Amanda Knox case judge lambasted by Raffaele Sollecito's lawyers for remarks

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

The judge who reinstated Amanda Knox's conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher has been criticised by her co-accused's defence lawyers after he commented publicly on the case in a way they claimed was "unacceptable" and could lead to disciplinary action.

Alessandro Nencini, who on Thursday sentenced Knox to 28-and-a-half years and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito to 25 years in prison for the British student's killing, gave an interview to three Italian newspapers on Saturday in which he touched on Sollecito's defence strategy and the case itself.

The remarks, which are unusual in a country where courts do not generally comment on cases before publishing their written reasoning, were reportedly described as "inopportune" by the chairman of the judges' governing body, the CSM.

But Sollecito's lawyers went further, saying they were appalled by the judge's words, with one saying the CSM should not only consider bringing disciplinary action against him but also question the legitimacy of the verdict itself.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/02/amanda-knox-judge-raffaele-sollecito-lawyers-remarks

[hobbit709]

1. Cue the guilters in 3..2..1..

[dipsydoodle]

2. These do

[DRoseDARs]

3. "... but also question the legitimacy of the verdict itself."

I think the lack of any physical evidence has that covered.

[pnwmom]

4. I myself am extremely grateful that the judge explained that there was no presumption of innocence.

That is, that the high court had already decided that Rudy Guede had two helpers, so the appeals court for Amanda and Raffaele would have to find them guilty unless they could prove who the other attackers were.

This is bound to help them in the European Court of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a Fair Trial, including the presumption of innocence.

I haven't seen an English translation of the whole interview with Judge Nencini, but I found this key paragraph on the Injustice in Perugia discussion area:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=747&start=37100

‪Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011‬
‪ by ‪katy_did » Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:38 pm

This part of Nencini's interview is pretty interesting:

“Actually this was precisely the unusual characteristic of the trial: a person had already been definitively convicted with an abbreviated trial for complicity in the same murder. Cassation asked us to evaluate the role of the accomplices. We could have said that [the accomplices] were not the two defendants, justifying [the argument] in a convincing way. But we did not hold this to be the truth.”

So there we have it: Guede's conviction meant that guilty verdicts for Amanda and Raffaele were inevitable unless the defence could come up with another perpetrator. It was over before their trials even started, and regardless of what new evidence might have emerged to suggest Guede acted alone. There had to be multiple perpetrators - not because that's what the evidence suggested, but because that was the crime Guede was charged with and therefore it became a 'legal truth' - and in the absence of other suspects, those perpetrators had to be Amanda and Raffaele. Just wow.

This surely has to be strong grounds for appeal. It's totally backwards: the theory of the crime preceded the trials and was held to be a definitive truth even before the evidence was examined. Astonishing.

[davidpdx]

5. Thanks for pointing this out

I took a MOOC class on European Union law last year and found it quite interesting.

The Italian court expects the defense for the Knox and Sollectito to prove that Guede was not guilty in order to prove they were not guilty.

I also have to wonder if this would be grounds for a legitimate reason to refuse extradition (if it went that far). Granted that's years down the road.

[pnwmom]

7. Either to prove Guede was not guilty, or to prove that he had specific accomplices other than A & R.

But Amanda and Raffaele's whole case was that ALL the evidence in the murder room pointed to one person and one person only -- Rudy Guede -- so it wouldn't be possible for there to be two other murderers.

The thing that is hard to wrap a US brain around is their inquisitorial system of justice. (They have some elements of an adversary system, but not enough.) Under this system, the judges are viewed as the finder of The Truth. Since the judges in Rudy's trial already found The Truth (more than one attacker) a different truth (a single attacker, Rudy) cannot be argued in the appeals trial of A & R.

I would think that a favorable ruling in the European Court for Human Rights would help Amanda fight extradition.

[Gothmog]

28. The Italian justice system is based on the Napoleonic code

The Napoleonic Code is a dinosaur and this verdict is a good example of the unjust results that can result from using this system. As you noted, there is no presumption of innocence. In addition, the burden of proof under the Code is very different from the US standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." On another thread, one of the Amanda Knox haters attempted to defend this burden of proof to me but that attempt was really very sad.

I am a lawyer who have been practicing for a long time. I am familiar with international law and the Napoleonic Code. Louisiana still uses parts of the code but luckily for my clients even that state has moved away from this system.

I have looked at the "facts" alleged or presented on another thread on this board and I remain convinced that this evidence or these facts would never survive a motion to dismiss and that a case based on these facts would never get to a US jury. I remain convinced that the Italian justice system is a joke and I wonder why so many people are willing to give any credence to the verdict against Amanda Knox

[pnwmom]

29. There is a heavy misinformation campaign driven by the haters, and most people

don't know how to wade through all the lies to find the facts.

You probably know this, but a balanced site is www.murderofmeredithkercher.com

It was developed in response to a hate site with the same name, except beginning with "the." This site was an offshoot of a Wikipedia entry that Jimmy Wales finally had to take action on. The editors were preventing anyone from posting legitimate news articles that supported Amanda's innocence. After Wales assigned new editors to the articles on Wikipedia, the deposed editors took their lies and set up a fake-Wiki site to peddle them instead.

[Gothmog]

30. I will look at this later

There is a great deal of misinformation out there and a number of people who seem to be determined to attack Amanda Knox. I really do not understand the motivation for putting out misinformation and these attacks

[pnwmom]

32. Here is an article about a couple of the main people who have devoted themselves

to websites purveying the hate. One of them, Peter Quinnell, has been accused of stalking a young woman. He appears to be a deeply disturbed man.

http://groundreport.com/ny-times-amanda-knox-headline-against-amanda-suits-blogger-peggy-ganong-well/

[mainer]

33. Amazing how Jimmy Wales himself had to intervene

That's how much the crazies had screwed things up.

The Meredith Kercher Wikipedia site is now fully sourced and factual.

(Needless to say, the crazies are now on the warpath against Wales.)

[onwardsand upwards]

6. Why does anyone care about this?

The ongoing Amanda Knox saga is distraction conjured up by the corporate media to distract you while the corporations steal from you, poison you, and kill your kids in wars for corporate profits.

What's next? A piece on Brad, Angelina, and Jen?

[pnwmom]

8. Amanda Knox is a real, flesh-and-blood person and she never wanted to be a celebrity.

If she can be denied the right to a fair trial, then any of us can be. High profile cases like Amanda's can help all of us by pointing a spotlight at the defects in the justice systems, whether in Europe, here, or anywhere.

We had a friend who made the same mistake Amanda did -- talk to the police without a lawyer. And he ended up suffering through two terrible criminal trials (ending in hung juries), facing decades in prison, before the state finally decided not to try him again. It wiped him out financially, and his whole family went through hell for a year and a half.

I hope everyone who pays attention to Amanda's trial has realized how easy it is for an innocent person to get caught up in a nightmare, and how critical it is NEVER to talk to the police without a lawyer. False confessions are common, especially among innocent people. (Hard core criminals are more experienced at protecting themselves.)

And if you're going to be spending time in a foreign country, or your children are, you better have contingency plans for if you get in legal trouble. Being innocent is not a protection.

[JanMichael]

9. if you don't "care"

why did you not only click on the link, read it, and then post this.

When I "don't care" about a post, I generally ignore it. Please answer, I am fascinated by the "this doesn't matter" posters.

[onwardsand upwards]

12. Because it's cluttering up a political site ...

... with the sort of sordid individual crime stories that the corporate media use to distract people.

I'm hoping that this site doesn't degenerate into that. I care about this site.

[Nika]

17. Injustice anywhere is a threat to peace and justice everywhere.

This is a glaringly unjust and irrational verdict, and it is no waste of time discussing this.

If it bothers you, just stay off threads like this.

[onwardsand upwards]

18. The OJ Simpson verdict was unjust, too ...

... and JonBenet Ramsey ...

... and how about that Angelina stealing Brad from Jen? Just awful!

[Nika]

22. My initial comment still stands.

And I have no idea who Angelina, Brad or Jen are. I do know there is enough injustice in the legal system innocents do wind up in prison.

And you are not going to stop people from rightfully talking about cases like this, nor will you ever negate the value of doing so.

[pnwmom]

31. S/he's making a mockery by posting the names of movie stars who are not accused of anything.

[mainer]

10. Do you normally interrupt folks to say "I don't care what you're talking about"?

Because that's just weird.

Do you go around at cocktail parties doing this to people who are engaged in conversation?

[onwardsand upwards]

13. Is this a cocktail party, or a serious political site?

[warrant46]

11. Honey Boo Boo and the Duck Rustics are on Deck

To help distract the 80% who are the SHEEP

[onwardsand upwards]

14. I really have no idea what you're talking about.

A bit too cryptic -- sorry!

[warrant46]

15. You have a very nice journal

Sorry I should have been more direct.

[onwardsand upwards]

19. Oh, I see ...

... shoot the messenger.

Tried and true.

[sked14]

16. Why do you care that we care about this?

[onwardsand upwards]

20. Because I care about this site ...

... not descending into trashy corporate media sensationalism.

The only reason any of us has heard of the Amanda Knox story, among the thousands of individual injustices every day, is because she is an attractive young woman. Eye candy to distract you from the thousands that die every day from poverty.

Do you need other examples?

[sked14]

21. We discuss a wide range of issues here on DU,

do you lambast all those that you deem inappropriate?
I care about this site also, know why? Because of the wide range of issues.
If you don't like a topic, don't click on it and read it.
See how simple that is?

[onwardsand upwards]

24. I like to think of DU as being above tabloid journalism.

There's no shortage of discussion about Amanda Knox, JonBenet Ramsey, Michael Jackson, etc, etc... on Fox News.

I'm hoping that DU has higher standards.

[sked14]

27. I don't watch Fox News, nor do I care to.

I read DU just for the wide range of issues discussed here, including the travesty of the Amanda Knox "trial".
If you don't like a thread, don't read it, I don't know how much simpler I can say this.

[Nika]

23. Actually I just see her as a young woman who got caught up in a nasty situation in a foreign country

who is being judged unfairly partially because of mistakes she made her first time away from home. I am not attracted to other women and don't see her as "eye candy."

[onwardsand upwards]

25. Okay, like many others.

But why is she plastered all over the Murdoch media. To inform us? Really?

[Nika]

26. This topic is one that is very normal for DU.

And it is very appropriate to delve into legal issues like this. if this causes you pain, leave. No one is forcing you to post here.

Personally I am mostly concerned with the dolphin and whale killings in the Antarctic ad at the cove in Taiji, Japan. I am an environmentalist primarily. But I come in here to scan the news and talk of other issues, including the Knox case. You are not going to change the way DU is and how the news gets covered in here. I am done talking to you about this.

One person's tripe and uninteresting topic is another's point of interest, and that is just how things are.