Amanda Knox

While waiting, if the verdict will come today and when ... this thoughtful comment piece really is worth reading.

I read that comment piece earlier today. There are prejudices on all sides whether pro-guilt or pro-innocence. Such prejudices have been dramatically displayed on this thread.

Poor ossobuco's thread has been spoiled by hateful comments.

I remain with my thinking from my first post in this thread - I still don't know.

I didn't trust Knox because of the mess re her statements.

Ahead of the verdict, here's a run-down of the key points we'll be looking out for:

- Will the convictions be annulled or upheld? This, obviously, is the big one. Whatever the Florence court says, however, will need to be confirmed by Italy's top appeals court, the Cassazione. It could disagree with the verdict, and order a fresh appeal. The cogs of Italian justice turn slowly.

- If the convictions are upheld, what will the sentences be? The prosecutor requested that both Knox and Sollecito serve 26 years for murder, with an extra four years on top of that for Knox for slander. (She has already served a three year sentence for her false accusation of bar-owner Patrick Lumumba, but this would raise that by a year.) But the court could well decide to give sentences of a different length. They could also, theoretically, decide to give one sentence to Knox and another to Sollecito, marking a significant shift in the case which has so far treated the two cases as intricately linked. Some observers have noted in the Sollecito defence this time round a desire to distance the young Italian from his American ex-girlfriend. Others suspect Sollecito's decision to attend some of the hearings - showing respect for the court - contrasts favourably with Knox's decision to stay in Seattle.

- If the convictions are upheld, the other factor we will be listening out for is whether the judge will order any preventative measures - misure cautelari - to be imposed. In layman's terms, that could mean immediate arrest, house arrest or the confiscation of passports. For Knox, in Seattle, this is not likely to be of immediate concern. But for Sollecito it is a clear possibility.

- If the convictions are upheld, the other factor we will be listening out for is whether the judge will order any preventative measures - misure cautelari - to be imposed. In layman's terms, that could mean immediate arrest, house arrest or the confiscation of passports. For Knox, in Seattle, this is not likely to be of immediate concern. But for Sollecito it is a clear possibility.

The Lawyer for Raffaele Sollecito said a couple of minutes ago that he will not be in court to hear verdict as he is "too stressed"

Since the European Court of Human Rights is going to smash any and all convictions against Amanda and Raffaele, this is the only real issue out of the ones the article listed.

oralloy wrote:

Since the European Court of Human Rights is going to smash any and all convictions against Amanda and Raffaele, this is the only real issue out of the ones the article listed.

Again, from the ECHR's Q&A-website, where the ECHR makes clear that it isn’t a court of appeal

Quote:

It is odd then how, when they rule that someone's human rights have been violated, courts then re-try that case, and comply with what the ECHR states in their ruling when they do so.

It also is also rather odd how, when they award someone a large sum of money because their rights were violated, that money is subsequently paid by the government that they have ruled against.

oralloy wrote:

It is odd then how, when they rule that someone's human rights have been violated, courts then re-try that case, and comply with what the ECHR states in their ruling when they do so.

Why is that odd?

If the human rights are violated - it is correct to go the ECHR.

oralloy wrote:

It also is also rather odd how, when they award someone a large sum of money because their rights were violated, that money is subsequently paid by the government that they have ruled against.

Well, in such a case that government lost. Who else should pay it?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:

It is odd then how, when they rule that someone's human rights have been violated, courts then re-try that case, and comply with what the ECHR states in their ruling when they do so.

Why is that odd?

Because you just told me that the ECHR doesn't do any such thing.

I am having trouble reconciling your claim that they don't, with the fact that they do.