They are not logically linked. It is possible that Knox had nothing to do with the murder, yet still decided to falsely accuse Lumumba of her own free will. Perhaps, for example, she was fed up with the police insinuating that she was involved in the murder, and decided to send them off on a wild goose chase after Lumumba in order to stop the police from hassling her.
Perhaps. But they already had stopped putting pressure on her: she told the story in a spontnepous statement, not an interrogarions. Then told new false stories and false accusations in hand written notes, and through a series of othr decisions unrelated to pressure.
Perhaps she did that because she is an irrational and dangerous idiot.
But, you see, one cannot start from the assumption that it is just likely that everything remains defined as a series of irrational and unexplained actions. You have to start from the assumption that there is likely some rational direction in one's actions, because this is the normality. Total foolishnesss on a series of actions is rare, requires some evidence. And in Amanda's case the direction of her actions is obvious. There is a logical and rational explanation immediately visible and thy point in that direction.
But the point is not that it is possible for Knox to be totally innocent (you know, under 530.1) of the murder, yet still guilty of criminal slander against Lumumba. The point is that there is clearly now reasonable doubt that she willfully falsely accused Lumumba, given that she was exonerated of the murder.
Absolutely not. Quite the contrary. If there were reasonable doubt in the court's minds, she would have been acquitted. There is no reasonable doubt - there must be no reasonable doubt in the sentencing report, in order not to invalidate it - that she willfully falsely accused Lumumba; moreover, there must be no reasonable doubt that she knew Lumumba was innocent.
So by your own explanation, you rendered quite well the reasons why this verdict could be easily nullified by the Cassazione. You make my point showing how the charges are linked and the verdict is contradictory. How can the there be innocence (or reasonable doubt, recall we
don't know yet if its' 530.1 or 530.2) on murder, and
no reasonable doubt she willfully falsely accused Lumumba. Good question. You have to put it to those judges who issued the verdict.
I'm sure the Supreme Court will put the same questions.
The main plank of the case any for willful false accusation - that Knox was culpable of the murder, and therefore deliberately chose to falsely accuse an innocent man as an attempt to evade justice - is now gone. Therefore the criminal slander guilty verdict is impossible to justify on a "beyond a reasonable doubt" test now. I predict that it will probably be quashed on appeal, and sent back to the appeal court level as a stand-alone charge.
Interesting, so you predict that the sentence will be nullified. You need to destroy the verdict in order to perform that operation that you wish; you must in fact
nullify the whole sentencing report.
In practical terms, you are saying this verdict is rubbish. You need an entire new writing of the whole verdict in order to form a consistent document, this is what you say. And, you may not "destroy" a verdict on appeal in which the first instance was conviction, without
repeating the appeal. Your claim requires an entire re-setting of the whole appeal. You seem to think you will "skip" this pesky passage and re-state a trial as a one charge standong alone trial. I think, instead, this will not be possible. The charges are knit togehter by continuation and you may not nullify half a document and approve pieces cut off with scissors from its text and from its logic. The Cassazione needs a correct sentencing report ready to be approved.
Moreover, all this process need an application by the defence to appeal against the verdict by the supreme court.
Incidentally, to clarify what some others have said, Knox is not a convicted felon. She will not stand convicted of the criminal slander charge unless and until the Supreme Court affirms the verdict and imposes the sentence. And in that regard, she has not in fact served a three-year sentence for the crime.
In that regard, if her conviction is confirmed by the Cassazione, her three years will be considered served. I mean, precisely served, the sentence will not declares not suspended nor will be ordered to serve further years: she will be considered as having been justly detained for three of the four years and will be in fact asked to pay for her feeding and sheltering in prison.
By now, she can be called a person convicted for a felony in Italy. But there the point is about youf beliefs. If you already think she is innocent, you anticipate the conviction will be overturned. Otherwise she is just convicted by now.
