ABOUT FIFTH CHAMBERS
Sallyoo
It does seem to me to be quite important: I’m not suggesting that Nencini was straining at the leash to incarcerate the only perp available to him, but surely he must have been concerned that any penalty (even up to immediate custodial arrest) which he could have inflicted on The Italian would be perceived as manifestly unfair. Not least in Italy. Thus a passport withdrawal was a sensible option - and Nencini hinted (IMO) that if he had jurisdiction over a US citizen he’d have sought the same restriction on her global movements.
I don’t think any of this is lost on the Sollecito family, but I do agree that following the final cassation ruling the situation is going to change absolutely. Assuming the convictions are upheld, there is no alternative to immediately taking Sollecito into custody, to serve the remainder of his 25 year sentence.
But it isn’t going to be only the Sollecitos who will (justly IMO) become extremely agitated if there is any laxity in incarcerating Knox - in gaol in the US in the first instance, if extradition is delayed by one single day - it will be the whole of Italy (and, I’d venture to suggest the whole of Europe).
***
This time around, it has been referred to the Fifth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court for a ruling in the case of Amanda Knox.
The twist though is this time around, Sollecito has asked for his case to be heard by a different court, Le Sezione Uniti, the Unified Court which deals with conflicting rulings and may direct his case to a different court to resolve those differences. If it agrees with Bongiorno and Luca Maori’s request then there may be delays. That’s why we haven’t heard about his appeal yet. We shall see how that goes.
Andrea Vogt “@andreavogt · 3h
@cate69 my understanding is that both amanda knox and raffaele sollecito’s cases/convictions will be reviewed in Section 5.
Which is good news indeed, that #RaffaeleSollecito’s request to be heard before United Sections (Sezioni Unite) which is composed of a full nine judge panel has not been allowed, but will be heard alongside #AmandaKnox with a 5 judge panel.
***********************
For a short summary of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s separate appeals, see Andrea Vogt (Scroll down to June 19, 2014)
Sollecito:
Request: that the sentence be annulled.
Reasons for appeal: 1. Uncertainty of Scientific Evidence 2. Accusatory declarations of Rudy Guede against Sollecito should not be deemed usable/allowed 3. Reasonable Doubt 4. Witness Reliability.
“The trials lacked an adequate review of the “individual” role of Sollecito, generating instead a sense of his guilt due to the “power of attraction” to Amanda and because of her a “confession” made by her, which never mentioned him at the scene of the crime. 1a) That declaration should be used as a favourable element showing Sollecito was not at the scene of the crime, not as a piece of evidence that confirms his guilt. 1b) the DNA on the bra clasp is not reliable 3c) Request that findings by Vecchiotti and Conti be considered valid, including arguments that show an unreliability of the affirmations of forensic Police Biologist Patrizia Stefanoni, and specifically that the appeals court “illogically excluded the possibility of contamination of the bra clasp (p.317)
The appeal focuses heavily on the role of Rudy Guede, and which of his statements and depositions should have been legally allowed as evidence against Sollecito. Sollecito’s lawyers also make the argument that since a number of Guede’s statements were used against him, his lawyers should have had the right to a proper cross examination of Guede (in this part of the appeal, p 298, the three other European cases are cited: Kostecki v. Poland and Al-Khawaka and Tahery vs. UK and Yevgeniy Ivanov v. Russia)
However there is also the argument that Knox and Sollecito’s positions should have been separated. As an example, on page 64, cites Giulia Bongiorno’s reading of Knox’s statements to police, noting that Knox repeatedly says “I.” The appeal argues that Knox’s declaration to police at 1:45 a.m. should be usable by the Sollecito defense as an element of proof that he was not present. Specifically, there is attention drawn to the subject-verb agreement and the fact that Knox repeatedly speaks in the singular form: “I see Patrick” and “I heard Meredith scream.”
“Not even in the most dramatic phrase of the night between November 5 and 6 did Knox ever maintain that Sollecito was perhaps with her in Via della Pergola.” (p74-76)
That these statements could not be used as a defensive element by Sollecito is “the first and most relevant error committed by the court.” (p75)
The appeal also argues that Knox furnished Sollecito with an alibi when she said she left the house, telling her boyfriend she had to go to work, leaving Sollecito alone at home. And even if the court were to believe the strategy that Knox “exchanged one black man for another,” by blaming Lumumba when it was Guede at the scene, that still excludes Sollecito from responsibility. (p.76)
In conclusion, the appeal also notes that the range of the aggression against Kercher was between 21-22 and that Sollecito’s Macbook Pro shows that at 21:26 a multimedia cartoon “Naruto” was opened,which lasted 20 minutes, shows it was impossible that he was involved in the crime.
Knox:
Request: Ricorso for 1) questions of constitutional legitimacy and 2) 11 reasons related to contradictions, illogic and deficiencies
Laws/reasons cited: Violation of Art. 606, B, E for contradictions, deficiencies and illogic in the reasoning, specifically:
1. lack of a motive.
2. merits of forensic science.
3. relation of the slander conviction with the homicide conviction.
4. mode of entrance into Via della Pergola and the footprint evidence.
5. Alibi and witness testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle
6. Violation of observance of laws with regard to Art. 606, C with regard to documentation that had been declared not allowable for use in court.
7. Violation of observance of laws with regard to Art. 606, C with regard to allowing the sentence of Rudy Guede to be considered as evidence without the possibility of thorough cross examination.
8. Violation of Art. 606. with relation to Constitutional Art. 111, 2 and 238, for not allowing thorough cross examination of Rudy Guede, after he affirmed accusations against Knox and Sollecito in the first appeal.
9. Violation of 606, B, E, for using inexistent evidence (this refers to Nencini material error on page 321 when he discusses DNA of Sollecito found on the knife “” Sollecito’s DNA was never found on the knife).
10. Violation of 606, E, B, with regard to ordinances that regulate court debate/ arguments, with specific reference to Sept. 30 (question of constitutionality) and April 17 (a clerical/material error stating Amanda Knox was born in Seattle, not in Washington).
11. Violation of 606, B: with regard to the sentence, since the slander charge is contested.
“This defense asks that the court rectify a grave judicial error, which includes the court of appeals, so as to permit the defendant Amanda Knox to re-initiate a normal and constructive life. “ pg. 115
Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/21/17 at 03:40 AM in
Tweet This Post
TweetComments
No comments yet. Commenting is not available in this channel entry.Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry Nick van der Leek
Or to previous entry 401 Guede sole perp