amanda knox

[Timster]

What I don't understand is what Guede's version of events is and what he said about Knox and Sollecito. The conviction of Guedo (who I understand confessed) seems to contradict the prosecution case that has now led to the conviction of Knox and Sollecito.

Knox is clearly a very odd character and it can hardly be surprising that if you change your story to the police you end up looking guilty in the eyes of a jury.

And before we get too carried away with damning the state of Italian justice, there seems to have been more evidence to go on to convict these two than the CPS could ever muster to make a case for Barry George being Jill Dando's murderer.

[HAL9000]

Timster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What I don't understand is what Guede's version

He admitted having had consensual sex with Kercher, then went to the toilet, heard screams, returned to see an unknown person fleeing the scene and an (injured or dead?) Kercher. Claimed he panicked and fled to Germany because the assailant had threatened him.

> Barry George

Yes, a classic example of how irrational our own system can be.

[Timster]

But can all three of them be guilty on anyone's version of events?

[HAL9000]

Timster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But can all three of them be guilty on anyone's

> version of events?

One of the irrationalities of most western legal systems is that the prosecution can present its version of events no matter how ridiculous or absurd or, as in this case, based entirely on speculation.

Under Italian law, this situation is further compounded by the fact that defendants are not obliged to tell the truth and are allowed to lie in their defence without fear of prosecution.

The prosecution can even change its version to suit the prevailing circumstances: different trials ? different scenarios. Neither version needs to be consistent or even make sense.

The jury simply decides whose version it prefers to believe.

[DaveR]

One of the irrationalities of most western legal systems is that the prosecution can present its version of events no matter how ridiculous or absurd or, as in this case, based entirely on speculation.

Under Italian law, this situation is further compounded by the fact that defendants are not obliged to tell the truth and are allowed to lie in their defence without fear of prosecution.

The prosecution can even change its version to suit the prevailing circumstances: different trials ? different scenarios. Neither version needs to be consistent or even make sense.

The jury simply decides whose version it prefers to believe.

HAL, you have some slightly odd ideas about the way criminal trials work. Prosecutors present evidence and invite the tribunal of fact to draw inferences from the evidence to reach conclusions. Defendants do the same, tho' generally (but not exclusively) the evidence comes from their own testimony.

I'd be surprised if Italy, or any jurisdiction, "allows" a defendant to lie, in the sense that there is no perjury type offence, but the fact that someone is not believed is not the same as their evidence being deliberately and demonstrably false. In practice, a tiny number of people are prosecuted for giving false evidence in their own defence, and that is a sensible position. Otherwise, an innocent defendant may not give evidence because they fear that if they are not believed they may face additional punishment for 'lying'.

It would be odd if the prosecution were able to advance very different cases in two trials concerning the same events - I'm not sure if that happened in this case. In the UK all 3 would have been tried together.

[SimonM]

Interesting piece in today's Guardian, admittedly by an American journalist, but it read pretty convincingly to me.

[Y'man]

Quoting Knox in The Telegraph today, "I received a fair trial" and "it was conducted correctly". As she was found guilty and sentenced to 26 years, is this not admitting guilt?

[Sue]

SimonM Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting piece in today's Guardian, admittedly

> by an American journalist, but it read pretty

> convincingly to me.

xxxxxx

Is it online? Can you post a link?

[HAL9000]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Prosecutors present

> evidence and invite the tribunal of fact to draw

> inferences from the evidence to reach conclusions.

As reported, the prosecution?s case was that Knox and Sollecito had held down Kercher while Gu?d? raped her, an act that culminated in Sollecito cutting her throat.

There is no testimony to that effect from any witness or defendant - that scenario is pure speculation on the part of the prosecution. Even the evidence of rape is disputed by the experts.

> I'd be surprised if Italy, or any jurisdiction,

> "allows" a defendant to lie

In France, Italy and Germany, criminal suspects cannot be heard under oath or affirmation and thus cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during their trial.

Interestingly, Gu?d? has changed his story for his Appeal now claiming that he saw Knox and Sollecito (rather than an unknown assailant) leaving the room when he emerged from the toilet - despite having refus[ed] to testify at their trial.

> It would be odd if the prosecution were able to

> advance very different cases in two trials

> concerning the same events - I'm not sure if that

> happened in this case.

There are many well-documented cases in English Law where the prosecution has changed its 'scenario': for example, in retrials, Appeals or when prosecuting new defendants after the original suspects are acquitted, etc, etc.

That is one of the reasons that prosecution and defence Summing Ups are not usually transcribed and cannot be used as the basis for an Appeal in the English courts ? they are often wildly speculative.

[HAL9000]

Y'man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quoting Knox in The Telegraph today, "I received a

> fair trial" and "it was conducted correctly". As

> she was found guilty and sentenced to 26 years, is

> this not admitting guilt?

It's not an admission of guilt by any means. A convict who complains about the unfairness of his or her trial is less likely to succeed on Appeal, since they are challenging the integrity of the legal system, which every legal system is bound to uphold as an overriding principle.

Knox, most likely on the advice of her lawyer, is making it clear from the outset that she is only challenging the verdict - a smart move, in my view.

[SimonM]

Is it online? Can you post a link?

Alas not. Most of the Guardian today is online so I can only assume it is copyright problems or something.

[DaveR]

"That is one of the reasons that prosecution and defence Summing Ups are not usually transcribed and cannot be used as the basis for an Appeal in the English courts ? they are often wildly speculative."

Sorry HAL, that's just not right. The whole of the proceedings are recorded and there is no rule preventing a defendant seeking to rely on something said in a speech to support an appeal. It will very rarely happen because the expectation would be that an objection would be raised at the time and the judge would remedy the situation.

There's also plenty of appeal judgments which restrict what prosecution and defence can say in closing speeches, including preventing speculation.

The example of 'speculation' you give is an interesting one. There's no direct witness evidence, but there is evidence that the victim had her throat cut, that she was exually assaulted, and that all three assailants had physical contact with her. There is also certain evidence about where in the room, and where on the body of the victim contact was made. There is also the general inference that can be drawn that the victim would have had to have been restrained. Is it speculation to advance the prosecution argument, or inference? I guess that was the issue in the trial, and the court were willing to draw the inferences.

[Y'man]

'A convict who complains about the unfairness of his or her trial is less likely to succeed on Appeal, since they are challenging the integrity of the legal system'....

Where does this come from? Have you anything factual, Hal, or is it all 'most likely'?

If someone said to me, "well, I've recieved 26 years for my crime, the trial was conducted correctly and was fair", I'd be inclined to take that as an admission of guilt. Surely it's the sentence she's appealing having resigned herself to the fact.

[HAL9000]

Y'man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > 'A convict who complains about the unfairness ...'

> Where does this come from? Have you anything

> factual, Hal, or is it all 'most likely'?

This is probably the most infamous example to cite in support for that view: Lord Denning (as President of the Court of Appeal & Master of the Rolls) said of one of the Birmingham Six; 'it was better for innocent men like Billy Power to be kept in prison (or even hanged) if only to maintain the public's confidence in the legal system' - that being one of the overriding principles referred to above.

> Surely it's the sentence she's appealing having

> resigned herself to the fact.

Apparently not: according to news reports, Knox and Sollecito continue to protest their innocence.

[HAL9000]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry HAL, that's just not right. The whole of

> the proceedings are recorded and there is no rule

> preventing a defendant seeking to rely on

> something said in a speech to support an appeal.

I?ve sat through many trials during the eighties and nineties where the shorthand writers stopped writing and switched off their recorders during opening/closing statements. I?ve also purchased many trial transcripts from that period where those volumes were not available for the stated reason.

Of course, there are exceptions, for example, where an objection made at the time preserves a point for review on Appeal. Generally speaking, where both Counsel agree then recording is not mandatory.

I stand corrected if the law has changed recently ? the last time I consulted Archbold must be eight or nine years ago.