
Wladimiro De Nunzio"

I haven't heard his name, either, showing up in this trial.

 

[theRealBob]

Let’s deal with what has happened. Amanda didn’t come home before Meredith. Amanda has not been brutally murdered and has not lay in her grave for the past 4 years, I am not being emotive I believe this are facts that even you can agree with?

The overall impression I get from those who support Amanda (poor Raffaele doesn’t seems to get a look in), is some kind of strange need to put Meredith and her family down, whilst elevating Amanda to one stage short of beautification.

I still await your enlightenment.

It's impossible to offer enlightenment to a poster of your type.

Meredith didn't come home before Amanda either. There's videos of both Meredith and Rudy going there seperately that night. None obviously of Amanda and Raff, but you know there never would be.

The people who post here are concerned with dangerously insane attributions of false evidence against people who are certainly totally innocent of Rudy's crime.

Amanda is not being beautified, the opposite, or far, far worse is unjustly taking place, and people here quite rightly stick up for her in the face of it, and Raff who barely gets mentioned.
And we'd all switch to the opposite point of view straight away, without any undue concern, if some evidence was ever finally produced. We're emotionally unattached and reasonable about what is going on. It's impossible to produce any evidence anyway. But it's easy to destroy every shred of what the crazy prosecution tells you they've got.
It's an obvious moment of blatant showmanship at the moment by the Kerchers in the trial to get at, and ruin the lives of two innocent young lives because Mignini ????? and the Perugian cops ??? felt like chucking them in on their rashly solved murder and telling them they'd solved the crime.
The Kerechers know no more than us. By failing to use reason, and taking the wrong side, they know less.
The longer the time goes by and the evidence is shredded and dissolved the more obvious it is that these two people were unquestionably not involved in the crime.
But the victims families just go along with what, a police force that are low-level filth, and an evil prosecution who find it almost totally imposible to survive a single day in court without resorting to something evil and illegal tell them
The prosecution does that for the simple reason they've got nothing else.
All their non-evidence and lies, and lies, and lies has been systemically destroyed.
The victims family shouldn't decide the trial incorrectly and emotively because they have failings in reading what is around them that makes them blinded to what is just.
Apparently the parents or someone of someone involved in the Lockerbie Four never forgave the incorrectly blamed people even after it was proved that it was impossible for them to have committed the crime.
The Kerchers ascribe to a superficial and self motivated side of the case that only ever provides us with the information that they know less about the real murder than us. And that's at the top of their hirachy too. Some is dumb. some is cheap and nasty. Some knows they're innocent as well but will never give up their pursuit of those two.
All of it, one way or another from that side of the case is on some level...just evil.
Most people here don't denigrate the Kerchers. Most of us feel sorry for them, and I feel sorry for the Sollicitos and Knoxes too.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Because the chief prosecutor of Perugia did show up to support the prosecution.

See, you got it after all.

 

[bolint]

*Well, strictly speaking she doesn't say in the U.S. there's the death penalty, but she does say that fortunately in Italy there isn't (possibly the one comment from Comodi I agree with!).

Well, let's speak strictly.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

LondonJohn

I am not trying to assess whether Raffaele and Amanda are guilty or as you put it non-guilty, I am weird in the since I think that is up to the appeal court to determine, whilst others appear to believe justice should administered via internet blogs. Yes you are correct I did mean beatification, thank you for pointing that out.

Your argument is as irrelevant to the issue as me asking you if you would like to swap positions with someone in the Darfur refugee camp. You are making a meaningless comparison for purely emotional effect. Can't you see that?

I found the comparison being made by this particular poster just as irrelevant by attempting to make a point that it could just as easily been Amanda that had been murdered, it wasn’t. I wouldn’t expect you to see that.

 

[bri1]

LondonJohn

I am not trying to assess whether Raffaele and Amanda are guilty or as you put it non-guilty, I am weird in the since I think that is up to the appeal court to determine, whilst others appear to believe justice should administered via internet blogs.

Don't mean to pile on, here, but couldn't help addressing this.

Nobody here believes that justice should be administered via internet blogs. They merely think that public scrutiny is important to the process, and that factual guilt or innocence can be ascertained by anyone willing to research enough.

The appeal court will determine the verdict of guilty or not guilty, but the fact of this verdict does not determine the factual guilt or innocence.

Of course, not everyone is interested in finding out factual guilt or innocence (or able to commit the time to research this properly), and that's fine, and it's absolutely correct that these people should not speculate as to factual guilt or innocence. However, in blindly accepting the court's judgement, these people are likely to (occaisionally) endorse court decisions which have not been arrived at safely or fairly.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I'm afraid that this whole "raise money to get the Kerchers to Perugia" business smacks once again of conspicuous compassion. Call me cynical, but I read this as nothing more than an overt attempt to demonstrate how "kind hearted" and generous the "family" of members of that board are, as well as an attempt by those very people to make them feel good about themselves. Quite apart from the sheer practical impossibility of fulfilling such a quest (it was first proposed at around midnight UK time last night, and the Kerchers will need to get a flight early Monday morning at the latest, and a way would have to be found to collect and aggregate money from all those people, and get it across to the Kerchers by tomorrow at the very latest), it's an empty gesture that also manages to patronise the Kerchers.

I feel sorry if the Kerchers have been inconvenienced financially by the burden of having to meet their travel and subsistence costs. But isn't it strange that the "kind-hearted family" on that forum only decided to try to help out at the absolute 11th hour? And besides, without wishing to labour the point, there are plenty of ways to fly from London to either Perugia or Rome for less that £50 return if flights are booked over two weeks in advance. And a budget hotel in Perugia will not be very pricey. I agree that it is unfair and distasteful that the Kerchers may be forced to take the budget option while the Knox family is being wined and dined by all and sundry. But the raw truth is that if this is all about whether the Kerchers are actually able to be in Perugia for key moments in the judicial process, then I would argue that it's entirely possile for them to be there at relatively low cost. I reiterate that i feel very sorry indeed for the Kerchers and their predicament, but at the same time I can clearly see that there is a massive ulterior motive behind the last-minute conspicuous compassion being shouted from the rooftops by a certain group of maladjusted individuals.

One thing that genuinely puzzles me, and I am not trying to be mean or callous or anything, but I thought the Kerchers were a reasonably well-to-do family.

I had heard the father had a career as a journalist, and that Meredith had been sent to an elite London school, and that the family valued high education. Her sister and brothers are presumably grown professional people. How is it that no one has a credit card to book flights and a hotel?

Again, not trying to be callous, but am genuinely puzzled as to how they could be in this state right when the verdict is pending, which has been scheduled for months now? In any case, I think Maresca and Mignini ought to have paid their travel expenses, rather than publicly humiliating them.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Meredith was a student abroad, much like Amanda. The two girls seem to have been friends, even if Amanda might have got on Meredith's nerves from time to time. Meredith thought a vibrator was embarrassing. I hope she really didn't think condoms were embarrassing, because she was sleeping with her drug dealer boyfriend whom she had only known a short time. She partied with the best of them, being said to be drunk on occassion, including Hallowe'en when she came in with the milk, went to bed without taking off her makeup and slept till noon. The guilters like to hypothesise that she had a bad hangover, when that's convenient to their pseudo-scientific theories about the stomach contents. And she was smoking her boyfriend's cannabis.

Here's one thing that has puzzled me ever since I started to look at the case: Generally, when you have a murder of a young woman in what looks like a crime of passion, suspicion is automatically cast on her boyfriend or husband, and the police usually check him out very carefully right off the bat. In this case, it seems as if the rush to judgment against Knox and Sollecito was on from the start -- did PLE ever examine Kercher's boyfriend to see if he might have been dumped by her or found she was seeing someone else? It seems as if his role was discounted from the very beginning. That is especially odd considering he was apparently involved in criminal activity (drug-dealing). If he himself had an alibi, might LE not have investigated as to whether Kercher's murder might have been in retaliation against her boyfriend by a rival dealer or gang?

In fact, if this whole story was merely a Hollywood screenplay I was writing, I would have it end with the brilliant detective or defense attorney proving that the victim was actually killed in a mob "hit" by a syndicate wanting to intimidate her boyfriend from horning in on their territory...and that the local police had been in bed with the syndicate (either through generic graft and corruption, or because they were using the leader as an informant) and chose to protect them by immediately blaming the whole thing on "the usual suspects" -- in this case, the victim's American roommate and her boyfriend.

What's that you say? That we should be dealing in facts, not far-fetched Hollywood mystery scenarios? But I thought this was all about far-fetched Hollywood mystery scenarios! After all, what else can be said about a prosecution theory that turns a clear-cut surprised-burglar-kills-resident situation into some sort of four-way "Satanic sex ritual and human sacrifice," presided over by a genuine "spell-casting witch," except that it sounds just like something a sensationalist screenwriter would dream up after a few too many margaritas at the Polo Lounge?

 

[smkovalinksy]

To that, I would say not only "no," but "Hell, no!"

In the U.S., they allow the family members of the victim to speak, but only during the sentencing phase after guilt has already been decided. Not before.

Think about this: In Italy, as in the U.S., the standard for conviction on a murder charge is "proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." If there's reasonable doubt of an accused's guilt, the task of the jury to acquit is clear. Now, if you have a mother and/or father of the victim, already convinced of the accused's guilt, speak before deliberations to give a tearful account of the pain they suffered and a plea not to make it worse by letting their child's killer(s) go free, you've changed the whole dynamic of the delibration. Instead of the prosecution having to show "proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," you're essentially requiring the defense to show "proof of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt" -- because the jury members will be thinking that "if there's any doubt whatsoever that the accused may not be innocent, I can't possibly add to the pain of the family by letting someone who might be guilty go free."

Letting the family of the victim address the court before a verdict of guilt or non-guilt is reached is an unbelievable perversion of the criminal judicial process -- far worse, IMHO, than anything the prosecution has done so far in the case. I'll go further and say that, if Hellmann has any control in the matter, and allows such an event to proceed, it will tell me with 100% certainty that he's already decided to convict.

I am reading it this way as well....

 

[Rhea]

To that, I would say not only "no," but "Hell, no!"

In the U.S., they allow the family members of the victim to speak, but only during the sentencing phase after guilt has already been decided. Not before.

Think about this: In Italy, as in the U.S., the standard for conviction on a murder charge is "proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." If there's reasonable doubt of an accused's guilt, the task of the jury to acquit is clear. Now, if you have a mother and/or father of the victim, already convinced of the accused's guilt, speak before deliberations to give a tearful account of the pain they suffered and a plea not to make it worse by letting their child's killer(s) go free, you've changed the whole dynamic of the delibration. Instead of the prosecution having to show "proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," you're essentially requiring the defense to show "proof of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt" -- because the jury members will be thinking that "if there's any doubt whatsoever that the accused may not be innocent, I can't possibly add to the pain of the family by letting someone who might be guilty go free."

Letting the family of the victim address the court before a verdict of guilt or non-guilt is reached is an unbelievable perversion of the criminal judicial process -- far worse, IMHO, than anything the prosecution has done so far in the case. I'll go further and say that, if Hellmann has any control in the matter, and allows such an event to proceed, it will tell me with 100% certainty that he's already decided to convict.

I agree completely apart from the last bit, I don't think Hellman should allow this, but if he does it doesn't necessarily mean he is going to convict.

I personally am pretty conviced that Hellmann has already made his mind up into the other direction. If he is allowing this to happen it wouldn't change my perception that he is going to acquit …

 

[bolint]

After all, the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Switzerland as well, but that didn't stop them from saying "forget it" when we called on them to send Roman Polanski back here for sentencing.

Yes, and DSK payed the price.

Seriously, I think, that extraditing own citizens is not right.
So France is right not to do that.

I'm, however, against extradition treaties in general.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Here's one thing that has puzzled me ever since I started to look at the case: Generally, when you have a murder of a young woman in what looks like a crime of passion, suspicion is automatically cast on her boyfriend or husband, and the police usually check him out very carefully right off the bat. In this case, it seems as if the rush to judgment against Knox and Sollecito was on from the start -- did PLE ever examine Kercher's boyfriend to see if he might have been dumped by her or found she was seeing someone else? It seems as if his role was discounted from the very beginning. That is especially odd considering he was apparently involved in criminal activity (drug-dealing). If he himself had an alibi, might LE not have investigated as to whether Kercher's murder might have been in retaliation against her boyfriend by a rival dealer or gang?

In fact, if this whole story was merely a Hollywood screenplay I was writing, I would have it end with the brilliant detective or defense attorney proving that the victim was actually killed in a mob "hit" by a syndicate wanting to intimidate her boyfriend from horning in on their territory...and that the local police had been in bed with the syndicate (either through generic graft and corruption, or because they were using the leader as an informant) and chose to protect them by immediately blaming the whole thing on "the usual suspects" -- in this case, the victim's American roommate and her boyfriend.

What's that you say? That we should be dealing in facts, not far-fetched Hollywood mystery scenarios? But I thought this was all about far-fetched Hollywood mystery scenarios! After all, what else can be said about a prosecution theory that turns a clear-cut surprised-burglar-kills-resident situation into some sort of four-way "Satanic sex ritual and human sacrifice," presided over by a genuine "spell-casting witch," except that it sounds just like something a sensationalist screenwriter would dream up after a few too many margaritas at the Polo Lounge?

Your Hollywood screenplay makes a great deal of empirical sense. As for the fantastic theory which was put forth about the sex ritual, here to my thinking is the explanation for it, plain and simple: This article lays it out, with no concealment of the brutality of its logic :

http://abcnews.go.com/International...-seeking-revenge-redemption/story?id=14623904

 

[bri1]

Here's one thing that has puzzled me ever since I started to look at the case: Generally, when you have a murder of a young woman in what looks like a crime of passion, suspicion is automatically cast on her boyfriend or husband, and the police usually check him out very carefully right off the bat. In this case, it seems as if the rush to judgment against Knox and Sollecito was on from the start -- did PLE ever examine Kercher's boyfriend to see if he might have been dumped by her or found she was seeing someone else? It seems as if his role was discounted from the very beginning. That is especially odd considering he was apparently involved in criminal activity (drug-dealing). If he himself had an alibi, might LE not have investigated as to whether Kercher's murder might have been in retaliation against her boyfriend by a rival dealer or gang?

In fact, if this whole story was merely a Hollywood screenplay I was writing, I would have it end with the brilliant detective or defense attorney proving that the victim was actually killed in a mob "hit" by a syndicate wanting to intimidate her boyfriend from horning in on their territory...and that the local police had been in bed with the syndicate (either through generic graft and corruption, or because they were using the leader as an informant) and chose to protect them by immediately blaming the whole thing on "the usual suspects" -- in this case, the victim's American roommate and her boyfriend.

What's that you say? That we should be dealing in facts, not far-fetched Hollywood mystery scenarios? But I thought this was all about far-fetched Hollywood mystery scenarios! After all, what else can be said about a prosecution theory that turns a clear-cut surprised-burglar-kills-resident situation into some sort of four-way "Satanic sex ritual and human sacrifice," presided over by a genuine "spell-casting witch," except that it sounds just like something a sensationalist screenwriter would dream up after a few too many margaritas at the Polo Lounge?

It's my understanding that Giacomo had a very good alibi (hundreds of miles away, with lots of people).
I think Rolfe was mentioning this 'drug dealer' element to show that Meredith, like Amanda, was not squeaky clean (although still relatively normal for someone her age in her habits, as Amanda was).
The fact of the matter is that Giacomo had about 5 plants, and if he did 'deal' it was only very small quantities and to friends. Plus, it's fairly normal for stoners to 'deal' in this way, because marijuana is difficult to get hold of consistently, and they tend to be generous folks!
The fact of this difficulty in getting hold of weed, makes any 'rival dealer' story inherently implausible- there's more than enough custom for those involved in this trade, at this level, no need for turf disagreements. (Higher levels, where more is at stake, is a slightly different kettle of fish).

 

[bri1]

Now theft, on the other hand, is a real possibility. The fact is that if people (especially peripheral people like Guede was in their 'group') know you grow / keep weed in your house, then you're open to the possibility that someone might try and steal it....

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DarkStar,

Meredith's boyfriend Giacomo was out of town that weekend. He still got a lawyer, IIRC.