• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
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".

I don't think all of the charges against Andreotti were quashed due to the length of time having elapsed (e.g. I don't think the charges relating to the murder of Pecorelli were) but I'm not certain, I need to read up on it a bit more.

Article 620 seems to be the key one relating to final acquittal (or rather, annulment) of a sentence by the Supreme Court. No idea which of the various grounds would be the most common, though, or if any might apply here.
 
I just went back to Massei and was pleased when I read the following quotes:
At the hearing of June 27, 2009, the witness Maria Antonietta Salvadori Del Prato Titone testified that on the morning of October 27, 2007, a Saturday, as she entered the nursery school at via Plinio 16, Milan, of which she was the principal, she noticed coming out of her office a person whom she didn't know, later identified as Rudy Guede. There were no signs of a break-in. There was some money missing from the money box, but just small change. Rudy Guede had a backpack inside which was a computer. Called at once, the police made him open the backpack, in which they found a 40cm kitchen knife.


The witnesses Paolo Brocchi and Matteo Palazzoli, lawyers, testified on the subject of the burglary of their legal office, located in via del Roscetto 3, Perugia, on the night between Saturday October 13 and Sunday October 14, 2007. The thief or thieves had entered through a window whose panes had been smashed with a rather large stone; the glass was scattered around. Later, the lawyer Paolo Brocchi recognised this person as Rudy Guede


This, alone, makes me believe that:
a)Guede was the murderer of Meredith;
b)Guede was the one who broke in through a window on Via Della Pergola on November 1st 2007

I'm amazed that it wasn't enough to leave Knox and Sollecito alone.

Hi Snook1 and others,
I'm curious of something.
Since it states that there was no sign of a break-in, does anyone know how Rudy Guede entered the nursery school?

IIRC, he also had some keys on him. Was he jimmying the locks? Didn't he also have a little hammer with him too? It doesen't sound like he broke a window, so how did he gain entrance inside the school?

I also wonder who disconnected the burglar alarm when the lawyers office was broken into? Rudy Guede or someone else, some more knowledgeable about B+E?

And lastly, I'm curious about this burglary and arson:
A Fatal Gift of Beauty contains details about one break-in I was not familiar with:
Ten days later, on October 23, Rudy Guede’s immediate next-door neighbor on via Canerino, Mara Madu Diaz, was at a friend’s farm in Gualdo Tadino, about an hour’s drive from Perugia, participating in the vendemmia—the annual grape harvest. She knew Rudy, as she often saw him in front of her house on his phone—he had to stand outside his own house to get cell service. She saw him almost daily, when she walked her dog in the morning and evening. He always said hello and often leaned down and petted her dog. That day, police interrupted her grape harvesting with bad news. Her little medieval house in Perugia—narrow, three floors high, with a single room on each floor—had been badly damaged in a fire.
She raced home to find her cat dead and her house nearly destroyed. Firemen and police told her a thief or thieves had entered through a lower window and that the fire had started on the third floor, in her bedroom, where someone had thrown a scarf over a lamp.
.......(snip)..........
Her cat strangled on the smoke, because whoever had feasted in the kitchen had left the pantry door open, blocking the animal’s escape route. When Mrs. Madu Diaz finally assessed the damage, she found that the thief had cleaned out her jewel box, including a gold watch of her mother’s.
She didn’t see Rudy again after the fire. When she learned he had been arrested and had a habit of breaking into homes, she wondered if he’d had something to do with her disaster. But the police never charged anyone. Her insurance paid for repairs, and the little house became habitable again after three years of work.
And from the timeline:
October 27. A Saturday. Rudy is arrested inside the Milan nursery school owned by Mrs. Del Prato. Police find Paolo Brocchi’s laptop and cell phone, a woman’s gold watch, and a sixteen-inch knife belonging to the nursery school kitchen in his backpack.
How much evidence do you need to prosecute Rudy for burglary? I just don't get it.


Did the burglary at Mara Madu Diaz place happen in broad daylight or under cover of darkness? Was the window unlocked or had it been left open or was it smashed with a rock or something else, like a little hammer?

Anyways, just a coupla random questions...
See ya,
RW
 
Last edited:
'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.'


I can forgive a lot from people who have suffered what they've suffered. I see a number of the Lockerbie families doing the same thing, or trying to. It doesn't make it right though.

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.


That is simply tragic, if true. I fervently hope it isn't. The fleeting, vanishing report of the £8 million damages suit against Amanda was an odd incident though.

Either for vengeance or profiteering, their moral and ethical position is bankrupt as well from an objective standard.


Again, I can't bring myself to condemn the actions of a family who have suffered such a loss. But I agree their actions have been unfortunate, and frankly not such as to promote a huge amount of the sympathy they objectively deserve.

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.


I think Meredith Kercher, who by all accounts was a lovely young lady, would be utterly horrified by what has been done in her name, by her family as well as by the online hate campaign.

Rolfe.
 
(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.)

More to the point: Jill Dando. She was a well-known TV presenter, and her murder in 1999 led to the wrongful conviction of Barry George. When it became clear that the police had pursued the wrong man, and of course allowed the trail left by the real killer(s) to vanish, I don't remember anyone complaining that she had been "forgotten" in the discussion over what had gone wrong with the investigation - much less trying to make out that focussing on George's plight took anything away from the tragedy of the crime.

Those of us who came to this discussion as a result of news reports cannot possibly "remember" Meredith in the way her family and friends do, for the simple reason that we never knew her. We can't even "remember" her in the way we would remember Jill Dando, the TV presenter.

"Remember Meredith" is an injunction strictly for her own family and friends; and it deserves to be said, Amanda Knox was one of those friends. Amanda's grief at Meredith's death was violated in the cruellest way imaginable.
 
Last edited:
Is Joanna Yeates being forgotten or disrespected because Chris Jeffries isn't being prosecuted for her murder?

Rolfe.
 
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.)

Can the SC rule that since there is no evidence that Amanda slandered Patrick (the original statements are not admissible, and her handwritten note contains no direct accusation), that she should be acquitted of the charge without reference back to the appeal court?
 
I can forgive a lot from people who have suffered what they've suffered. I see a number of the Lockerbie families doing the same thing, or trying to. It doesn't make it right though.




That is simply tragic, if true. I fervently hope it isn't. The fleeting, vanishing report of the £8 million damages suit against Amanda was an odd incident though.




Again, I can't bring myself to condemn the actions of a family who have suffered such a loss. But I agree their actions have been unfortunate, and frankly not such as to promote a huge amount of the sympathy they objectively deserve.




I think Meredith Kercher, who by all accounts was a lovely young lady, would be utterly horrified by what has been done in her name, by her family as well as by the online hate campaign.

Rolfe.


I agree. I would hesitate to go so far as to criticise the Kercher family for their efforts -however misguided - to seek justice for Meredith's death. I would instead criticise Maresca, Mignini, Comodi, Matteini, Micheli and Massei for placing such a huge emotional and financial burden upon the Kerchers' shoulders.

If this case had been investigated, prosecuted and tried properly from the start, it would have been comparatively simple and far less painful for the Kerchers. Guede and his lawyers knew there was incontrovertible evidence of his presence in the murder room (his hand print in Meredith's blood), and that his documented behaviour after the murder (going clubbing within a couple of hours, and fleeing to Germany within days) was totally at odds with his claims of being an innocent bystander. That's why he went for the abbreviated trial option. Guede would have been rightfully found guilty of Meredith's murder in 2008, with ultimate conviction by the end of 2009. The Kerchers would have had "closure" by early 2009, since they would have been told that there was essentially no chance that the case would alter at the Supreme Court stage.

Instead, the Kerchers have been put through not only nearly two further years of pain, anguish, financial hardship and uncertainty, but they have also suffered the additional pain of seeing the acquittals of two people of whose guilt they have clearly convinced themselves. I suspect that it will take the Kerchers some time to understand that Knox and Sollecito almost certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with Meredith's murder - and in the worst case scenario they may never come to terms with this at all. As I've written before, I think it's more than a shame (verging on a disgrace) that the Kerchers were not given assistance by either the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Justice here in the UK, both in a financial sense (to pay for necessary trips to Perugia at key stages of the trial processes) and in other support and assistance. It will just be a further layer of tragedy if the Kerchers find themselves in longer-term financial difficulties on account of the bungled prosecutions of Knox and Sollecito.
 
More to the point: Jill Dando. She was a well-known TV presenter, and her murder in 1999 led to the wrongful conviction of Barry George. When it became clear that the police had pursued the wrong man, and of course allowed the trail left by the real killer(s) to vanish, I don't remember anyone complaining that she had been "forgotten" in the discussion over what had gone wrong with the investigation - much less trying to make out that focussing on George's plight took anything away from the tragedy of the crime.

Those of us who came to this discussion as a result of news reports cannot possibly "remember" Meredith in the way her family and friends do, for the simple reason that we never knew her. We can't even "remember" her in the way we would remember Jill Dando, the TV presenter.

"Remember Meredith" is an injunction strictly for her own family and friends; and it deserves to be said, Amanda Knox was one of those friends. Amanda's grief at Meredith's death was violated in the cruellest way imaginable.


Very true. It sometimes bears reiterating that almost without exception, the internet commentators lionising Meredith to the point of near-beatification never knew her, never knew any of her family or friends, and had never heard of her until after her death. All they have are the impressions given by her friends and family (which, without wishing to sound overly-cynical, are bound to be somewhat effusive and rose-tinted given the circumstances).

I remember during my ill-fated sojourn on .org I posted something to the effect that it makes no difference whether Meredith was a potential future Prime Minister or a potential future supermarket checkout worker - her murder was equally horrific and unjustified regardless. In fact, I wrote that even if Meredith had been a crack-addicted prostitute, she still wouldn't have deserved her fate any more than if she's been a near-saint. Unfortunately - but predictably - this was seized upon as some sort of besmirching of Meredith: the point I was trying to make either went over their heads, or they chose to willfully misinterpret it. It still continues to bemuse me as to why many pro-guilt commentators find it almost a necessity to portray Meredith as the antithesis to everything they want Amanda Knox to be. Perhaps I've just provided the answer to my own question there, though: just as in pro-wrestling or spaghetti westerns, there has to be a "goody" and a "baddie", and they have to be almost polar opposites of each other.
 
Ironically, if the positions had been reversed, with Amanda returning alone to the cottage and encountering Rudy, with Meredith and Giacomo discovering the scene of the crime, it would be just as easy to beatify Amanda and demonise Meredith.

Meredith drank (to excess, apparently), smoked pot, and was having sex with her Italian boyfriend of very recent acquaintance (did she also have an English boyfriend at home?). Going further, her boyfriend was growing cannabis, and probably selling or trading it, and she was helping him (at least by watering the plants). DRUG DEALER BOYFRIEND, OMG!! And I read on one site (not sure it's true) that Meredith had some sort of record or caution for a drunk-and-disorderly in England.

It's possible she didn't have the mindset to react to interrogation the way Amanda did, in which case it might not have got that far. But the potential for this to be a "remember Saint Amanda, the pure and perfect murdered paragon" complete with demonising the "sex-drugs-and-alcohol-obsessed Meredith" is quite clear.

Rolfe.
 
Can the SC rule that since there is no evidence that Amanda slandered Patrick (the original statements are not admissible, and her handwritten note contains no direct accusation), that she should be acquitted of the charge without reference back to the appeal court?


No, all the statements are admissible in the issue of the Lumumba slander. They were only inadmissible in the murder trial, as they were self-incriminating statements made by Knox under unlawful circumstances (not being read rights, no access to legal representation). There is prima facie evidence that Knox accused Lumumba of the murder of Meredith Kercher, and there is also prima facie evidence that this was a false accusation.

The issue is now entirely one of whether the law was properly applied/followed in finding Knox guilty of criminal slander. As I've written before, I think there are two strong legal grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court. The first point is that the Lumumba slander charge was tried concurrent with the murder charge, in both the first trial and the appeal trial. I think this was an improper ruling (originally made by Massei). The decision to try the Lumumba slander charge concurrently was apparently based on the linking (or continuance): essentially, Massei appeared to rule that the murder and the accusation of Lumumba were all part of the same alleged criminal act by Knox. Clearly the Hellmann ruling has blown that assertion clean out of the water. I always believed that it was completely improper - on several levels - for the Lumumba slander charges to be tried in the midst of the murder trial. I believe that this point alone might well constitute solid grounds for the Supreme Court to set aside the appeal court's guilty verdict on the Lumumba slander charge.

The second point of law that I believe constitutes strong grounds for appeal is the mens rea issue. I think that it's entirely possible to prove improper police coercion; I also think that it's now possible to argue that if Knox was acquitted on the murder charges, she was in no position to knowingly make a false accusation against Lumumba (a point strengthened by the apparent fact that the police told her they had solid evidence of Lumumba's involvement in the murder). And I think that the curious lack of a video or audio recording of Knox's interrogation on the 5th/6th November may come back to play a part: I think that if the case gets referred back for retrial, a court might decide that it's reasonable to conclude that such a recording ought to exist (or to have existed), and that the apparent absence of such a recording should count against the police.
 
Also, if Sollecito is now also alleging mistreatment at the hands of the police, with his interview also not recorded, and the Daily Fail article where Patrick accuses them of all sorts of mayhem also in the public domain with the possibility of documentary evidence that might be subpoenaed - and did they also "forget" to record that? They could hardly claim that he wasn't a suspect at the time. All that tends to point to a scenario of the police getting hold of the three they thought had killed Meredith, and giving them all a doing on the QT.

Rolfe.
 
I see that Quennell's latest lunatic theory is that Berlusconi's Government (possibly with US assistance) may have nobbled Hellmann's court to produce acquittals, in order to emasculate the Perugia prosecutors and bolster Berlusconi's political (and judicial) fortunes (the "reasoning" being that a Berlusconi forced-resignation might tip Italy over the edge in financial terms - something which the US Government would seek to avoid, as would Berlusconi himself, for obvious reasons).

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...alian_vote_of_no_confidence_did_the_perugia_a

Quennell is nothing more than a sad, deluded idiot who is evidently becoming increasingly unhinged in his attempts at self-justification and rationalisation after the Hellmann verdicts were announced. I hope that for his sake he realises just what a strange and somewhat unhinged figure he cuts, and just quietly winds his odd little website down. After all, he'll have his hands full with that libel action against Bruce, won't he? Oh, wait....... ;)
 
check out those alleles!

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!

:boggled:
NoahFence,

Speaking only for myself, I think that Amanda has a really bewitching DNA electropherogram.

Seriously, Sabrina Misseri is probably not anyone's definition of hot, if that is what you mean. My point is that a high profile case like the Knox/Sollecito case can help people focus on other problems in the criminal justice system.
 
Also, if Sollecito is now also alleging mistreatment at the hands of the police, with his interview also not recorded, and the Daily Fail article where Patrick accuses them of all sorts of mayhem also in the public domain with the possibility of documentary evidence that might be subpoenaed - and did they also "forget" to record that? They could hardly claim that he wasn't a suspect at the time. All that tends to point to a scenario of the police getting hold of the three they thought had killed Meredith, and giving them all a doing on the QT.Rolfe.

And why not. All the elements and data were not in place before and beyond the accusation of the American, having not proceeded with a formal visit to the Magistrate and not having requested a lawyer before the police arrived at his house, he was correctly treated as a witness until 48 hours later and the police were correct in anything they did!

I will explain later.
 
So there's no video of Patrick's interview either? Thought not. I'll just bet that Daily Fail journalist has some tape of him saying he was abused by the police though.

Rolfe.
 
And why not. All the elements and data were not in place before and beyond the accusation of the American, having not proceeded with a formal visit to the Magistrate and not having requested a lawyer before the police arrived at his house, he was correctly treated as a witness until 48 hours later and the police were correct in anything they did!

I will explain later.


:D
 
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!

:boggled:

I don't think Casey Anthony belongs in the group. She ain't that attractive and she actually committed a crime.

For Amanda and Natalee, their faces were their misfortune. Good looks can be dangerous when they attract the wrong kind of attention from predators like the ones who kidnapped Amanda and did away with Natalee.
 
So there's no video of Patrick's interview either? Thought not. I'll just bet that Daily Fail journalist has some tape of him saying he was abused by the police though.

Rolfe.


Apparently there is no audio or video recording of Lumumba's interrogations by the police/prosecutors. A cynic might say that this is....... surprising....... given that a few hours after his arrest the police were holding a triumphalist press conference announcing that they had solved the case and apprehended the culprits. At least the police could attempt to claim that Knox switched from "witness" to "suspect" totally out of the blue (even though it's completely obvious that this is not true). But they can't even begin to offer up a similar excuse in the case of Lumumba.

And yes, I've long stated that it's near certain that the Mail has Lumumba's words on tape regarding his mistreatment by the police. I find it impossible to believe that the Mail would have run with those quotes - especially as direct quotes within quotation marks - given that they explicitly alleged serious misconduct by the Perugia police. While the media may have felt that Knox was justifiable fair game from the 6th November onwards, they would have undoubtedly been extremely careful about printing allegations against the authorities. I believe Lumumba really did make those accusations against the Perugia police. And, what's more, I believe the accusations were true and accurate: while Lumumba felt justified and safe in launching any number of personal attacks on Knox, he himself would have known the huge ramifications if he'd made false accusations of police brutality. As it happened, of course, it's likely that he subsequently learned that there were negative ramifications for him making these accusations even if they were true: I think that police or prosecutors had a cosy chat with him about the wisdom of bringing this stuff up, and that he subsequently decided that it would be in his best interests to disavow the accusations.
 
I don't think Casey Anthony belongs in the group. She ain't that attractive and she actually committed a crime.

For Amanda and Natalee, their faces were their misfortune. Good looks can be dangerous when they attract the wrong kind of attention from predators like the ones who kidnapped Amanda and did away with Natalee.


Is it apposite to mention Barry George again at this point?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2487091/Barry-George-cleared-of-murdering-Jill-Dando.html
 
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").

After giving it more thought since the last time this issue came up, I agree with you here. However, I believe there are enough conflicting elements that even if the court were inclined to grant one or more points of the prosecution's appeal they'd have to kick it down to the lower courts. Reading over Rudy's supreme court appeal it appears the court will look at the facts of the case inasmuch as they directly relate to the legal arguments.

Based on Mignini's court statements and interviews, the three main issues are likely to be 1) that Hellmann erred procedurally in granting the DNA review, 2) that C&V erred in not using a more 'advanced' test to reassess the knife, thus Hellmann should have granted a re-review, and 3) that elements of Hellmann's findings conflict with findings of fact in Rudy's proceedings. Plus whatever else the legal scholars at PMF can come up with. :D

I hope the Italians knock themselves out with reviews and re-reviews and re-re-reviews. It's all the more likely to result in Amanda's and Raffaele's total exoneration in law, fact and public opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom