Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Malkmus]

What on Earth is your source for this?

It doesn't mean anything if it's true. But I just want to know which media outlet has been reporting on Hellmann's dining arrangements for Monday.

andreavogt Andrea Vogt
Culinary sources in Perugia say a catering service is organizing lunch & dinner Monday for #amandaknox jury. Long deliberations?
2 hours ago

 

[lane99]

Everything comes back to food with Italians, doesn't it?

It's nice, in a way.

 

[smkovalinksy]

What on Earth is your source for this?

It doesn't mean anything if it's true. But I just want to know which media outlet has been reporting on Hellmann's dining arrangements for Monday.

It was tweeted earlier today, from a well-known journalist covering the case live in Perugia:

Twitter
Andrea Vogt
Culinary sources in Perugia say a catering service is organizing lunch & dinner Monday for Amanda Knox jury. Long deliberations?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Everything comes back to food with Italians, doesn't it?

It's nice, in a way.

agreed. Just hope over their pasta fagiole they are not upholding the conviction.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hellmann doesn't need to save Mignini's face. The guilty verdict came from Massei's court and any acquittal is going to completely upset Massei's motivation report so Massei's face is toast too (though Massei may be able to claim that he was lied to by the prosecution, he was given plenty of notice that the prosecution was not being honest and he should have sought his own reviews). If Hellmann is going to find them culpable of anything he is going to need documentation to back it up or he'll just be joining Massei and Mignini. What documentation is left to back a verdict of culpability?

I think we need, once again, to distinguish between the word "appeal" as it's used in the context of this trial and the word "appeal" as it always applies in the UK/US/Australia etc. In the latter version, the appeal court is indeed being invited to overturn or confirm the verdict of the lower court. And any overturning of the verdict can - in many circumstances - be interpreted as an inherent criticism of the lower court's competence or judgement.

But I cannot restate enough that this is not the case in the Italian model. There may be some implicit tension if the appeal trial countermands the first (lower) trial, but to nowhere near the same extent as in the post-conviction appeal situation that most of us are more familiar. Again, I think it's well worth thinking of the situation in Italy as more akin to a "preliminary trial" and "real trial". Whilst the analogy is not perfect, it's almost certainly a better comparison than misinterpreting the word "appeal" as used in the second trial.

So it's more appropriate to consider that Knox and Sollecito have been found guilty in the preliminary trial, and that the main trial is now making the ultimate finding of fact. Hellmann's court is in no way beholden to the rulings and judgement of Massei's court, and my reading of the situation is that Hellmann (and his judicial panel) will consider the case in total isolation and disinterest. Therefore, I think we should heavily discount any thoughts of Hellmann's court being unduly influenced by the prospect of disagreeing with Massei's court.

 

[LondonJohn]

Unlike some others, I'm not willing to make too many overconfident predictions in this case. But I do strongly feel that Hellmann will heavily drive this decision. Remember, he must write the motivations report to which he will give his imprimatur. Hellmann has given the impression that he is a rationalist, and that is the best sign possible for AK and RS.

As I've written here in previous days, I think two things are very probably true: firstly, Hellmann and his judicial panel have been discussing and cementing their decision over the past few weeks, and I think they had come to a definite decision by the middle of last week; and secondly, I think that the "two judges / six lay jurors" composition of Italian criminal juries is fundamentally flawed, and that in fact it's the two judges who essentially decide the verdict. I think it is probably extremely rare that the lay judges contradict the two professional judges (although Italian lack of transparency in this area appears to make this impossible to ascertain). And with that in mind, I think that Hellmann's actions, words and demeanour to date in this appeal trial give every indication that he is a) rational and reasonable, and b) inclined increasingly towards acquittal.

I will therefore repeat once again for the record that in my view the objective, reasonable prediction of the outcome of this trial is that Knox and Sollecito will both be acquitted - probably of all charges, but certainly of the main murder charge. To me, it's the only possible verdict in the light of all the available facts, and especially in the light of the prosecution's dreadful attempts to argue for guilt in their closing arguments. I truly don't believe that Hellmann or Zanetti can logically see things in any other way. As I've said many times before, if ever there was a reasonable doubt case, this (in my view) is it. Not only is there an enormous amount of doubt of guilt, but there is scant decent evidence that Knox or Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with Meredith's murder.

My conclusion: Knox and Sollecito are going to be acquitted tomorrow. And that verdict will be reached correctly and justly, based entirely on the facts and evidence available. It will have had nothing to do with the media circus, political pressure, the mythical multi-million-dollar PR supertanker, or any other extraneous factor. The simple truth is that there is not (and never was) any reason to find Knox or Sollecito guilty of this horrific crime.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I think we need, once again, to distinguish between the word "appeal" as it's used in the context of this trial and the word "appeal" as it always applies in the UK/US/Australia etc. In the latter version, the appeal court is indeed being invited to overturn or confirm the verdict of the lower court. And any overturning of the verdict can - in many circumstances - be interpreted as an inherent criticism of the lower court's competence or judgement.

But I cannot restate enough that this is not the case in the Italian model. There may be some implicit tension if the appeal trial countermands the first (lower) trial, but to nowhere near the same extent as in the post-conviction appeal situation that most of us are more familiar. Again, I think it's well worth thinking of the situation in Italy as more akin to a "preliminary trial" and "real trial". Whilst the analogy is not perfect, it's almost certainly a better comparison than misinterpreting the word "appeal" as used in the second trial.

So it's more appropriate to consider that Knox and Sollecito have been found guilty in the preliminary trial, and that the main trial is now making the ultimate finding of fact. Hellmann's court is in no way beholden to the rulings and judgement of Massei's court, and my reading of the situation is that Hellmann (and his judicial panel) will consider the case in total isolation and disinterest. Therefore, I think we should heavily discount any thoughts of Hellmann's court being unduly influenced by the prospect of disagreeing with Massei's court.

This was my impression, and is still my hope.

 

[yeti101]

So it's more appropriate to consider that Knox and Sollecito have been found guilty in the preliminary trial, and that the main trial is now making the ultimate finding of fact.

just because there's not enough evidence to convince a jury doesn't mean they weren't involved in the murder.

 

[Dougm]

I think we need, once again, to distinguish between the word "appeal" as it's used in the context of this trial and the word "appeal" as it always applies in the UK/US/Australia etc. In the latter version, the appeal court is indeed being invited to overturn or confirm the verdict of the lower court. And any overturning of the verdict can - in many circumstances - be interpreted as an inherent criticism of the lower court's competence or judgement.

But I cannot restate enough that this is not the case in the Italian model. There may be some implicit tension if the appeal trial countermands the first (lower) trial, but to nowhere near the same extent as in the post-conviction appeal situation that most of us are more familiar. Again, I think it's well worth thinking of the situation in Italy as more akin to a "preliminary trial" and "real trial". Whilst the analogy is not perfect, it's almost certainly a better comparison than misinterpreting the word "appeal" as used in the second trial.

So it's more appropriate to consider that Knox and Sollecito have been found guilty in the preliminary trial, and that the main trial is now making the ultimate finding of fact. Hellmann's court is in no way beholden to the rulings and judgement of Massei's court, and my reading of the situation is that Hellmann (and his judicial panel) will consider the case in total isolation and disinterest. Therefore, I think we should heavily discount any thoughts of Hellmann's court being unduly influenced by the prospect of disagreeing with Massei's court.

Interesting. So in this case, you think that the issue of contradicting any previous ruling, and, of course, any ruling in any other trial (re: the Guede business) is not only irrelevent, but not really a big issue?

I ask in this way because many, while thinking that Hellmann seems much more rational and focusing on facts than Massei, are also concerned that coming up with a diametrically opposed verdict would be embarrassing to their collegues in the judiciary, which is contrary to the pricipal of "saving face". But your post might lead me to believe these concepts are not connected, and that, even if Hellmann's court has a completely different verdict, no one on the Massei court will see it as anything negative to them.

Now, I would hope that Hellmann and jury would not base any decision on such trivial things as someone else being offended anyway, but others have wondered about this.

 

[smkovalinksy]

just because there's not enough evidence to convince a jury doesn't mean they weren't involved in the murder.

Legally, if there is not enough evidence, they are not guilty.

 

[Malkmus]

As I've written here in previous days, I think two things are very probably true: firstly, Hellmann and his judicial panel have been discussing and cementing their decision over the past few weeks, and I think they had come to a definite decision by the middle of last week; and secondly, I think that the "two judges / six lay jurors" composition of Italian criminal juries is fundamentally flawed, and that in fact it's the two judges who essentially decide the verdict. I think it is probably extremely rare that the lay judges contradict the two professional judges (although Italian lack of transparency in this area appears to make this impossible to ascertain). And with that in mind, I think that Hellmann's actions, words and demeanour to date in this appeal trial give every indication that he is a) rational and reasonable, and b) inclined increasingly towards acquittal.

I will therefore repeat once again for the record that in my view the objective, reasonable prediction of the outcome of this trial is that Knox and Sollecito will both be acquitted - probably of all charges, but certainly of the main murder charge. To me, it's the only possible verdict in the light of all the available facts, and especially in the light of the prosecution's dreadful attempts to argue for guilt in their closing arguments. I truly don't believe that Hellmann or Zanetti can logically see things in any other way. As I've said many times before, if ever there was a reasonable doubt case, this (in my view) is it. Not only is there an enormous amount of doubt of guilt, but there is scant decent evidence that Knox or Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with Meredith's murder.

My conclusion: Knox and Sollecito are going to be acquitted tomorrow. And that verdict will be reached correctly and justly, based entirely on the facts and evidence available. It will have had nothing to do with the media circus, political pressure, the mythical multi-million-dollar PR supertanker, or any other extraneous factor. The simple truth is that there is not (and never was) any reason to find Knox or Sollecito guilty of this horrific crime.

The challenge I think Hellman has tomorrow will be rationalizing the accusation against Patrick to the lay judges. This is what the first jury is cited as the main reason for guilt, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is what's being discussed as that catered dinner is being eaten late into the night.

I think one aspect of the media has possibly had an affect on this, and that is the awareness raised, perpetrated mainly by Hampikian, against the knife DNA, and that maybe being the reason for independent review. Just a guess.

 

[LondonJohn]

I might be an outlier here, but I see that as very positive for them. If I lived in Italy, and was not that interested in the details of the case, only what is in the newspapers, I would probably think they are guilty. A poll showing close to 50/50 seems positive to me.

Not to mention that polls like these are virtually meaningless. Any time the public are invited to vote on specific issues such as this, the outcome is completely distorted by ignorance, preconceptions, self-selection and poor reasoning. That's even more true than normal in a case of this complexity and nuance. For heaven's sake, when you get even people who have more than a passing familiarity with the case saying things like "Well, Knox falsely accused an innocent man, and only a guilty person would ever do that", then the odds of a snap poll like this having any validity whatsoever is close to zero.

I always chuckle when UK newspapers run polls on things like "Should we have another public holiday between August and December?". It won't surprise you to know that results of polls such as this are, shall we say, not based on a wider holistic cost-benefit analysis.....

 

[Malkmus]

just because there's not enough evidence to convince a jury doesn't mean they weren't involved in the murder.

That's why the prosecution has brought in the she-devil witch argument. The evidence simply isn't there.

 

[yeti101]

Legally, if there is not enough evidence, they are not guilty.

in the eyes of the law yes. But reality has been different from court decisions many times.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Kercher's mother says "it would take a total news blackout for the judges to render their decision freely"

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cron...mamma_sorella_allibiti_sull_assoluzione.shtml

 

[smkovalinksy]

in the eyes of the law yes. But reality has been different from court decisions many times.

But this cannot concern us here. I may be a horrible person, with a lust for revenge, but if you cannot prove I have done anything, it is wrong to incarcerate me.

 

[Dougm]

Not to mention that polls like these are virtually meaningless. Any time the public are invited to vote on specific issues such as this, the outcome is completely distorted by ignorance, preconceptions, self-selection and poor reasoning. That's even more true than normal in a case of this complexity and nuance. For heaven's sake, when you get even people who have more than a passing familiarity with the case saying things like "Well, Knox falsely accused an innocent man, and only a guilty person would ever do that", then the odds of a snap poll like this having any validity whatsoever is close to zero.

I always chuckle when UK newspapers run polls on things like "Should we have another public holiday between August and December?". It won't surprise you to know that results of polls such as this are, shall we say, not based on a wider holistic cost-benefit analysis.....

The ones I love in the US are when the media says, "if the election were held today ..." . The problem is, the election is not being held today, but 14 months from now, so it renders the poll meaningless. But people like to talk about these polls, so I am sure they will keep doing them, and giving them way more importance than they deserve.

My comment on the Italian poll on the case was from using similar reasoning to yours. If, given what has been in the newspapers, and the fact that the average person tends to side with the authorities in these kinds of cases ("well, why are they in court if they didn't do something?"), I think that getting 44 percent of the Italian public to say they think they are innocent (or was it will be found not-guilty?) is pretty good.

 

[Kaosium]

just because there's not enough evidence to convince a jury doesn't mean they weren't involved in the murder.

True, and it might normally be the case that it's more likely a person committed the crime than they will be convicted for it, but this is one of those cases where I think those figures reversed. There still is a reasonable chance, I'd estimate it at 10%, that they will be found guilty. However there is much lesser chance they actually committed it. Their problem is the prosecution unhinged and the police corrupt, two factors not normally present, which some are disinclined to believe possible to this extent in a modern democracy--even though just about every one has those to an extent.

 

[Dougm]

Kercher's mother says "it would take a total news blackout for the judges to render their decision freely"

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cron...mamma_sorella_allibiti_sull_assoluzione.shtml

Unfortunately, this sounds like laying the ground for a post verdict rationalization that they were found not guilty because of the media.

 

[yeti101]

But this cannot concern us here. I may be a horrible person, with a lust for revenge, but if you cannot prove I have done anything, it is wrong to incarcerate me.

as they say it's better to let 10 guilty go free than have 1 innocent imprisoned.