Some Questions

Some Questions

Postby vawn » Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:08 am

I have followed this injustice and been emotionally involved for a long time. Just some questions:
1. When will the Italian supreme court explain their decision?
2. Does anyone have a 'feel' from the hearings on what their reasoning may be?
3. Why did the same court that reversed the 1st acquittal then reverse the 2nd conviction? (I don't know much about the nature of the supreme court).
4. Does the final decision imply: innocent, not guilt, not proven

Thanks for any input.
vawn
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:15 am

Re: Some Questions

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:30 am

vawn wrote:I have followed this injustice and been emotionally involved for a long time. Just some questions:

Welcome to the board! Looking forward to your contributions, opinions and observations!
vawn wrote:1. When will the Italian supreme court explain their decision?

By statute, they have 90 days to release a Motivations Report. Back in 2011, Judge Hellmann released his after 75 days (or thereabouts). It is unclear if there is any "penalty" for being late!
vawn wrote:2. Does anyone have a 'feel' from the hearings on what their reasoning may be?

My "feel" is that it will simply echo the Hellmann motivations report from 2011. Have you read the Hellmann report? It is avaiable from this website in English.

https://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/ (I hope the link works!)
vawn wrote:3. Why did the same court that reversed the 1st acquittal then reverse the 2nd conviction? (I don't know much about the nature of the supreme court).

The Italian Supreme Court is a very large entity, with about 350 judges. They are split into 5-judge panels. In 2013, Section 1 of the ISC heard the appeal from the prosecution of the 1st acquittal. Judge Chieffi chaired that panel. This time (2015) Section 5 heard the appeal of the Nencini convictions, and someone named Marasca (not to be confused with the Kercher lawyer, Maresca) chaired that panel.
vawn wrote:4. Does the final decision imply: innocent, not guilt, not proven

There is a one-page summary of the decision released the same day.... and my reading of it is that they adopted the same language of the previous Hellmann court - that "they did not do the act", or in the lesser charges, "The act did not exist". However, all will become moot when the motivations report is released, scheduled to be before mid-June.

vawn wrote:Thanks for any input.


This webpage is a wealth of info, a log of people'sposts for the last 5 years or so. Also there is:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Some Questions

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:40 am

vawn wrote:I have followed this injustice and been emotionally involved for a long time. Just some questions:
1. When will the Italian supreme court explain their decision?
2. Does anyone have a 'feel' from the hearings on what their reasoning may be?
3. Why did the same court that reversed the 1st acquittal then reverse the 2nd conviction? (I don't know much about the nature of the supreme court).
4. Does the final decision imply: innocent, not guilt, not proven

Thanks for any input.

There are many places on this website to jump in....perhaps too many, really.

However, I was once fascinated with why Raffaele would simply not cut a deal with the courts, to save his own skin. I once delved into this, perhaps too deeply.

There are two threads detailing this subject. They are at:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2201

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1869 - Raffaele won a bet with the truth.

However, choose one thread and jump in. It is very interesting reading very early, pre Oct-2011 posts when all seemed bleak.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Some Questions

Postby LarryK » Sun Apr 19, 2015 2:58 am

Welcome, vawn! While there are massive resources here to understand every angle of the Knox/Sollecito case throughout its history, since the main case is over now, I hope you'll take a look at some of the other featured cases here and join the team working on one or more of them. It's very rewarding, especially when a successful exoneration is reached!
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Some Questions

Postby Hans » Mon Apr 20, 2015 1:34 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
vawn wrote:I have followed this injustice and been emotionally involved for a long time. Just some questions:

Welcome to the board! Looking forward to your contributions, opinions and observations!
vawn wrote:1. When will the Italian supreme court explain their decision?

By statute, they have 90 days to release a Motivations Report. Back in 2011, Judge Hellmann released his after 75 days (or thereabouts). It is unclear if there is any "penalty" for being late!
vawn wrote:2. Does anyone have a 'feel' from the hearings on what their reasoning may be?

My "feel" is that it will simply echo the Hellmann motivations report from 2011. Have you read the Hellmann report? It is avaiable from this website in English.

https://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/ (I hope the link works!)
vawn wrote:3. Why did the same court that reversed the 1st acquittal then reverse the 2nd conviction? (I don't know much about the nature of the supreme court).

The Italian Supreme Court is a very large entity, with about 350 judges. They are split into 5-judge panels. In 2013, Section 1 of the ISC heard the appeal from the prosecution of the 1st acquittal. Judge Chieffi chaired that panel. This time (2015) Section 5 heard the appeal of the Nencini convictions, and someone named Marasca (not to be confused with the Kercher lawyer, Maresca) chaired that panel.
vawn wrote:4. Does the final decision imply: innocent, not guilt, not proven

There is a one-page summary of the decision released the same day.... and my reading of it is that they adopted the same language of the previous Hellmann court - that "they did not do the act", or in the lesser charges, "The act did not exist". However, all will become moot when the motivations report is released, scheduled to be before mid-June.

vawn wrote:Thanks for any input.


This webpage is a wealth of info, a log of people'sposts for the last 5 years or so. Also there is:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com

Hello vawn, Welcome aboard,

I want to add a point or two to what Bill said:
from what I got about the hearing from the few tweets from the courtroom is that this panel or at least the presiding judge Marasca knows the case and its flaws very well. It was reported that he has corrected the "Relatore" i.e. the prosecutor who sums up the case for the prosecution on a "few minor things" (since there were only pro-guilt people tweeting, god knows what that "minor" means), and also that he dressed down Kercher lawyer Maresca for bringing up the alleged "dishonesty" of the independent experts from the Hellmann appeal.

Another thing is the two pages "deposition" of the court, it reads:
PURSUANT TO C.P.P. ARTICLE 620 LETTER A); ANNULS THE RULING UNDER APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO THE CRIME UNDER CHARGE B) OF THE RUBRIC BECAUSE THE CRIME IS EXTINCT BY PRESCRIPTION; PURSUANT TO C.P.P. ARTICLES 620 LETTER L) AND 530, PARAGRAPH II; EXCLUDING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER C.P. ARTICLE 61 N.2 IN RELATION TO THE CRIME OF CALUMNY, ANNULS THE RULING UNDER APPEAL WITHOUT REMAND WITH RESPECT TO THE CRIMES UNDER CHARGES A), D), AND E) OF THE RUBRIC BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT; RECALCULATES THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER AMANDA MARIE KNOX FOR THE CRIME OF CALUMNY AS THREE YEARS OF CONFINEMENT.

I think it's interesting that charge B (Transporting the knife) is dropped because of the staute of limitations. I think we'll read the phrase "manifest illogical" many many times in that motivations report and I think they've dropped this charge to spare Nencini another round of them on charge B. They'll have to use this phrase, because ,they too, oviously went into the realm of "fact finding" wich isn't usually their domain.

I also think that we'll get some watered down version of Hellmann's reasoning. Hellmann acquitted them of "staging the burglary" because the crime does not exist (Art. 530, 1 c.p.p.) This seems to have changed to "they didn't commit the crime" (Art. 530, 2 c.p.p.) implying that they'll go with the brake-in being staged, without saying by whom.

I think that we'll also get another lecturing about "reasonable doubt" before they explain, why they anulled the convictions without remand.

They will make very clear that Nencini's reasoning for guilt has serious flaws in it, then they will humor Chieffi and his first section panel of the Supreme Court by stating that Hellmann's reasoning for innocence also has serious flaws in it. Their judicial philosophic reasoning will be something like: "If both verdicts have to be anulled for flawed and illogical reasoning, we'll have to return to the most ancient principle of criminal law and that is "In dubio pro reo"." I think they'll even humor judge Nencini by using his "new testing or re-hearing witnesses won't bring clarity" rationale as argument for closing the case. So I think they'll say "not guilty" but that will sound like "not proven". :twocents:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Some Questions

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:16 pm

Hans wrote:I think that we'll also get another lecturing about "reasonable doubt" before they explain, why they anulled the convictions without remand.

They will make very clear that Nencini's reasoning for guilt has serious flaws in it, then they will humor Chieffi and his first section panel of the Supreme Court by stating that Hellmann's reasoning for innocence also has serious flaws in it. Their judicial philosophic reasoning will be something like: "If both verdicts have to be anulled for flawed and illogical reasoning, we'll have to return to the most ancient principle of criminal law and that is "In dubio pro reo"." I think they'll even humor judge Nencini by using his "new testing or re-hearing witnesses won't bring clarity" rationale as argument for closing the case. So I think they'll say "not guilty" but that will sound like "not proven". :twocents:

Hans - you are one cynical man. How can you be this cynical about a country you share no land border with?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Some Questions

Postby Hans » Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:52 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Hans wrote:I think that we'll also get another lecturing about "reasonable doubt" before they explain, why they anulled the convictions without remand.

They will make very clear that Nencini's reasoning for guilt has serious flaws in it, then they will humor Chieffi and his first section panel of the Supreme Court by stating that Hellmann's reasoning for innocence also has serious flaws in it. Their judicial philosophic reasoning will be something like: "If both verdicts have to be anulled for flawed and illogical reasoning, we'll have to return to the most ancient principle of criminal law and that is "In dubio pro reo"." I think they'll even humor judge Nencini by using his "new testing or re-hearing witnesses won't bring clarity" rationale as argument for closing the case. So I think they'll say "not guilty" but that will sound like "not proven". :twocents:

Hans - you are one cynical man. How can you be this cynical about a country you share no land border with?

Bill, I left most of my cynism at the Austrian-Italian border. :winks:
Karen in one of her articles called for "poetic justice" I think in this case it'll be "philosophic justice". :)

ETA: All kidding aside, I think they'll throw a bone to please, to everyone except Meredith Kercher's family. :((:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Some Questions

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:40 pm

Hans wrote:Bill, I left most of my cynism at the Austrian-Italian border. :winks:
Karen in one of her articles called for "poetic justice" I think in this case it'll be "philosophic justice". :)

ETA: All kidding aside, I think they'll throw a bone to please, to everyone except Meredith Kercher's family. :((:

In my court accompaniment days, I sat through more than a few "reasons for judgement", read by the judge at verdict-time, as to why the judge decided the case as per guilt/not-guilty.

In a few of them, the judge seemed to have written internally contradictory things. I'd ask the veterans why a presumably scholarly piece of writing as a "reason for judgement" could contain (what were to my tender, untrained ears) contradictions.

Invariably the comment would come back, "The judge is trying to cover all bases, and throw something to everyone to forestall an appeal." I'm not trained so couldn't really parse what that was all about, but it sounded a lot like your own version of Italian dietrology.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8084
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Some Questions

Postby LarryK » Tue Apr 21, 2015 1:55 am

"RECALCULATES THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER AMANDA MARIE KNOX FOR THE CRIME OF CALUMNY AS THREE YEARS OF CONFINEMENT." This remaining standing conviction has been appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, and as long as they take the case it is presumed that they will rule that the "calumny" arose from violations of her human rights, and they will rebuke Italy for doing so, as they have done to Italy many times before. So she will be vindicated even there. (This has been discussed at length elsewhere on this forum.)
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Some Questions

Postby vawn » Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:36 am

Thank you all for input. The truth is I have been so emotionally involved in Amanda's situation that I get extremely anxious reading about it. I was a nervous wreck on March 27 from 1:15 until about 5:45 (EDT) waiting for the verdict on CNN. Why did they take so long?
vawn
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:15 am


Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron