Meredith Kercher Murder: The Nencini Verdict and it's impact on the future

[redheadedgal]

Of course there isn't a document saying that but I believe he understands the SCC rulings better than us. He clearly says even considering RGs definitive rulings they could've concluded the 2 weren't there but they didn't consider that the truth. What he makes clear is a logical reasoning would be needed to back up an acquittal, which is something Hellman couldn't do.

if this is true, why would the opinion/directive of the SCC posted earlier seem to say otherwise?

was something "lost in translation"?

 

[sherlockh]

Of course there isn't a document saying that but I believe he understands the SCC rulings better than us. He clearly says even considering RGs definitive rulings they could've concluded the 2 weren't there but they didn't consider that the truth. What he makes clear is a logical reasoning would be needed to back up an acquittal, which is something Hellman couldn't do.

That is exactly what the SCC said also. The judge should take into account the definitive ruling for Guede since that is the law. Judge Hellmann 'forgot' what exactly the Italian law was.

 

[Footwarrior]

That is exactly what the SCC said also. The judge should take into account the definitive ruling for Guede since that is the law. Judge Hellmann 'forgot' what exactly the Italian law was.

Hellman was concerned with what actually happened, not the convenient fiction agreed to by both sides in a separate abbreviated trial. One where the defendants were not allowed to be represented.

Italy also seems to have a problem with real science. Preferring instead that the justice system treat the word of prosecution experts as gospel, even after they have been caught giving false testimony in court and withholding evidence from the defense.

 

[Katody]

That is exactly what the SCC said also. The judge should take into account the definitive ruling for Guede since that is the law. Judge Hellmann 'forgot' what exactly the Italian law was.

That's simply not true.

There is whole chapter that discusses and takes into account Guede's ruling in Hellmann's motivation:

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/judgement-concerning-rudy-guede/

 

[Katody]

Hellmann was a complete failure. His arguments were illogical and he did not follow Italian law. It was therefore annulled.

SC report

Well, the majority of people on this forum disagree, me included. What was the argumentation that you omitted in your quote? What exactly Hellmann did wrong?

 

[Amber29]

if this is true, why would the opinion/directive of the SCC posted earlier seem to say otherwise?

was something "lost in translation"?

I don't think it says otherwise. I think Nencini perfectly well understands that the SCC said you must take into account RGs definitive ruling. That does not mean Nencini had to find them guilty, it means he needs to have a logical reasoning to base an acquittal on. I said many times that people were hung up on the lone wolf theory, when a judge can not use that in his reasoning because RG was not convicted as the only killer. It's also why you never saw the defenses attempt a lone wolf defense. It's why RSs defense tried to bring in a child killer to testify his brother was Meredith's killer because they knew the judge needed something to base a reasoning on besides "lone wolf." Hellman was unable to put together a logical reasoning taking RGs conviction into account, Nencini believes AK and RS to be guilty and won't have to worry about that and he said as much already. That he could have found them to be not guilty but they didn't believe that to be true.

 

[Katody]

I don't think it says otherwise. I think Nencini perfectly well understands that the SCC said you must take into account RGs definitive ruling. That does not mean Nencini had to find them guilty, it means he needs to have a logical reasoning to base an acquittal on. I said many times that people were hung up on the lone wolf theory, when a judge can not use that in his reasoning because RG was not convicted as the only killer. It's also why you never saw the defenses attempt a lone wolf defense. It's why RSs defense tried to bring in a child killer to testify his brother was Meredith's killer because they knew the judge needed something to base a reasoning on besides "lone wolf." Hellman was unable to put together a logical reasoning taking RGs conviction into account, Nencini believes AK and RS to be guilty and won't have to worry about that and he said as much already. That he could have found them to be not guilty but they didn't believe that to be true.

You haven't read the defence closing arguments, have you? They are arguing that Guede acted alone.

Thanks for clarifying your understanding of SC verdict. So the defendants were required to point out some other Guede's accomplices. To me it looks very much that such conviction will not stand in the Court of Human Rights.

 

[Harmony 2]

The topic of the thread is not 'satanic' 'ritualistic' 'sacrifice' or any combination thereof ... geez

 

[Amber29]

You haven't read the defence closing arguments, have you? They are arguing that Guede acted alone.

Thanks for clarifying your understanding of SC verdict. So the defendants were required to point out some other Guede's accomplices. To me it looks very much that such conviction will not stand in the Court of Human Rights.

I disagree. I don't think they had to point out Guede's other accomplices, I think they attempted to.

 

[Katody]

I disagree. I don't think they had to point out Guede's other accomplices, I think they attempted to.

I see. So taking into account Guede's definitive verdict doesn't mean there must have been many attackers.

Could you explain what does it mean, then? If it doesn't impose restrictions about the many vs one attacker then what exactly was the error of Hellmann's reasoning regarding Guede's verdict?

 

[Amber29]

I see. So taking into account Guede's definitive verdict doesn't mean there must have been many attackers.

Could you explain what does it mean, then? If it doesn't impose restrictions about the many vs one attacker then what exactly was the error of Hellmann's reasoning regarding Guede's verdict?

No it does mean there were multiple attackers but Nencini made it clear that did not mean they had to find AK and RS guilty. Hellman's illogical reasoning has been discussed over and over, this is about Nencini. Nencini very clearly answered a question about the SCC reasoning and RGs definitive ruling. I'm sorry the concept that judges think they are guilty can't be grasped. We will have to wait for the Nencini reasoning to know more.

 

[Katody]

No it does mean there were multiple attackers but Nencini made it clear that did not mean they had to find AK and RS guilty. Hellman's illogical reasoning has been discussed over and over, this is about Nencini. Nencini very clearly answered a question about the SCC reasoning and RGs definitive ruling.

I see. So there is a certain circularity. Guede's verdict that there were multiple attackers is used as evidence in a separate case that finds that additional "attackers" guilty. At the same time that evidence from Guede's case cannot be contested because it happened in another trial and is definitive.

I'm sure the Court of Human Rights will find it very interesting.

Could you quote Nencini's clear answer?

BTW no one on this forum managed to point out any illogical reasoning of Hellmann's motivation.

I'm sorry the concept that judges think they are guilty can't be grasped.

<modsnip>

 

[dgfred]

What? The judge 'knows' he sentenced two 'innocent' people?

How about the 1st instance judges?

How about the 20 or so others along the way?

*It was shown in the trial of RG that there were multiple attackers.
It did not say exactly who the others were at the trial of RG.
It was shown in the trial of AK/RS that there were multiple attackers.
It did say exactly who the other two attackers were... along with RG.

**No forum member here needs to point out how Hellmann's motivation is illogical and unreasonable... the Italian Supreme Court took care of that quite nicely IMO. Thus it was rejected.

 

[Amber29]

I see. So there is a certain circularity. Guede's verdict that there were multiple attackers is used as evidence in a separate case that finds that additional "attackers" guilty. At the same time that evidence from Guede's case cannot be contested because it happened in another trial and is definitive.

I'm sure the Court of Human Rights will find it very interesting.

Could you quote Nencini's clear answer?

BTW no one on this forum managed to point out any illogical reasoning of Hellmann's motivation.


<modsnip>.

Doubtful that there is a leg to stand on in a human rights court. Well have to disagree on that.
I've quoted Nencini and it was snipped, so you're welcome to go back and read the questions posed to him and his answers.

Plenty has been pointed out about Hellman being illogical but we won't get into that here.

It wasn't an insult, simply the truth. Some look for reasons why a judge "had" to find them guilty instead of understanding that like many people, the jury believed them to be guilty based on the case presented. Like I said we will see what Nencini's reasoning offers later.

 

[Footwarrior]

I don't know where to post this, and the case is going silent tomorrow, so there's no point in a new thread but ... BBC has produced a new documentary of the case (released yesterday) which is an overview of the case up to the decision by Nencini, so I hope this can be posted here.

Is Amanda Knox Guilty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgBhlvFAbUw

A new documentary containing the a same old long debunked lies about this case.

 

[otto]

It's unfortunate that the thread will be closed because supporting evidence for much of what has been reported in Italian news and omitted from US news is released in the documentary.

For example, I've never seen this before, but it is part of the evidence in the Nencini Decision.

This will have an impact on the future.



Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgBhlvFAbUw

 

[otto]

A new documentary containing the a same old long debunked lies about this case.

Yes, it is the same old evidence and case history that a few supporters of Knox have tried to (successfully?) suppress for years. It is all relevant to the Nencini verdict and future confirmation of the verdict by the Supreme Court.

Includes Amanda Knox recording of her prison interrogation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgBhlvFAbUw

 

[Amber29]

Thx Otto I've been looking forward to seeing this bbc documentary. Very interesting, crazy to see things never seen before after all this time.

Until the discussion reopens...