The 2nd appeals trial judge in the Amanda Knox case just revealed why they decided
she was guilty. The full opinion hasn't been translated into English yet but all the reports mention a key point: verbal testimony offered by Rudy Guede in his own defense in a separate, fast-track trial:
testimony by Guede in a separate trial that was entered in the form of a "statement" into Amanda's and Raffaele's trial -- in which their attorneys were prohibited from questioning Guede.
In other words, the man who took the equivalent of a "no contest" plea in the U.S., so that all the evidence in his trial was entered into evidence without dispute, claims the girls were arguing about money. Guede's own DNA was found on the victim's purse, and both inside and on her body; and he also left a palm print on her pillow, and feces in a toilet.
No evidence linked to Amanda was found on Meredith or in the murder room, but Guede says he heard the girls arguing while he was pooping. That "evidence" was used to re-convict Amanda. Even though the court that found Guede guilty ruled that he was lying when he said he was in the apartment to have consensual sex with the victim.
The Court believed Guede's testimony about Amanda even though there was also no evidence that he had ever even met Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda's boyfriend, who was also charged with the murder. Or that he had ever spoken to Amanda Knox, although they once attended the same party in the downstairs apartment.
And they are using Guede's testimony to condemn Amanda and Raffaele without giving them a chance to question him about his self-serving testimony against them -- testimony in his fast-track trial that, because he agreed not to contest the evidence against him, resulted in a reduction of his own sentence to 16 years. (He is already out on day release.)
In both the US and in the European Convention on Human Rights, a key civil right is the right to question anyone who gives testimony against you. This is also supposed to be the case in Italy, but it turns out there is a major loophole, and Guede walked through it. It doesn't apply, in Italy, to someone who's already been convicted of a crime.
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html
European Convention on Human Rights
ARTICLE 6
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defense;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
= new reply since forum marked as read
