For once, I think he's right. I'm not sure about the calumny conviction though. I don't understand how Hellmann came up with that in the first place, and I wonder if that is susceptible to overturning at Supreme Court level.
Rolfe.
I'm going to have to beg to differ. I think Otto's reasoning is completely incorrect. The reason why the case is over regarding Knox and Sollecito and the murder charges (plus the staging, theft and transportation of the knife) is that there's no evidence which points to their guilt of these crimes. There appear to be no solid grounds for a prosecution appeal to the Supreme Court on these charges. Even if a prosecution Supreme Court appeal were to be successful, and the murder (etc) charges were referred back for retrial at appeal court level, I am near certain that Knox and Sollecito would be "re-acquitted" in such a retrial.
Furthermore, Otto is regurgitating two pieces of nonsense that have become part of the pro-guilt rationalisation mantra: firstly, (s)he is asserting that Hellmann, in some post-trial remarks, "
stated that the pair may have been involved, but he did not think there was enough evidence to connect them to the murder". This is a total distortion of what Hellmann said. Hellmann's point was essentially that he does not know what happened on the night of the murder (and nor was it his court's job to try to determine what happened). He stated that Guede most certainly does know, and that it's possible that Knox and Sollecito also know (and were also involved). He's stating a philosophically-correct position that neither he nor anyone else (other than Knox, Sollecito and Guede) can know with certainty whether or not Knox or Sollecito participated in the murder. But that is categorically
not to suggest that Hellmann's position is that Knox or Sollecito might have been involved, in the sense that they should be viewed as suspects. Rather, it means that Knox and/or Sollecito might have been involved in the same sense that anyone in or around Perugia on that night (who doesn't have an unimpeachable alibi for the time of the murder) might have been involved.
Secondly, Otto clearly suggests that a particular "process" (his/her word) employed by Knox and her family/friends had a material impact upon the Hellmann court's verdict. In Otto's mind, this malevolent "process" is some diabolical combination of "
PR firm, media pressure (and) political connections", and (s)he is clearly insinuating that it had a measurable effect upon the outcome of the appeal trial. My position is that this "argument" is arrant nonsense, is an insult to the integrity of Hellmann's court (and the Italian judiciary in general), and is totally unsupported by any evidence.
Anyhow, notwithstanding all of the above, to me the really interesting part of the Supreme Court issue is that concerning a Knox defence appeal over the Lumumba slander charge. I personally feel that Knox's lawyers have pretty good grounds for a successful appeal on a couple of points of law related to this charge. But the more interesting question is this: does Knox herself (and her lawyers) actually want a successful Supreme Court appeal on this charge? After all, a successful appeal will only lead to a retrial at appeal court level. And even though I think Knox would have a high chance of acquittal in any retrial on this single charge, I have to wonder whether she (or her family) would want to travel back to Perugia and spend weeks if not months attending a retrial. This, to me, is by far the most interesting thing left to discuss.
