Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox Conviction Overturned #22

[Madeleine74]

Beliefs cannot be countered with logic because beliefs, by and large, are not based on logic but more on emotion. The mind will create and recreate scenarios to bolster the beliefs, rather than do away with the belief itself. If there's one thing we do love, it's our beliefs.

Those pesky facts and scientific contradictions take all the fun out of it, don't they? <pout>

 

[Malkmus]

http://www.celebnews.biz/HaydenPanettiere/hayden-panettiere-news/979/Amanda-Knox-film-to-be-altered/

Interesting, I'm assuming it will be an addendum before the credits roll, as an update on the appeals.

 

[sherlockh]

So to your thinking, acquittal was the sound and true judgement, rendered by Hellman and the appellate court. :great:

Under jurisprudence and the legal system, being found not guilty, or having one's conviction overturned, grants freedom and rights just as with any citizen.

You are obviously more noble than I and many others, who would not accept the convictions of the Massei court, and believed the judge had ruled wrongfully and disgracefully. If the convictions had been upheld on appeal, I would have thought Hellman and the jury had not paid attention to the true evidence, and not accepted the ruling as just A salute to you, then.:great:

Well thank you I think I already explained why I think this court came to their conclusions and which evidence was not strong enough to convict. I think I was wrong and overestimated the strength of the evidence, and also did not expect this court to reject so much of the evidence. I am looking forward to the judges report on this so I can understand better. This doesn't mean they didn't do it of course, but legally they are now indeed not guilty and free. That is how the system works, and there is nothing else to do then accept it.

Then there is the 'tiny' matter of the conviction for falsely accusing an innocent man of rape and murder for which AK was sentenced to 3 years. Are you willing to accept that you were wrong about AK being coerced and that she is a convicted criminal now and not a 'sweet little college girl'?

 

[Malkmus]

Hard pressed after two hours of questioning as a witness shortly after dinner and with a year of work and a year of university under her belt?

Amanda was no naive child. She finished high school, took a year off, then completed a year of general studies at the University in Washington and then found herself in Germany. She blew off a gov't job that her uncle arranged for her because it was boring. She pretended to be sick for the next two weeks, living in the apartment that was attached to the job, getting stoned in the park and doing who knows what on the train to Perugia ... ciao sucker to her uncle. That's Knox before the murder. She was all grown up.

Fast forward a month, she's hooked up with just the right guy, it's the Day of the Dead, her roommate is murdered, and she's suffering lapses of confused imaginings or dreamed realities, telling whopper lies and has no alibi.

It didn't seem real that she was landing in Seattle. The scream and murder were described in her statement, but when she had to explain herself in court she claimed that the scream and murder didn't seem real. Whata a gal! At least we know that when she says that things don't seem real, they are real. She did land in Seattle, even though it was no more real than the scream and the murder ... for Knox and her confused imaginings and dreamed realities.

You think she was not naive, yet all her actions indicate otherwise. Just because you're a college student doesn't make you insusceptible to influence, especially authorities.

Let me ask you this, if Amanda was not naive, why did she not demand a lawyer during this interrogation where she was turned into a suspect, and why did she keep talking once she was denied one?

AK: So, before they asked me to make further declarations--I really can't tell
you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing--but
at one point I asked if I shouldn't have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I
didn't know, but I've seen things like this on television. When people do things
like this they have lawyer. They told me, at least one of them told me that
it would be worse for me because it would prove that I didn't want to
collaborate with the police. So they told me no.

 

[SMK]

Well thank you I think I already explained why I think this court came to their conclusions and which evidence was not strong enough to convict. I think I was wrong and overestimated the strength of the evidence, and also did not expect this court to reject so much of the evidence. I am looking forward to the judges report on this so I can understand better. This doesn't mean they didn't do it of course, but legally they are now indeed not guilty and free. That is how the system works, and there is nothing else to do then accept it.

Then there is the 'tiny' matter of the conviction for falsely accusing an innocent man of rape and murder for which AK was sentenced to 3 years. Are you willing to accept that you were wrong about AK being coerced and that she is a convicted criminal now and not a 'sweet little college girl'?

Well, I guess I accept that Hellman ruled that way, but I do not think he ought to have. I think she ought to appeal it. Yes, I believe she was coerced. - And we all know "little college girls" can have their bad sides: I hold no illusions about Amanda, and predict she and Madison Paxton will likely have a falling out, now that they are back in the U.S., and the case is over.

Remember, I am not one to accept a ruling which does not agree with my own logic, reason, deduction - provided I really sought out all the facts and evidence of the case.

Ergo: If you really believe she was part of the murder, from your own understanding of the evidence and all you researched, then I do not think you should accept Hellman's ruling as just and sound. I would not, given those facts. You should view it as a mistake. He and the jury are only human, and saw things far differently from Massei, his jury, and Mignini. I would not change my mind even though the ruling stands legally. Just as many do not accept the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony rulings.

 

[Malkmus]

Then why don't you provide a quote from that 17 page document, or a link? The satanic cult theory in another case was not his idea. This was a case he took over from other prosecutors. If you don't know the details of other cases then I don't see how you can draw a parallel with this case. There is no point in that anyway. It never had any affect on this case. Any other prosecutor would have done the same as he. There even were other prosecutors in this case. Now even the judge himself has stated he would have done the same had he been a prosecutor. What more needs to be said?

Sherlock, the 17 page document might be judge Micheli's report which is hosted at PMF, but for some reason is not available to all members. Here is the link:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=114

Would you be able to access it? It would probably answer many questions.

Barbie Nadeau reported that the satanic rite theory was thrown out by the judge before trial.

 

[sherlockh]

Well, I guess I accept that Hellman ruled that way, but I do not think he ought to have. I think she ought to appeal it. And we all know "little college girls" can have their bad sides: I hold no illusions about Amanda.

Remember, I am not one to accept a ruling which does not agree with my own logic, reason, deduction - provided I really sought out all the facts and evidence of the case. BUT: If you really believe she was part of the murder, from your own understanding of the evidence and all you researched, then I do not think you should accept Hellman's ruling as just and sound. I would not, given those facts. You should view it as a mistake. He and the jury are only human, and saw things far differently from Massei, his jury, and Mignini. I would not change my mind even though the ruling stands legally. Just as many do not accept the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony rulings.

There are also many people who do accept the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony verdicts and understand the reasons for it, but yet are not of the personal opinion that they are not guilty. Nothing strange about that.

 

[SMK]

There are also many people who do accept the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony verdicts and understand the reasons for it, but yet are not of the personal opinion that they are not guilty. Nothing strange about that.

I think it is very strange and unreasonable. After all, you, and they, think Knox, Sollecito, Simpson, and Anthony, are all GUILTY, based on all the evidence you read about in the media: The same evidence that the juries and Hellman had access to. How can you believe they did NOT rule wrongly???:waitasec:

How can you uphold rulings that run counter to what your own logic told you? I could not, that is why I never accepted Massei, but do accept Hellman, because he agrees with what my own reason tells me.

 

[sherlockh]

Sherlock, the 17 page document might be judge Micheli's report which is hosted at PMF, but for some reason is not available to all members. Here is the link:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=114

Would you be able to access it? It would probably answer many questions.

Barbie Nadeau reported that the satanic rite theory was thrown out by the judge before trial.

I have no access, but I have read some parts of it. Never seen the word satanic. I would like to see a quote, but for now I think it was just a popular term used by reporters. Similar as the stain on the pillow became the 'semen stain'. It was never even tested.

 

[sherlockh]

I think it is very strange and unreasonable. After all, you, and they, think Knox, Sollecito, Simpson, and Anthony, are all GUILTY, based on all the evidence you read about in the media: The same evidence that the juries and Hellman had access to. How can you believe they did NOT rule wrongly???:waitasec:

How can you uphold rulings that run counter to what your own logic told you? I could not, that is why I never accepted Massei, but do accept Hellman, because he agrees with what my own reason tells me.

Because I am not a judge. I don't have to change my opinion based on a small amount of legal doubt or if evidence is not legally acceptable. I am not bound by legal rules to form my opinion. The legal system works how it works and I accept that.

 

[SkewedView]

There are also many people who do accept the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony verdicts and understand the reasons for it, but yet are not of the personal opinion that they are not guilty. Nothing strange about that.

Indeed, I am one of those with regards to CA - I feel that she is indeed guilty in some manner, but I also feel that the Prosecutor in that case overcharged with a crappy case, and thus the Jury ruled correctly. OJ...well, I'm darn tootin' sure that he did it, but the coverage of that case was so annoying that I can't give an informed opinion on the verdict.

I extend my own kudos for your ethics here.

 

[SMK]

Because I am not a judge. I don't have to change my opinion based on a small amount of legal doubt or if evidence is not legally acceptable. I am not bound by legal rules to form my opinion. The legal system works how it works and I accept that.

I think what confuses me is this: You admit now that the evidence was not as strong as you thought, about the staged break-in, the murder, their presence at the scene, etc. But what else were you basing your belief in guilt on, if not all of this, which Hellman rejected? Intuition? If not the evidence, which you thought was strong but now admit is weak, what are you basing your suspicion of Amanda on ?? How can you and Hellman both be right???:waitasec: The answer is, you cannot both be right. Either Hellman or you are in the right about the evidence pointing to guilt or the lack thereof. If you are right, then Hellman ruled wrongly. If he is right, then you are wrong to suspect Knox. After all, legal rulings are not supposed to be esoteric and mysterious. They are to abide by common, democratic reason, and the ethics of reason.

 

[SkewedView]

I actually agree more with sherlockh and otto on this one. Hellman seems to say that there were enough reasons for the prosecution to be suspicious, and they wouldn't have been doing their jobs if they had not prosecuted. In their position he would do the same. He probably would have brought it to trial in the first place because it's not like he would have been privy to the complexities of how valid the DNA evidence was. Also, even if he, as the prosecutor, knew there were issues with the evidence, the job of the prosecutor is not to put the brakes on.

My opinion: once there was DNA evidence in the mix, this was going to trial, no matter what.

I've always felt that the whole debacle started with the investigators and their pet lab. They were the ones who went on and on about AK's hips, pizza eating and such, they were the ones who handed Mignini the 'confession' - and neglected to tape it (remember, Mignini doesn't run the police force, it wasn't his responsibility), they were the ones who screwed up and then lied about it on numerous occasions, and are the most likely culprits for the leaks to the press (illegal in Italy, but commonly done there by LE).

That the prosecutors trusted the info given to them is not damning. Even many of the false and misleading statements given by Mignini & Comodi later on might very well have come from those same sources. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Comodi was just as surprised as everyone else when the control documents she initially submitted turned out to be fabrications.

That said, the tactics used in court by Mignini, Comodi and the Civil Attorneys were utterly disgraceful, though not illegal or even all that rare.

 

[Boytwnmom]

she would have left the country like the actual culprit did. She cooperated and put herself in the hands of LE without complaint or request for attorney or any other rational thing most adults would feel necessary when being questioned in a foreign language in a foreign country about a murder case.

She was a typical middle class kid who had never had anything really bad happen to her and who had certainly never encountered or imagined encountering an occult and sex obsessed prosecutor who was prone to see evil everywhere, in kisses and cartwheels, in underwear purchases and colloquial american phrases like "See you later"..

She had no idea what she was up against when 30 cops and kooky Mignini had her "imagine" she was there, in her apartment with Mr See him later and had actually witnessed the murder but had "forgotten" it and they were just tryin to be helpful, to bring back her "memory".

Any guilty person in her situation would have been on the first plane, train or bus out of the country. That she didn't is a lesson and warning to the rest of us and our future semester abroad students about what not to do when confronted by a battalion of police speaking in a foreign language you barely understand about a murder they think you "witnessed".

You think she was not naive, yet all her actions indicate otherwise. Just because you're a college student doesn't make you insusceptible to influence, especially authorities.

Let me ask you this, if Amanda was not naive, why did she not demand a lawyer during this interrogation where she was turned into a suspect, and why did she keep talking once she was denied one?

 

[SMK]

I've always felt that the whole debacle started with the investigators and their pet lab. They were the ones who went on and on about AK's hips, pizza eating and such, they were the ones who handed Mignini the 'confession' - and neglected to tape it (remember, Mignini doesn't run the police force, it wasn't his responsibility), they were the ones who screwed up and then lied about it on numerous occasions, and are the most likely culprits for the leaks to the press (illegal in Italy, but commonly done there by LE).

That the prosecutors trusted the info given to them is not damning. Even many of the false and misleading statements given by Mignini & Comodi later on might very well have come from those same sources. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Comodi was just as surprised as everyone else when the control documents she initially submitted turned out to be fabrications.

That said, the tactics used in court by Mignini, Comodi and the Civil Attorneys were utterly disgraceful, though not illegal or even all that rare.

I agree with you there.

 

[SMK]

Indeed, I am one of those with regards to CA - I feel that she is indeed guilty in some manner, but I also feel that the Prosecutor in that case overcharged with a crappy case, and thus the Jury ruled correctly. OJ...well, I'm darn tootin' sure that he did it, but the coverage of that case was so annoying that I can't give an informed opinion on the verdict.

I extend my own kudos for your ethics here.

Yet, none of us here accepted the high judge Massei's ruling, or his report. We thought he was in grave error. We did not say, "We accept Massei, but let's see what the appeal brings." We said he was wrong, period.

 

[Malkmus]

I have no access, but I have read some parts of it. Never seen the word satanic. I would like to see a quote, but for now I think it was just a popular term used by reporters. Similar as the stain on the pillow became the 'semen stain'. It was never even tested.

Well thanks for trying. I won't press you to ask them for it, but I can't think of any good reason they wouldn't want people to see it, and it leaves one to infer why they are hiding it.

 

[sherlockh]

I think what confuses me is this: You admit now that the evidence was not as strong as you thought, about the staged break-in, the murder, their presence at the scene, etc. But what else were you basing your belief in guilt on, if not all of this, which Hellman rejected? Intuition? If not the evidence, which you thought was strong but now admit is weak, what are you basing your suspicion of Amanda on ?? How can you and Hellman both be right???:waitasec: The answer is, you cannot both be right. Either Hellman or you are in the right about the evidence pointing to innocence or guilt. If you are right, then Hellman ruled wrongly. If he is right, then you are wrong to suspect Knox.

I still base my opinion on the evidence whether it was rejected by the court or not. The difference is just that I am not a judge but still can understand and accept how the system works. So in a way we can both be right.

 

[Allusonz]

I am going to approach the slander conviction from a different perspective. I believe that Hellmann ruled in a way that allowed AK's lawyers to appeal to the ISC based on point of law rather than publicly humiliate Massei in front of the world or his peers within the Italian Judicial system. It was the ISC that originally ruled they were inadmissible and I feel he has sent it back to them to rule on (very smart move by Hellman). I don't believe the ISC will uphold the slander conviction and in fact I believe that there is a good chance they will reverse it.

Two interesting rulings were made by Massei. One that allowed the civil trial to run concurrent with the criminal component. As well he ruled contrary to the ISC and allowed the statements signed by AK for the civil trial. Essentially what Massei did was overrule the ISC

The Italian Supreme Court found that AK's rights were violated as she was not informed of her legal rights, did not appoint her a lawyer, and did not provide her with a proper interpreter thus they ruled that the signed statements were not admissible.

What the ISC is stating in essence is that there was misconduct on behalf of the police and/or prosecutor.

From AK's appeal:

"Amanda was also convicted of the crime of libel under Article 368 c.p.p. against Patrick Lumumba. The defense argues that the mental element of intent is lacking, therefore the charge of libel is not warranted.

The defense repeats the fact that this trial running concurrently with the murder trial made it necessary to discuss the signed statement that was ruled inadmissible by the Italian Supreme Court. This statement should not have been allowed in any form at any time during the murder trial. The court ignored the Italian Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling regarding this statement.

Amanda&#8217;s written document describing her interrogation shows an act of desperation of a girl that was distressed. Amanda did not know her constitutional rights in Italy. She did not make a free decision and yet the defense had no choice but to refer to the document because of the charge of libel. Amanda was only trying to help the authorities in their search for truth. A complete reading of the document indicates the absolute uncertainty and improbability of the facts mentioned previously by Amanda. She says several times she doubts it is reality and thinks it is a dream. The doubts, hesitation and anxiety are evident throughout the document. This shows then the lack of the mental element of intent to award the specific offense against her. The specific details of the accused of a violation of a crime by the accused are essential for slander. This particular document appears as an elaboration of a fantastic experience and repudiated reality.

There is a lack of explicit intent when Amanda says:

&#8220;I have serious doubts about the truth of my statements because they were made under the pressure of stress, shock and because I was exhausted.&#8221;

She was threatened with 30 years in prison and struck on the head when she did not recall events correctly. Amanda states repeatedly, even to her mother in an intercepted conversation of her awareness of her innocence. The intent to slander is missing because she is not convinced of the guilt or innocence of the person she accuses. Amanda had no way of knowing that Patrick was innocent. The police were telling her that Patrick was involved. To be guilty of slander one must have certainty and full knowledge of the innocence of the person accused. Amanda was not trying to slander Patrick. She was attempting to help the police and was following their guidance. It was the responsibility of the investigators to determine Patrick&#8217;s guilt or innocence"

 

[Malkmus]

(snipped)
Then there is the 'tiny' matter of the conviction for falsely accusing an innocent man of rape and murder for which AK was sentenced to 3 years. Are you willing to accept that you were wrong about AK being coerced and that she is a convicted criminal now and not a 'sweet little college girl'?

This wasn't directed at me but I'd like to throw in my two cents. I await Hellman's report to see the reasons he faulted her for slandering Patrick. Until then, I can't agree with the assumption that she did it out of malice or because she was trying to deflect from her own guilt. In fact, it's rather contrary to the ruling of her not being guilty of committing the crime. Therefore, I'm currently of the belief that Hellman holds her responsible for basically making a stupid decision that had grave consequences for Patrick, and that it was a decision that could have been remedied by her sooner. Personally I fault ILE for causing her to believe Patrick was guilty, and her lawyers and the judge for not doing something sooner.

AK: Well, yes. I knew he was in prison uniquely because of my words. At first
I didn't know this. I thought the police somehow knew whether he was guilty
or not. Since I didn't know, I was confused. But in the following days
I realized that he was in prison only because of what I had said, and I felt
guilty.

CP: Why didn't you tell the police this in the following days, or to the PM?

GCM: Excuse me, avvocato? The days following which day?

CP: I'm talking about the 10th of November. The day of the conversation with
her mother? Why didn't you ever tell the police or the publicco ministero?

AK: I had clearly written down in the memorandum that everything in my
declarations couldn't be true because I didn't really remember them. And
then, whenever police came to talk to give me paper or anything, they
treated me like "Oh, so you have another truth now." So this was my way of
telling them that nothing I had said in the Questura was usable.

AK: Yes, I wrote it in my memorandum of the 7th, and then when I discussed
the situation with my lawyers, I explained why I had said these things. And
I explained the fact that I couldn't talk about the guilt of this person.
I thought that, at a certain point, thinking about how Patrick was, I thought
that it wasn't even possible that he could be guilty of something like that,
because he wasn't like that. But I wasn't actually in the house seeing
anything, so I couldn't actually state whether he was guilty or not.