Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Crticism Of The Hellmann Verdict From Meredith’s Family’s Lawyer Francesco Maresca

Posted by ziaK





Mr Maresca made remarks last week critical of the verdict to various Italian media outlets. This is a translation from the Umbria Journal.

Maresca, on Mez: “They were acquitted for lack of proof, but the sentence takes a very one-sided approach”

“Only the defences’ expert witnesses were given any credence. It’s excessive to completely throw out the first instance case”.

The “reasoning report” of the Assizes court of appeal has confirmed that this is a case of an acquittal because of lack of evidence, rather than an acquittal with “formula piena” [approximately “proof of innocence without doubt”]

However it is also a sentence which is a result of a one-sided approach”.

This is the commentary of Francesco Maresca, who together with the lawyer Serena Perna, represents the young victim’s family, on reading of the “reasoning report” on the acquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on the charge of having murdered Meredith Kercher.

“This reasoning report”, he added, “leave us with an even more bitter taste in our mouths because we consider that the judges gave credence only to the defence-team experts, even on items of evidence of a scientific nature which were never the object of consultation”.

“For them to have completely tossed out the preliminary investigations and the first-instance trial seems excessive to me”....

“There are no great surprises”, said Prosecutor Manuela Comodi, who was prosecutor in the first and second-level trials. “It seems to me”, she added, “that there is a lot of room to challenge the sentence. That duty [however] lies entirely with the Attorney General.”




Comments

ziaK, and Peter, thanks for the updates, with excellent translations into English; I especially liked the translation of Hellman’s “Motivazione” as a “reasoning report”.

I look forward to such an excellent translation of Hellman’s complete reasoning report.

Hellman’s non-reasoned adoption of C&S’s “opinions”, as if they automatically trumped those of the prosecution’s should be dissected word-by-word in the Attorney General’s challenge.

As I recently commented in one of my rare postings on PMF:

“the finders-of-fact are not always competent to recognise-as-such all of the nonsense submitted to them, and they may adopt nonsense as fact.”

“Furthermore, because questions directed at the credibility of a witness are always relevant in common-law jurisdictions, Hellman’s disallowances of some Qs addressed to C&V’s credibility are troubling.

Aren’t such questions permissible under Italian Law? Isn’t Hellman’s disallowance of them improper?”

Will the Attorney General’s challenge address this?

Any comments from our Italian Lawyers?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 12/23/11 at 12:30 AM | #

They were released for lack of proof Hellman says. Lots of people have been convicted with much less and only circumstancial evidence.

In this case there was a mountain of circumstancial evidence which i think they were told to ignore.

Even blind Freddy could see Ak & RS were up to their necks in the brutal murder.

Thank you to Peter and all the other wonderful people who contribute to this site. Best wishes for the Christmas Season to The family and friends of sweet Meredith.

Posted by mason2 on 12/23/11 at 01:44 PM | #

Best wishes to the Kerchers. It is sad that Meredith’s birthday and Christmas are so close together; one can only imagine how they must feel over the holidays.

Would Maresca have any standing before the SC now, Pete? Are there any mechanisms under Italian law where they can sue AK and RS separately, as the Brown and Goldman families did when they sued OJ Simpson in civil court?

Posted by Ergon on 12/23/11 at 04:06 PM | #

I would like to thank the people who worked on this site for their efforts.

I am saddened at the way events have moved. I would argue that a backroom deal has been done to ensure that Knox avoids prison. I believe the prosecution appeal will be successful, and that she will be pronounced guilty, but will never be extradicted by the Americans. The whole thing reeks of political fixing and an insider deal.

All to free someone that seems clearly to have been deeply involved in a horrific and near motiveless murder.

I am also disturbed that the absence of motive can be taken as proof of innocence. The principal is Cui Bono. If we consider that principal and ask it of the clean up we get come to a different conclusion. So why push the absence of motive for murder, when you cant establish a motive for the clean up?

Absurd and grotesque.

Harry

Posted by harrym on 12/23/11 at 04:15 PM | #

Watching the rain and thinking of the latest news posted here on this site, my thoughts turn compassionately to Meredith’s family. As horrific as the manner of her premature death was, that so many good people are still talking about her, keeping her very much alive and willing justice to happen, leaves me in awe. The determination of those working on translations and explaining legal terminology and protocol take my breath away - what a legacy that beautiful, warm, fun, intelligent and loving young woman has left.

Warmest Christmas Wishes to you all. Thank you for all your hard work here, and with tears in my eyes, my heart is quietly breaking for Meredith’s family.

Things are not settled until they are settled right.

Posted by TruthWillOut on 12/23/11 at 05:15 PM | #

@ harrym,

i am afraid I also agree that she will never be extradited BUT I fail to understand WHY.  WHY?  Is her family so influential, so special that right-minded politicians, judges etc. would operate on her behalf in this way?  Apart from the stinking PR Firm happy to peddle for dirty money and the blind FOA (including one or two individuals whose names are better-known), what does this mediocre, ordinary family have?  Diplomatic immunity?  I really cannot fathom why the USA would not, once presented with all the evidence and a clear verdict, extradite a scheming murderess to ‘pay for her responsibilities’.

Posted by thundering on 12/27/11 at 07:17 PM | #

It was a case of an appealing all American-looking university girl who seemed unlikely to commit a crime like this, and with the claim of abusive questioning by Italian police, it became a big story by the media which caught the public’s imagination and support.  It was Americans vs. Italians.  The story received very one-sided reporting by the big American news stations and very few controversial facts were brought up, such as the difficulty of the break-in occurring at that particular window.  A lot of information never made it into American news, and her parents were allowed to have so much media time to state their side of the story while the prosecution side was not there to contradict them.  Americans also do not understand the Italian legal system.  I’m sure 90% or more do not know there will be another appeal at the Supreme Court level.

Posted by believing on 12/27/11 at 10:39 PM | #

Hi, believing,

Thank you for answering my questions.  I do understand the scenario but I still cannot believe that the government and the judiciary who would have to deal with an extradition request would not, after being given all the details, be able to make an informed and reasoned decision.

It was said that Hilary Clinton, after the result of the Massei trial, was aware of the case and was not worried about AK’s treatment or the trial process in Italy given that US reps were in the courtroom keeping themselves updated. 

Why the sudden change?  Is everyone - including the informed and educated - in the USA so susceptible to the media and besotted parents?  That is very scary.

Posted by thundering on 12/28/11 at 09:41 AM | #


Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry First Italian Criticisms Of The Hellmann Verdict Statement Now Starting To Appear

Or to previous entry Does A Perverse Fear Factor Account For The Hellmann Jury Breaking The Way It Did?