Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

Actually, for all I know, the possibility may even exist that Hellmann and Zanetti haven't yet settled on whether they're going to write it up under 530.1 or 530.2; this being merely a point of jurisprudence not affecting the status of Amanda and Raffaele, it may not have figured in the deliberations with the lay judges.

I have to agree

 

[Aepervius]

Perhaps it is actually instinctive behavior. Once the suspect is identified as being a liar and a sociopath, nothing she can say or do will convince people otherwise

I have seen that playing out. The liar could no do anything to get ride of her reputation. Anything she said, even "the sky is blue" was met with suspicion.

In addition, it has been known that once you are in a psychiatric asylum even on voluntary basis, it can be nigh impossible to convince anybody even the so called doctor to let you out, that you are fine now.

 

[RoseMontague]

4 - 3 = 1 year of legally undeserved prison time.

Or, in the case of fully-acquitted non-criminal Raffaele Sollecito, 4 - 0 = 4.

Finally some math even Rose can understand.

I am curious about the judgment regarding the landlord's civil suit. Was this mentioned in the ruling?

Also the hints that Mr. Memory may have recanted his testimony, anybody seen anything else on this one?

 

[bolint]

I am curious about the judgment regarding the landlord's civil suit. Was this mentioned in the ruling?

Yes, rejected.

 

[RoseMontague]

I agree entirely.

However, I am bothered by the calunnia conviction. I really don't think Amanda deserves to be a "convicted criminal".

I am more interested in the separate cases about the calumnia charges regarding the cops. It will be interesting how the court views this in light of the appeal court's ruling.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, rejected.

Thank you, bolint.

 

[DrDave]

4 - 3 = 1 year of legally undeserved prison time.

Or, in the case of fully-acquitted non-criminal Raffaele Sollecito, 4 - 0 = 4.

You're right, she should be charged for the years free food and accommodation.

 

[Quinn]

Oh, and for those who, remarkably, still seem to be holding out hope that the case could be appealed by the prosecution, all I can say is, get real. Given the way this case has shaken out, not to mention the realities of international politics, nothing short of a full-scale capture mission by the Italian military will ever get her back there for another trial. Get over it.

I don't see why it is so remarkable.

It will be appealed. It depends only on the prosecutors and they both said they would appeal.

It is another question if the appeal succeeds.

But I really don't see how they do not appeal it.

You're right, I should have said "successfully appealed," not just "appealed." I was unclear on that point, and I stand corrected. That said, my (intended) statement remains unchanged, and I stand by it. Regardless of what paperwork is filed by which clueless and/or self-serving officials, you will never see Amanda Knox in another Italian courtroom, much less prison.

 

[Machiavelli]

It was not for me, but I'm also interested:


The problem is that the judge in the Perugia case did not explicitly say which paragraph was used.
So to resolve this a case is needed in which the judge does not mention the paragraph and still means Para 2.

But I don't think that in a sentence this is possible.
While I could accept that Para 1 is the default (i.e. it is implied if no Para is mentioned), I don't believe that Para 2 could be such default interpretation.

Whatever I think, as I see, the Italian newspapers consider it automatically Para 1, "formula piena".

But not mentioning the paragraph is no option. It's a mistake.
And a case as you mention it would not "resolve" the question at all: even if we found such a case, we would still not know what the judges decided untill we read the dispositivo and the rationale in the sentencing report. And even if we don't find such case of "not mentioning", still we won't have any basis to rule it out. So there is no alternative but reading the paper. The reading of verdict was omissive.

 

[pipelineaudio]

can someone remind me of the name of the other case that is going on in italy right now also involving a girl, prosecutors threatening the press and other similarities?

 

[misteratunta]

I found this oddly diplomatic and reasonable post on TJMK - doesn't PQ vet his posters like PMF?

I will not comment on the verdict. We are taught in Law school in Italy that a sentence must always be respected. Therefore I feel compelled to assume that Amanda and Raffaele were indeed innocent (at least until the decision by the Supreme Court).

However the Supreme Court of Cassation cannot reverse the Appeals Court verdict and issue a guilty verdict.

The Supreme Court can however find the Appeals Court decision in violation of procedural law or in the application of the law. In which case the Supreme court will remand the case back to the Appeals Court for an appeal retrial.

The Supreme Court however rarely reverses a not guilty verdict by the appeal court rendered with so called “formula piena” (i.e. full exoneration from having committed the crime, not just lack of evidence).

Therefore the most likely outcome is a confirmation of the acquittal by the Supreme Court.

This is a defeat for the Italian justice either way. If they are indeed guilty, they were let go because of the investigators’ and prosecutors’ incompetence. And if they are indeed innocent they were imprisoned unjustly for 4 years for no reason.

Either way the system has shown its horrible flaws. Shame is not a strong enough word.

 

[RoseMontague]

can someone remind me of the name of the other case that is going on in italy right now also involving a girl, prosecutors threatening the press and other similarities?

The Sarah Scazzi murder case, cousin Sabrina Masseri and her Mom charged with murder, about 20 others charged with various and sundry crimes related to the case.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

How was Dr. Novelli able to conclude that there was no contamination if he did not have access to the elecronic data files. If he had access to them, why was he allowed access to them when the defense was not, during the first trial?

The defense has never asked the electronic raw data files that you address. In order to have this request formalized, you must have this request written among the appeal document. And the defense did not issue any such request. You don't seem to understand that in order to attribute any relevance to such data and/or request/denial, you must have this request as a point written in the reasons demanding appeal. Otherwise this is no reason for appeal.

Moreover, electronic raw data were totally irrelevant in Vecchiotti and Conti's reasoning. Their conclusions are based on else.
It is not even proven they were ever requested at any time, while all useful electronic data had been provided to the defence (by their own admission: they only complained they got them too late, yet before the trial).
Note, on the other hand Vecchiotti and Conti did not request a huge amount of data - two arrays of negative controls in laboratories and tests on the apartment floor - data which they later asserted did not exist. And their assertion is proven false.

 

[RoseMontague]

The defense has never asked the electronic raw data files that you address. In order to have this request formalized, you must have this request written among the appeal document. And the defense did not issue any such request. You don't seem to understand that in order to attribute any relevance to such data and/or request/denial, you must have this request as a point written in the reasons demanding appeal. Otherwise this is no reason for appeal.

Moreover, electronic raw data were totally irrelevant in Vecchiotti and Conti's reasoning. Their conclusions are based on else.
It is not even proven they were ever requested at any time, while all useful electronic data had been provided to the defence (by their own admission: they only complained they got them too late, yet before the trial).
Note, on the other hand Vecchiotti and Conti did not request a huge amount of data - two arrays of negative controls in laboratories and tests on the apartment floor - data which they later asserted did not exist. And their assertion is proven false.

I am curious if you have seen this and what you make of it?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

You seem to think you are always right and never wrong, from what I have read in the previous Knox threads.

Could I ask you - how did you call the verdicts of Amanda and Raffaele?

Didn't you say that they would be found GUILTY?

If so, er, erm, wouldn't that make you wrong?

I attributed 1% the chance of acquittal based on the evidence analysis. Because they are guilty, and no one is acquitted on this evidence but in case of bribery. The same prediction was made by Italians on the same board.

But you are essentially wrong on the statement "seem to think you are always right and never wrong"; this that I think I am always right is your own opinion. Your arbitrary judgement, imo unfounded.

I am right on what I can demonstrate, as I did with LJ: where you can see I am obviously right. I think am also right on the assertion that the defendants are guilty.

I have also specified some conditions in which I would change my opinion from guilt to reasonable doubt or to innocence. So the basis of my assertions are transparent and stabile. These conditions for changing my position are not met; I don't see why I should change my conclusion on the basis of arguments that I consider irrational and false.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

You seem to think you are always right and never wrong, from what I have read in the previous Knox threads.

Could I ask you - how did you call the verdicts of Amanda and Raffaele?

Didn't you say that they would be found GUILTY?

If so, er, erm, wouldn't that make you wrong?

And, yes there is also a little thing I forgot to say.
A little thing which, I notice nobody pays attention to it in the innocentisti camp, everybody seems focused on the fact that Amanda is free as the only parameter.

But in fact, the verdict is guilty of calunnia and three years imprisonment. This is a felony criminal record in Italy. This means, logicall, all those who predicted she would be considered innocent were also wrong in their prediction.
On a pure logical line, it is not that I was more wrong on verdict prediction compared to those who predicted "not guilty". In fact, Knox was found guilty. On a crime which, not only is rather serious in Italy but also loaded with implication on the other charges. By now, by the law Knox is a liar and a person who willfully obstructed justice. This is not an irrelevant point.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am curious if you have seen this and what you make of it?

This is already known. Verbatim of Bongiorno's requests for further documentation. Or better, a request of nullification because of late discovery.
Her requests had been accepted by the prosecutios. Stefanoni provided them the whole paper documentation on the SAL and the CDs with the elaborated files.
Later on, there has not been any futhrer complaint about the "lack of electronic raw data"; I don't see any request of such data not even in Bongiorno's speech; there has been a complaint by the defense expert for the lack of some of data specifications in the SAL (date, time, reagent concentration on some of the templates); but no further request of any "electronic" data.
No such further request in the courtroom, no such further request in the appeal points.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let us not forget

There's also the ridiculous theory that she will be compensated for wrongful imprisonment. Nah, she will have to get by with the millions she will get on the talk circuit.

lionking,

Would it be ridiculous to compensate Raffaele for wrongful imprisonment?

 

[Quinn]

But in fact, the verdict is guilty of calunnia and three years imprisonment. This is a felony criminal record in Italy. This means, logicall, all those who predicted she would be considered innocent were also wrong in their prediction.
On a pure logical line, it is not that I was more wrong on verdict prediction compared to those who predicted "not guilty". In fact, Knox was found guilty. On a crime which, not only is rather serious in Italy but also loaded with implication on the other charges. By now, by the law Knox is a liar and a person who willfully obstructed justice. This is not an irrelevant point.

Ah yes, let us not forget that she remains convicted of a crime that she never should have been put in a position to commit, and wouldn't have been if not for the incompetence and/or misconduct of the authorities.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is already known. Verbatim of Bongiorno's requests for further documentation. Or better, a request of nullification because of late discovery.
Her requests had been accepted by the prosecutios. Stefanoni provided them the whole paper documentation on the SAL and the CDs with the elaborated files.
Later on, there has not been any futhrer complaint about the "lack of electronic raw data"; I don't see any request of such data not even in Bongiorno's speech; there has been a complaint by the defense expert for the lack of some of data specifications in the SAL (date, time, reagent concentration on some of the templates); but no further request of any "electronic" data.
No such further request in the courtroom, no such further request in the appeal points.

Later the same day

BONGIORNO - So right now I am President
examination directly ask the Court to take note that once again a technical consultant indicates that lack of reading material that is used for exact dell'elettroferogramma, I think he said this time more specifically, perhaps the clearest ' importance, we are talking about a test I think was essential and reiterated the fact ... us for now we're just arguing that there is something missing, not the end result, then to avoid any disqualifications I well understand at the same time I'm feeling the track remained a consultant I would like at this time to the Court that I ask again that this material be acquired immediately and ask that this material has not been made available, the so-called intermediate material of which the Professor spoke Tagliabracci records that do not exist and these are immediately made available and once again I repeat that if this is not was put ... that the very fact of being made available does not eliminate the consequences that I always reiterate the deposition of dell'inutilizzabilità Stefanoni and void because, of course, will be continued to grow, but in addition to reiterate that I believe what is said by the consultant to support an exception that was promptly rejected immediately appeal to the Court this instance, I have to continue or decide now?