Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox Conviction Overturned #22

[otto]

Trust me friend, if you were a naive 20 year old foreigner in an alien land surrounded by 30 hostile threatening police officers who are clearly not following what you were brought up to believe was proper behaviour you would be far less certain in that attitude. There are places in the world where you would be wetting your pants in that situation.

You see, my friend, I don't believe a word that pops out of Knoxy's mouth. After two hours of questioning as a witness, out popped accusations of rape and murder against the black guy, her boss, Patrick Lumumba (she has been found guilty of doing this all by herself) because she fully expected to be let go. The Cook, Candace Dempsey, states this in her book. Knox fully expected to be released after accusing an innocent man of murder (like in the CSI shows).

Knox wasn't wetting her pants. She had just finished dinner with Sollecito at his friend's flat. She had a gap year and a year of university, he was older ... she was not naive to the world. She wasn't even asked to come to the police station but came anyway because she was staying at Sollecito's apt. (no where to go), flipped some cartwheels before splitzing ... but then, there she was, blurting out whopper lies two hours after questions started, whopper lies that her mother and police overheard in jail... yet Knox remained silent for two weeks. Doesn't that sound just like an innocent person.

 

[otto]

That is not what the judge was saying. He said that he would have pursued the case if the evidence was there because that is what a prosecutor is supposed to do. He didn't say he would have pursued it like this prosecutor. Clearly he didn't find the evidence compelling (or he wouldn't have reversed he conviction), so, if he had been the prosecutor, the case would likely not have gone to trial.

He didn't say that there wasn't compelling evidence. What he said is that if there is one reasonable doubt, just like the Anthony jury, then innocence is the only option.

He pointed out that the job of a prosecutor is different than the job of a judge, but had he been a prosecutor he would have done exactly as the prosecutor did. If he had been the prosecutor, the charges would have been laid and the trial would have been heard ... since he said that he would not have done anything different. There is a strong case, but there is one question that led to reasonable doubt. The motivations report in Feb should clear that up ... I hope. There is a lot of evidence for the judge to address, so it's an interesting case in terms of what tipped the scales ... and we know it wasn't at the end of the appeal. The decision seemed to have been made in advance.

 

[otto]

I think it's important to remember that judges are not normally voted into positions. That seems to be the way it is with prosecutors and judges in the US. In most countries, judges and prosecutors are promoted based on merit. Politics and votes have nothing to do with it. In Italy, it is non-political<modsnip>

 

[SkewedView]

After some contemplation, I believe that I've figured out the reasoning behind the lone guilty verdict (PL's slander), and why it 'contradicts' nothing.

Keep in mind, first off, that while the slander case was presented with the rest of the charges, it is handled on its own merits, independent of the rulings on any other charges. In fact, it would make little sense for it to be affected by them, as it only has to deal with AK's statement and the direct consequences thereof.

Now, the defense asked that the charge be tossed, due to AK's claims of coercion, which would place the responsibility for PL's plight squarely on the shoulders of LE. PL's lawyer, after you strip away the histrionics and name calling rants, asked for the maximum punishment for her (6 years), and had the statements of AK's 'interveiwers' countering her claims to back that up.

Here's where we run into a snag. PLE conveniently, and illegally, neglected to record their session with AK. This meant that neither side could prove their claims - the only thing there is proof of is that a statement was made, and that it was used as the justification for the following actions against PL. The appeals court seems to have gone with a 'split the baby' decision, and went with a sentence smack dab in the middle of what the two sides were asking.

AK couldn't back up her claims, thus she couldn't be absolved of responsibility - after all, nobody denies that her statements were indeed quite damaging to PL. And at the same time, the Supreme Court ruled that the statements were obtained in a manner that broke multiple laws and violated AK's civil rights, which taints any claims made by her 'interviewers' and throws enough doubt into the equation to justify taking a 'middle of the road' approach to the sentencing.

The claims by the prosecutors that this verdict is contradictory ring false when you really think about it. It really has nothing to do with the rest of the charges. IMO, they're just looking for a way to discredit this court and its ruling, but even they don't dare to go so far in this as they did with the Independent Experts.

 

[SMK]

That is not what the judge was saying. He said that he would have pursued the case if the evidence was there because that is what a prosecutor is supposed to do. He didn't say he would have pursued it like this prosecutor. Clearly he didn't find the evidence compelling (or he wouldn't have reversed he conviction), so, if he had been the prosecutor, the case would likely not have gone to trial.

Exactly. And he declared all the crimes, including the simulation of a break-in, to have not been committed by the defendants. They were all overturned, notwithstanding the defamation charge. I supsect his Motivation report will entertain the idea of a lone burglar suspect (Guede), and will be highly critical of the deductive reasoning contained within the Massei Report.

 

[SkewedView]

Regarding Hellmann's recent statements:

These statements don't surprise me one bit. After all, many commentators are foolishly calling his ruling an 'indictment of the Italian Justice System', an association that I'm quite certain that he is keen on distancing himself from. He is no doubt just as eager to get away from the claims on the other side that his ruling was motivated by politics and/or the media. These statements are quite obviously made to directly counter the (IMO baseless) claims on both sides.

Keep in mind also that the future of his career will be determined by his peers (that's how they do it in Italy), most of whom were originally prosecutors. Those peers cannot be too happy about the perceived international humiliation dealt to Italian LE and Prosecutors in this case. Hellmann's statements go a long way towards making it clear that he and his ruling are not a part of that humiliation.

Masterful strategy on Hellmann's part here. This is a very, very smart man. Now to see what his written report looks like.

 

[SMK]

Nancy Grace is Completely Wrong About the Amanda Knox Case

. . . Judge Claudio Helmann to be unreliable. He not only found them not guilty, he foundthat they had nothing to do with the crime, and that the so-called staged break in never took place since Italian sentences allow you to not only find that some one is not guilty, but additionally that they had nothing to do with it in the first place. Fact is the fake “appeal” will not go anywhere. They can only go to the Supreme Court arguing violations of application of the law, which didn’t occur. PM Mignini is going to be busy trying to save his on his own 16 month conviction for abuse of power.

http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.co...-completely-wrong-about-the-amanda-knox-case/

and also:

Exclusive Picture of Amanda Knox Prosecutor as He Hears Verdict
by Bruce Fisher October 06, 2011

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Exclusive-Picture-of-Amanda-Knox-Prosecutor-as-He-/2941755

 

[SMK]

. . .
Masterful strategy on Hellmann's part here. This is a very, very smart man. Now to see what his written report looks like.

:clap::clap::clap: BRAVO!

 

[SMK]

Knox Family Reportedly Invites Amanda's Former Boyfriend to Seattle for Reunion
BARI, Italy -- The family of Amanda Knox has invited her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, to Seattle for a reunion, after the pair was cleared of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher.

Sollecito's father told reporters outside the Italian beach house where his son was recuperating Thursday, after four years in prison in Perugia, that the invitation was extended by Chris Mellas, Knox's stepfather.

"We didn't manage to speak to Amanda. Raffaele didn't manage even by telephone. After the court ruling, we went in different directions, but through my daughter I learned that Amanda's stepfather invited us to Seattle," Francesco Sollecito said. "At this time, we have nothing planned."
Raffaele Sollecito commented briefly on his relationship with Knox in a phone call with Italian news agency ANSA shortly after his release.
"Amanda? Maybe I'll see her again, but now I only want to be with my family," he said.
The freed 27-year-old is currently staying at his father's villa in a gated community in Bisceglie, outside Bari in southern Italy. His father said that his son seemed "reborn."
"He's like a baby growing up that has to learn to get used to life," he told reporters. Unlike Knox's clamorous return to Seattle, only about 20 photographers, cameramen and reporters went to the Sollecito home.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/1...yfriend-to-seattle-for-reunion/#ixzz1a0nqniFZ

 

[SMK]

Amanda Knox film to be altered

Hayden Panettiere&#8217;s movie about Amanda Knox is to be altered after the American student&#8217;s murder conviction was overturned on Monday.

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

 

[OldSteve]

Trust me friend, if you were a naive 20 year old foreigner in an alien land surrounded by 30 hostile threatening police officers who are clearly not following what you were brought up to believe was proper behaviour you would be far less certain in that attitude. There are places in the world where you would be wetting your pants in that situation.

Well said!
If a person is pushed hard enough, badgered enough, brow-beaten enough, yelled at enough, have what they said twisted enough - - a point can be reached where that person becomes so emotionally distorted that they will say/do things they don't mean. This is brain-washing 101, IMO, of course.

 

[SMK]

Seattlepi.comhttp://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/10/05/west-seattle-on-the-lookout-for-amanda-knox

 

[Cailin Rua]

I believe the main part of the article was left out

"Speaking of Knox and Sollecito, Pratillo Hellmann told the interviewer: "I felt emotion because they are two young people who suffered, justly or unjustly, I repeat, we can never say with certainty."

Asked who knew the truth about the slaying, Pratillo Hellmann referred to a third defendant, Rudy Guede, who was convicted of Kercher's murder in a separate trial and is serving a 16-year sentence in Italy.
"Certainly Rudy Guede" knows, he said. "I won't say he's the only one to know," the judge added. "

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44790...s/t/italian-judge-knox-might-know-truth-case/

I disagree with the apparently accepted conclusion, that the Kercher family seems to have bought into here, that it would have been impossible for RG to control, rape, and murder the victim without assistance. It just isn't that difficult for a man to control a woman in a crime like that. If he was telling her (during the rape) "don't scream, don't struggle, and I won't hurt you" there's a good chance that she obeyed. I've spoken with many rape victims who were told the same and in their cases, fortunately, they did manage to escape with their lives.

If she was being "cooperative" out of fear and on his assurances that he would "let her go," then it wouldn't have been difficult to grab the knife and stab her and IMO she would have been incapacitated fairly quickly after that.

 

[SMK]

After some contemplation, I believe that I've figured out the reasoning behind the lone guilty verdict (PL's slander), and why it 'contradicts' nothing.

Keep in mind, first off, that while the slander case was presented with the rest of the charges, it is handled on its own merits, independent of the rulings on any other charges. In fact, it would make little sense for it to be affected by them, as it only has to deal with AK's statement and the direct consequences thereof.

Now, the defense asked that the charge be tossed, due to AK's claims of coercion, which would place the responsibility for PL's plight squarely on the shoulders of LE. PL's lawyer, after you strip away the histrionics and name calling rants, asked for the maximum punishment for her (6 years), and had the statements of AK's 'interveiwers' countering her claims to back that up.

Here's where we run into a snag. PLE conveniently, and illegally, neglected to record their session with AK. This meant that neither side could prove their claims - the only thing there is proof of is that a statement was made, and that it was used as the justification for the following actions against PL. The appeals court seems to have gone with a 'split the baby' decision, and went with a sentence smack dab in the middle of what the two sides were asking.

AK couldn't back up her claims, thus she couldn't be absolved of responsibility - after all, nobody denies that her statements were indeed quite damaging to PL. And at the same time, the Supreme Court ruled that the statements were obtained in a manner that broke multiple laws and violated AK's civil rights, which taints any claims made by her 'interviewers' and throws enough doubt into the equation to justify taking a 'middle of the road' approach to the sentencing.

The claims by the prosecutors that this verdict is contradictory ring false when you really think about it. It really has nothing to do with the rest of the charges. IMO, they're just looking for a way to discredit this court and its ruling, but even they don't dare to go so far in this as they did with the Independent Experts.

I agree with you fully here. I sensed when Hellman was reading it, also, that it was a precursor to the acquittals on A,B,C,D,E : this is the simple and surface way of viewing the PL defamation charge: First , the bad news. Then, the good news. He did not want to seem as though he was too much siding with Amanda, or caving to media pressure. So he was strict with the PL and lenient with the murder-related charges.

But your shrewd observation that the Supreme Court's ruling on the multiple violations goes deeper, justifies Hellman's approach, is astute and on the mark. It does not in fact comprise a contradiction of the acquittals.

 

[SMK]

So now it is being argued on PMF that Hellman would have acquitted Guede too, or found him Not Guilty, using the same logic he used with the Knox and Sollecito material. I do not agree, and to my thinking, Guede was always the biggest argument against the others' involvement, and for the Lone Wolf theory.

 

[AnaTeresa]

So now it is being argued on PMF that Hellman would have acquitted Guede too, or found him Not Guilty, using the same logic he used with the Knox and Sollecito material. I do not agree, and to my thinking, Guede was always the biggest argument against the others' involvement, and for the Lone Wolf theory.

I agree. It seemed to me that Hellman stated that Guede certainly knew the truth about what happened - and that Knox or Sollecito only might have. To me, it appears as if Hellman believes Guede was the principal, and quite easily could have acted alone.

 

[SMK]

I agree. It seemed to me that Hellman stated that Guede certainly knew the truth about what happened - and that Knox or Sollecito only might have. To me, it appears as if Hellman believes Guede was the principal, and quite easily could have acted alone.

Yes, you are so right, do not know why these others cannot see this.:maddening:

 

[emyr]

That is not what the judge was saying. He said that he would have pursued the case if the evidence was there because that is what a prosecutor is supposed to do. He didn't say he would have pursued it like this prosecutor. Clearly he didn't find the evidence compelling (or he wouldn't have reversed he conviction), so, if he had been the prosecutor, the case would likely not have gone to trial.

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.

 

[bees]

So now it is being argued on PMF that Hellman would have acquitted Guede too, or found him Not Guilty, using the same logic he used with the Knox and Sollecito material. I do not agree, and to my thinking, Guede was always the biggest argument against the others' involvement, and for the Lone Wolf theory.

Considering the logic he used was lack of evidence, it's risible that anyone could argue that "lack of evidence" would have acquitted Guede. I really find it difficult to understand why people don't adjust their conclusions when faced with new, more rigorous information but then I remember how many people are completely irrational about many things so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[SMK]

Of course.

Originally Posted by sherlockh


How far are people willing to go to go against the jury's decision regarding the guilty verdict? Exactly. That can't be repeated often enough as you would think otherwise reading this thread. I will say this though: If they are acquitted on appeal I will admit that the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict.


Now, lets see if any of the conspiracy theorists has got the balls to admit the evidence was strong enough if they are convicted on appeal. Any takers?

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: