Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Teddy2007]

In my observation, it seemed once they were acquitted, Amanda was quickly dragged aggressively out of the courtroom. I wasn't sure why they didn't let her hug her family. You do get to see Raffaele hug his father.
I wasn't sure if this was a hostile act by the police. In fact it was two male guards that instigated the dragging, and the female guards (that usually escort her) are seen running after to catch up. That was very strange to me. Just curious if there would be a good reason (rather than my assumption of hostility) -- perhaps because she was having such an emotional outpouring?

Also I love the shot the Bongiorno as you can see the relief it hit her.

It was a bit fast wasn't it? However, I took careful note of the expressions on those dragging her out and I have to say there were signs to my biased eyes that they were happy with the verdict.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Kevin they tracked down where they thought he worked, disseminated it throughout the ether, took the picture they thought was his and put it on an old avatar of his that said something like 'The Face of Evil, Kevin's Thrill Kill Kult.' They did this repeatedly over the course of months, not a one day ordeal.

That would change my mind, yes. Not too surprised to see what people get up to, I suppose.

However, isn't there something of a false equivalency between torturing a squirrel and being happy the squirrel got away from the torturer? Isn't there a distinction to be drawn between being happy that two innocents go free and those who condemned them prematurely distraught, and actively working to see that two innocent people spend up to thirty years in a steel box?

I saw a few posts. And uh.. You do realize I said gloating. Not merely happy. I'm refering generically to what happens when factions polarize, but that's a different matter. (How bad one gets is a different issue, I just generally dislike heavily polarized factions.)

There's a way to determine with facts that reasonable doubt exists in this case. Hell, one can approach the threshold of them being innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. The Hellmann Court itself didn't limit itself to merely establishing that reasonable doubt existed, it went for the exoneration code of paragraph one, section 530.

I said I was unwilling to commit as I don't feel like diving into the material and want to wait until the appeal. However, as they are currently legally innocent, they most likely are facutally innocent. (There's a small chance they aren't, and I prefer not to talk in absolutes. Besides, I don't follow the material, so I'm most likely to just say they're innocent and not make the distinction unless I made it in the ..
.. I'll retract my statements and say they've been proven innocent.)

That's actually excellent advice, however the ire generated that you responded to was actually mostly towards media and peripheral players in the case.

Ah, the media. I can't blame you too much for that.

 

[DarkStar2011]

_____________________

Kaosium,

Yummi is correct about this (but not much else). There's a simple explanation for those who can connect the dots......

Besides the many prison guards and the uniformed cops there were also plainclothes cops in the courtroom, as mentioned by one of the Italian news sources. We've all seen Amanda escorted into and out of the courtroom multiple times. This time when she was escorted out, the prison guards surrounded her and they virtually ran with her out of the courtroom. Ever seen that before? 'Nuf said.

///

So, you are saying the plainclothes officers may have been there to make sure a..."tragic accident"...happened to Amanda Knox were she to be acquitted? And Hellman's nervousness was really making sure that the prison guards were well-positioned to get her out of the courtroom and make sure no such "accident" occurred?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Common sense tells us that Amanda was escorted out of the courtroom in a hurry for safety reasons only.

 

[bolint]

Just to be completely clear on the ruling that Hellmann delivered last night:

Article 530 of the Italian criminal code explicitly states that if the verdict is acquittal, the judicial panel can acquit either because of insufficient evidence, or because their conclusion is that the defendant(s) did not commit the crime(s), or because their conclusion is that the crimes themselves did not occur.

In this instance, Hellmann's judicial panel ruled very specifically that Knox and Sollecito were acquitted of the charges A (the murder itself, with sexual aggravation), B (the transportation of the kitchen knife), C (the sexual assault) and D (the theft) on the grounds that Knox and Sollecito did not commit these crimes. And it ruled that Knox/Sollecito were acquitted of charge E (the simulation of the break-in etc) because that crime was not committed by anyone, and did not therefore exist (that last one was a good spot by Rolfe last night - it was almost impossible to hear Hellmann make this part of the ruling in court due to the hullabaloo that broke out after the A, B, C, D acquittals were announced).

Therefore, nobody should be in any doubt whatsoever that in the view of Hellmann's court, this was categorically not a case of simple reasonable doubt. Rather, his court came to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito had had nothing at all to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Hellmann's court is correct and justified in coming to that conclusion.

There is no "reasonable doubt" clause in 530, thus he could not have written it for any of the counts, anyway.

 

[Teddy2007]

One of Barbie's tweets last night:

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
#amandaknox leaves capanne prison a free woman. A 14 seat private jet apparently waiting to whisk her away to seattle tomorrow.

The stupidity of this person has no bounds.

 

[icerat]

One of Barbie's tweets last night:

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
#amandaknox leaves capanne prison a free woman. A 14 seat private jet apparently waiting to whisk her away to seattle tomorrow.

The stupidity of this person has no bounds.

Is that "apparently" in there to avoid slander charges?

They are in the air now, and have left Italy on the way to Heathrow on a commercial flight.

 

[ForTruth]

In my observation, it seemed once they were acquitted, Amanda was quickly dragged aggressively out of the courtroom. I wasn't sure why they didn't let her hug her family. You do get to see Raffaele hug his father.
I wasn't sure if this was a hostile act by the police. In fact it was two male guards that instigated the dragging, and the female guards (that usually escort her) are seen running after to catch up. That was very strange to me. Just curious if there would be a good reason (rather than my assumption of hostility) -- perhaps because she was having such an emotional outpouring?

Also I love the shot the Bongiorno as you can see the relief it hit her.

It was a bit fast wasn't it? However, I took careful note of the expressions on those dragging her out and I have to say there were signs to my biased eyes that they were happy with the verdict.

Common sense tells us that Amanda was escorted out of the courtroom in a hurry for safety reasons only.

Yeah, having reviewed the clip again, I can see that. And it is Amanda who has been such a focus and easily the situation could have turned into a mob on top of Amanda. Unless Amanda implies otherwise, I regret having suggested that there was any aggression.

 

[komponisto]

I for one would like to hear from Giancarlo Massei.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is no "reasonable doubt" clause in 530, thus he could not have written it for any of the counts, anyway.

You're wrong. Do you know what you're talking about? Para 2 of 530 should be referred to in the ruling if the acquittal is on the grounds of reasonable doubt, whereas Para 1 should be referred to if acquittal is on the grounds that the conclusion reached by the panel is that the accused did not commit the crime or that the crime did not occur. Please do some research before posting nonsense that embarrasses your position.

Art. 530.
Sentenza di assoluzione.

1. Se il fatto non sussiste, se l'imputato non lo ha commesso, se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è previsto dalla legge come reato ovvero se il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile per un'altra ragione, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo.

2. Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova che il fatto sussiste, che l'imputato lo ha commesso, che il fatto costituisce reato o che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile.

3. Se vi è la prova che il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità ovvero vi è dubbio sull'esistenza delle stesse, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione a norma del comma 1.

 

[Nogbad]

It seems harsh to say it, but just like the guilters, the Kerchers' purported inability to understand why the decision was overturned, betrays either lack a decent knowledge of the facts of the case or are they not blessed with the required powers of logic.

Basically you are saying they are morons who are unfamiliar with any of the details of the case?

Maybe it is just me but that seems a tad harsh.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Tonight on ABC Nightline, their legal analyst, of all people, talked about how "this all may have started with Amanda's own words." I muted the TV but turned the sound back on to hear Terry Moran say, "In other words, she may have brought it on herself."

Exactly. Not sure why this backlash from US media....

 

[LondonJohn]

I found it sad to listen to the Kerchers speaking this morning. Personally, I'd have preferred it if they'd not held a press conference, and just returned to the UK to try to figure things out. It's upsetting to see that they still clearly believe that Knox and Sollecito truly did participate in Meredith's murder.

Perhaps the moment when Maresca submits his huge invoice (and they no longer have any civil judgement against Knox or Sollecito from which to pay his fees), the Kercher family might start to give some measured consideration of the role that Maresca has played in this whole sorry mess. And that in turn might be the catalyst for them to have the clarity of thought to realise the truth behind Meredith's murder. I certainly hope that is the case.

 

[komponisto]

She knows what she is doing

Giulia Bongiorno:

At the first level, when the independent review was denied, I called Dr. Sollecito and said, "They're going to convict your son". At the second level, when the results of the review came out, I called Dr. Sollecito and said, "They're going to acquit your son".

This happens to be exactly the way I saw it myself.

Bongiorno was the best lawyer of any in this case.

 

[Katody Matrass]

"Knox to be trained in how not to look shifty"

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/knox-to-be-trained-in-how-not-to-look-shifty-201110044377/

But Knox could still be dragged back to Italy after prosecutors pledged to launch an appeal against the acquittal based on one of the photographs where she looks like an evil, sexy witch.

A source said: "It's a lot stronger than our first case, so we are reasonably confident."

 

[Onofarar]

And SG said she wanted to know what the PM stood for in Mignini's title. So do I. But you raving geniuses are wittering on about PMF, wot we all know about.

Rolfe.

Hi Rolfe - thank you for your sane comments.

PM = Publicio Ministerio (pardon my poor Italian spelling).

 

[bolint]

You're wrong. Do you know what you're talking about? Para 2 of 530 should be referred to in the ruling if the acquittal is on the grounds of reasonable doubt, whereas Para 1 should be referred to if acquittal is on the grounds that the conclusion reached by the panel is that the accused did not commit the crime or that the crime did not occur. Please do some research before posting nonsense that embarrasses your position.

I know what I'm talking about.

Para 2 declares the same grounds (did not occur, not committed,...) as Para 1 and says that an acquittal should be declared for these even if the proof is insufficient for them.

So it exactly removes the reference to "reasonable doubt" from the verdict as in both cases only the grounds are given with the acquittal, not the level of certainty.

 

[bolint]

Exactly. Not sure why this backlash from US media....

They must be the puppets of Mignini.

 

[LondonJohn]

I know what I'm talking about.

Para 2 declares the same grounds (did not occur, not committed,...) as Para 1 and says that an acquittal should be declared for these even if the proof is insufficient for them.

So it exactly removes the reference to "reasonable doubt" from the verdict as in both cases only the grounds are given with the acquittal, not the level of certainty.

No, I'm sorry. You're just plain wrong. Either you can't understand the Italian or you can't assimilate what's written there. But if you prefer to want to argue that black is white, that's your prerogative. It's not good for your credibility though.

 

[Kaosium]

Basically you are saying they are morons who are unfamiliar with any of the details of the case?

Maybe it is just me but that seems a tad harsh.

Actually they'd be better off if they were. Instead they've had their heads filled with bilge from their detestable lawyer so they believe in things like the 'second knife,' that Rudy's Supreme Court Motivations Report will damn Amanda and Raffaele despite it not being true and silly besides, that the cops claiming the break-in was staged means anything when they can't prove it and basically must claim the break-in was staged to make any case against Raffaele and Amanda. Oh, and that there really is a multi-million dollar 'PR campaign' being waged on behalf of Amanda.

It's ugly what the combination of Mignini and Maresca did to them. They now believe a ridiculous irrational fantasy of Meredith's death that's unfalsifiable as any information that contradicts the Massei Report can be 'blamed' on the 'massive PR campaign' which somehow has its tentacles in the American, British and Italian media and can work Judge Hellmann to their will and corrupt the independent experts from Rome.