Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bob001]

....
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....

Assume that Amanda wins a Supreme Court appeal regarding the slander charge. Would her appearance at a retrial be necessary, or could her lawyers handle it on her behalf? If a retrial is ordered and she fails to appear (more than likely), could she be convicted in absentia? Would Italian authorities attempt to extradite her from the U.S.? Would they be able to issue some kind of international arrest warrant that could be enforced elsewhere in the world if she traveled outside the U.S.? If she submitted to a new trial could she get a stiffer sentence? Instead of going through a retrial, would she be able to say something like "I am grateful that the court has overturned my conviction, but to finally conclude this matter I will pay the fine that was originally imposed" (she's already done the jail time), or negotiate some other deal? It seems like it would be potentially dangerous to do anything could result in more legal action.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court confirms her acquittal on the murder charges, putting an end to the primary issue, does she have any grounds for action against anyone on her own behalf? False arrest against the police and prosecutors? Assault against the cop who apparently hit her? Invasion of privacy for release of confidential records? Negligence against the investigators who mishandled evidence? "Calumnia" against anyone who called her a killer? In the U.S. somebody in her position would be suing (I think justifiably) everybody who ever had a finger in this case.

 

[Dan O.]

Name one person Harris and Klebold killed.

I can name two: Erick Harris and Dylan Klebold.

 

[Ammonitida]

Rudy went to the lawyers and told he had purchased the stuff in Milan. Who could doubt that? Everyone knows that Perugian thieves sell their stuff in Milan.

Yeah, that's how he was identified, not as the burglar but as the man trying to sell the stolen goods. Rudy just gave the typical thief excuse.

 

[LondonJohn]

Name one person Harris and Klebold killed.

Name one person Bundy killed.

Meredith has not been forgotten. Had they just convicted Rudy she would have been much more so.

I totally agree. It's high time to address what amounts to little more than emotional blackmail in this phoney "battle for Meredith's memory", and its particularly nasty cousin: the idea that those arguing for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals had either "forgotten" about Meredith, or - worse - that they are somehow indifferent to Meredith's suffering.

I hear that the father of Kyle Velasquez is about to release a book simply entitled "Kyle", which will be a moving account of the life and death of his son, and the family's struggle to come to terms with the loss. "Who's Kyle Velasquez?", I hear you ask. Well, he's a 16-year-old victim of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and he was callously shot dead while cowering in fear under a desk in the library at Columbine High School. Kyle Velasquez's family strongly feel that Kyle has been forgotten in all the coverage after the Columbine tragedy; his father has written a number of newspaper articles bemoaning the fact that everyone talks about Harris and Klebold rather than his son.

(No such book is being released (to my knowledge), by the way, and I have no idea whether Kyle Velasquez's family feel that Kyle has been ignored or overlooked amidst coverage of the Columbine tragedy - although there appears to be no public indication that this is how they feel. The above paragraph was merely to illustrate a point.)

 

[komponisto]

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.

Indeed. Basically, the only way there could be a successful prosecution appeal to the Cassazione would be if Hellmann and Zanetti somehow screwed up the motivation. My guess is that they're going to be careful not to do that!

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.

This is not necessarily true. The Supreme Court technically has the authority to simply acquit (or even convict, I suppose), so long as it can do so based exclusively on legal considerations relating to facts already in the record. See here. Of course, that doesn't say anything about how often they actually do so.

(They can also send a case all the way back down to the first level if they want.)

 

[komponisto]

Name one person Harris and Klebold killed.

Cassie Bernall.

(Frankly, I would have expected there to be at least one JREF thread on that particular story...)

(EDIT: And yes, there is a book!)

 

[LondonJohn]

Assume that Amanda wins a Supreme Court appeal regarding the slander charge. Would her appearance at a retrial be necessary, or could her lawyers handle it on her behalf? If a retrial is ordered and she fails to appear (more than likely), could she be convicted in absentia? Would Italian authorities attempt to extradite her from the U.S.? Would they be able to issue some kind of international arrest warrant that could be enforced elsewhere in the world if she traveled outside the U.S.? If she submitted to a new trial could she get a stiffer sentence? Instead of going through a retrial, would she be able to say something like "I am grateful that the court has overturned my conviction, but to finally conclude this matter I will pay the fine that was originally imposed" (she's already done the jail time), or negotiate some other deal? It seems like it would be potentially dangerous to do anything could result in more legal action.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court confirms her acquittal on the murder charges, putting an end to the primary issue, does she have any grounds for action against anyone on her own behalf? False arrest against the police and prosecutors? Assault against the cop who apparently hit her? Invasion of privacy for release of confidential records? Negligence against the investigators who mishandled evidence? "Calumnia" against anyone who called her a killer? In the U.S. somebody in her position would be suing (I think justifiably) everybody who ever had a finger in this case.

Firstly, if Knox does successfully appeal to the Supreme Court on the Lumumba Slander charge, I suspect that it's possible that she could be retried in absentia, but I doubt that her lawyers would want to be floating that idea at the moment.

Secondly, this is not really about additional incarceration any longer. Even if Knox were to be retried at appeal court level and ultimately reconvicted, it is extremely unlikely that the sentence would involve any more than three years 11 months prison time. And since she's already served this length of time in custody while on remand, she would never be required to return to an Italian prison (unless the sentence were four years or longer, which is near impossible for this offence).

So what this is now about is whether Knox has a criminal conviction hanging over her or not. She does not risk further incarceration. If a) she does not appeal, or if b) her appeal is unsuccessful, or if c) her appeal is successful but she is found guilty again at an appeal court retrial (which is then confirmed by the Supreme Court), then she will have a criminal conviction following her around - potentially for the rest of her life. This may have negative ramifications for certain employment prospects, or ability to travel, or ability to seek certain types of public office. However, if she does appeal to the Supreme Court, and the appeal is successful, and she is subsequently acquitted at an appeal court retrial, then she will have a totally clean record so far as criminal convictions are concerned.

In addition to the practical issues surrounding the possession of a criminal record, there is also the ideological factor: Knox may feel very strongly that she does not want to be labelled a criminal in any way, shape or form, and that might colour her appeal strategy as much as (or even more than) any practical considerations. There might of course also be commercial considerations (Knox's story is more commercially viable if she has total exoneration), but I personally think that this is probably some way down the list of Knox's priorities.

 

[Grinder]

This is not necessarily true. The Supreme Court technically has the authority to simply acquit (or even convict, I suppose), so long as it can do so based exclusively on legal considerations relating to facts already in the record. See here. Of course, that doesn't say anything about how often they actually do so.

(They can also send a case all the way back down to the first level if they want.)

I would be surprised if they could reverse a not guilty at the second level to guilty based only on legal technicalities, but not shocked.

 

[katy_did]

This is not necessarily true. The Supreme Court technically has the authority to simply acquit (or even convict, I suppose), so long as it can do so based exclusively on legal considerations relating to facts already in the record. See here. Of course, that doesn't say anything about how often they actually do so.

(They can also send a case all the way back down to the first level if they want.)

Thanks, that answers a question I was going to ask! I'd thought that the Supreme Court can acquit in some circumstances (as happened, I think, with Andreotti) though I'm not sure exactly what those circumstances are or whether any would apply here. Except that, as you say, it would have to be on exclusively legal grounds.

 

[LondonJohn]

Indeed. Basically, the only way there could be a successful prosecution appeal to the Cassazione would be if Hellmann and Zanetti somehow screwed up the motivation. My guess is that they're going to be careful not to do that!




This is not necessarily true. The Supreme Court technically has the authority to simply acquit (or even convict, I suppose), so long as it can do so based exclusively on legal considerations relating to facts already in the record. See here. Of course, that doesn't say anything about how often they actually do so.

(They can also send a case all the way back down to the first level if they want.)

The Supreme Court most definitely does not have the power to overturn an acquittal and impose a conviction of its own accord. In the case of appealed acquittals, the only possible remedies are confirmation of the acquittals (i.e. dismissal of the appeal), or a retrial (usually at appeal court level, but occasionally - as you point out - at first trial level).

But the Supreme Court does have the power to overturn a conviction in exceptional circumstances and impose an acquittal - however this would only ever happen where there was a grotesque violation of law in the lower courts. I doubt whether the Italian Supreme Court has changed more than a handful of convictions to straight acquittals over the past decade.

In this case, the overwhelming likelihood is that if prosecutors appeal the murder charge (etc) acquittals, the Supreme Court will dismiss the appeal and confirm the acquittals; however, in the unlikely event that the Supreme Court allow a prosecution appeal, it's impossible that the Supreme Court will reverse the acquittals to convictions. Instead, the charges would be sent back for retrial, almost certainly at appeal court level, and I'm guessing that Italy would seek the extradition of Knox to stand trial in the retrial (I stress however that in my opinion this is somewhat moot, as I can't see any grounds for a successful prosecution appeal against the acquittals).

Similarly, if Knox's lawyers appeal the guilty verdict on the Lumumba slander charge, the Supreme Court will either dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction, or it will allow the appeal. If it's the latter, then I think it's very unlikely indeed that the Supreme Court would simply reverse the conviction and impose and acquittal (even though this is technically possible). I think that a successful appeal would result in a stand-alone retrial on the Lumumba slander charge. I might be wrong though......

 

[Kaosium]

Can't say I'm totally up to speed on that case, or on the Knox case to be honest. All I know is the world would never know the names Amada Knox, Casey Anthony, or Natalee Holloway if they weren't so damn photogenic. And it appears that in the Knox case, we now have a hot sister! Awesome!

What's actually boggling is they could railroad both her and Raffaele in the full light of day with the media spotlight on them and that not be the story. In part that's because certain elements of the media appeared to be following a discussion forum closed to opposing views that was dedicated to promoting their guilt. That post above where I linked the Andrea Vogt article as well as the bra clasp video is only a part of it. Laura Wray is/was the 'forensics moderator' at PMF, she's the one who said fears of contamination were 'groundless' when in fact they were obvious to the most casual observer. It is kind of scary that if the prosecution says something and a reporter can get 'confirmation' from a biased website then it can become 'fact' with some. Then if the prosecution claims that any attempt to dispute the charges are the result of a 'PR campaign' it will discredit any rebuttals from the ones who can see through the illusion.

Just curious, would you be more susceptible to believing her and Raffaele guilty if you can see that she is 'hot' and there's a website telling you that all who think her and Raffaele innocent are just thrill-kill groupies lusting after the depraved murderess?

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks, that answers a question I was going to ask! I'd thought that the Supreme Court can acquit in some circumstances (as happened, I think, with Andreotti) though I'm not sure exactly what those circumstances are or whether any would apply here. Except that, as you say, it would have to be on exclusively legal grounds.

By far the most common grounds for Supreme Court acquittals seems to be on the grounds of elapsed time and the statue of limitations. And this is a black-and-white issue in Italian law: if the case overruns its time limit for completion, then the defendant gets automatically acquitted, regardless of the strength of the case against him/her. So one can see how the Supreme Court is adequately mandated to impose acquittals in such circumstances. This is what happened in the Andreotti case, and it appears that defence lawyers are very well versed in exploiting this statute of limitations issue in "getting their clients off".

 

[Rolfe]

I'm baffled as to how Hellman's court convicted on the calumny charge at all, if knowing malice is required for guilt. The motivations of that should be interesting.

Rolfe.

 

[Bob001]

... Similarly, if Knox's lawyers appeal the guilty verdict on the Lumumba slander charge, ...

Just curious: What would be the basis of an appeal of the slander charge? She did in fact say she saw Lumumba at the scene of a murder. Is duress a defense? Could she say she wasn't in her right mind and couldn't form intent? A dozen cops would claim she freely gave a "spontaneous" statement. We all know the circumstances surrounding the statement, but from the point of view of the guy who got locked up, all that matters is what she actually said.

 

[komponisto]

The Supreme Court most definitely does not have the power to overturn an acquittal and impose a conviction of its own accord.

I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article I cited which would prevent them from doing so; it seems to be fully within the scope of the power of Cassazione senza rinvio con contestuale decisione nel merito ("Cassation without remand with contextual decision on the merits").

 

[Diocletus]

The has been one or two parties consistently proclaiming that Meredith Kercher has been forgotten. I have been following Google Trends for some time and the news coverage has been pretty even between the two. Only since the Hellmann verdict has Amanda Knox received more coverage than what's-her-name. Web searches have always been skewed towards Amanda. This may simply be because Amanda Knox is easier to remember and type.

An interesting recent trend, I compared the trends for: Amanda Knox innocent, Amanda Knox guilty and Amanda Knox not guilty. The guilty searches far outnumber the others which in itself is surprising. But more interesting is those searches are mostly generated from two cities, London and New York. It's almost like there is a conspiracy between those two. But who could they possibly be?

How can you "forget" someone you never knew? And, for that matter, why are we prohibited from "forgetting" a murder victim that we never knew?

So, while I hope and expect that her family will always cherish their memories of her, I don't really understand this imperative that all the rest of the world must as well. Can someone explain?

 

[LondonJohn]

Just curious: What would be the basis of an appeal of the slander charge? She did in fact say she saw Lumumba at the scene of a murder. Is duress a defense? Could she say she wasn't in her right mind and couldn't form intent? A dozen cops would claim she freely gave a "spontaneous" statement. We all know the circumstances surrounding the statement, but from the point of view of the guy who got locked up, all that matters is what she actually said.

Ah no: mens rea (or, loosely speaking, intent) is crucial here.

Let me illustrate this by way of an example. Suppose that Mr A was driving his car along the street, travelling at the speed limit, when he suddenly swerved across the road and crashed head-on into an oncoming car, killing its driver, Mr B. Now, by your reasoning, "all that matters" to the dead driver's (Mr B's) wife and children is that Mr B is dead. But the question is whether Mr A is criminally liable for Mr B's death. If Mr A swerved his car to avoid a schoolchild who had dashed out into the road, or if Mr A's steering rack had snapped, it's likely that Mr A would face no criminal charges over the death of Mr B. If, however, Mr A had been reaching down into the passenger footwell to retrieve his phone, or if Mr A had consumed a bottle of wine before setting off on his journey, it's highly likely that he would be found criminally responsible (in one way or another) for the death of Mr B.

And the same general principle applies in the case of the charge against Knox for criminal slander against Lumumba. In order to convict, there has to be mens rea: it's necessary for Knox, willfully and without duress, to have knowingly made the false accusation, and she must have had sufficient reason to believe that the accusation was false. I believe that the Anna Donnino testimony by itself proves there was improper police coercion (convincing Knox that she had traumatic amnesia), which in itself invalidates the mens rea aspect. And I also think that if Knox was not a participant in the murder, there's no way she could have known that her accusation against Lumumba was false - especially since apparently the police told her they knew Lumumba was involved.

 

[Kaosium]

Just curious: What would be the basis of an appeal of the slander charge? She did in fact say she saw Lumumba at the scene of a murder. Is duress a defense? Could she say she wasn't in her right mind and couldn't form intent? A dozen cops would claim she freely gave a "spontaneous" statement. We all know the circumstances surrounding the statement, but from the point of view of the guy who got locked up, all that matters is what she actually said.

Actually, from his standpoint all that matters is what the police did because of what she said. Why she said it is also germane because of that as well. If the police can violate the law and take someone into a backroom until they say what they want them to say and ensure there's no recording of the proceedings then blame her for what they do as a result of that is a pretty scary precedent in my opinion.

It's not just this case either, that's why people are following the Scazzi case as well. They took that gravedigger into the backroom, put the screws to him for a dozen or so hours, got his confession that he killed his niece--but weren't satisfied. They kept going and got 'confirmation' of their 'suspicion' that he was 'protecting' his daughter. So despite him admitting what he did--and they had evidence against him as well--now he is out of prison for serving six months for disturbing a crime scene or whatever, and his wife (who protested this) and daughter who are likely wholly innocent are on trial.

The nutty prosecutor has since charged about fifteen additional people who've annoyed him in the course of this 'investigation' and the whole town has joined in a suit against the accused to help ensure they are convicted and punished for their 'crimes.'

 

[Rolfe]

What about the angle that it was improper to try the calumny charge concurrently with the murder charges? Could the defence succeed in winning a re-trial by declaring that the necessity to concentrate on refuting the murder charges prevented them from defending the calumny charge effectively?

I could imagine a much more robust defence of the calumny allegation in a stand-alone trial. And I hope that's a feasible prospect, because I don't believe Knox deserves a criminal record on that account. And as for it coming to her word against the cops', I don't think it's that simple. There's the wording of her statements, Donnino of course, and corroborative evidence to suggest that the cops were physically abusing suspects all over the place that night.

And the fact that neither Knox's, Sollecito's nor Lumumba's interrogations seem to have been videoed. Very peculiar.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

How can you "forget" someone you never knew? And, for that matter, why are we prohibited from "forgetting" a murder victim that we never knew?

So, while I hope and expect that her family will always cherish their memories of her, I don't really understand this imperative that all the rest of the world must as well. Can someone explain?

'Appeal to emotion.' As long as they claim 'victim' status, all that they have done the past four years to destroy the lives and reputations of Amanda and Raffaele and their families as well as anyone who supports them is 'justified.'

There was a note one of the tabloids that the Kercher house may be foreclosed upon. The reason this might be so is very likely related to expenses related to the four court cases they have filed against Raffaele and Amanda and their families. Either for vengeance or profiteering, their moral and ethical position is bankrupt as well from an objective standard.

Meredith Kercher was the victim, Amanda Knox and Raffaele are also victims of Rudy Guede's crime. Amanda and Raffaele and their families as well as two Telenorba journalists are also victims of the excesses of the ones who claim victim status to victimize others.