As a result of posting recently about the Knox-Sollecito appeal, I found cause to collect and collate transcripts of the appeal verdict reading. This was to answer questions about whether the verdict was an assumption of innocence in the absence of sufficient evidence, or rather, it was complete exoneration based on that evidence. There is a subtle yet vital distinction here.
So, I asked for Italian-speaking translators on Twitter to translate the relevant part (1st minute or so) of this clip from the Perugia court
Translators:
Thanks, in no particular order, for translation services to @ChicaLolita, @Danisacerdoti and @SimonSalento.
1st literal translation:
“…both the defendants of the charges a b c and d, for not having committed the act, and from charge e [noise] (please) because the act does not exist, refusing the proposal of the plaintiffs [Tartanelli Annalia], order the immediate release of Knox Amanda Marie and Sollecito Raffaele if not being held for other reasons”
2nd literal translation:
“The court absolves both defendants of the crimes ascribed to them, a, b, c and d for not committing the crime and e because the crime did not happen. This rejects the demands made against them by the civil parties [Tartanelli Annalia]. We have 90 days to deliver the reasoning.”
3rd literal translation:
“(…) the two people charged from the crimes a b c and d, for not having committed the crime, and crime e, for not having taken place…we reject the proposition of the prosecution and we order the immediate release of [Knox Amanda Marie and Sollecito Raffaele] unless detained for other reasons. The reason for this sentence will be officially recorded in the next ninety days. The trial is over.”
I think this is a definitive and irrefutable statement that Knox and Sollecito are innocent in the light of the evidence. There is no doubt about the verdict, so it is baffling why Judge Hellmann has cast doubt in a subsequent press interview suggesting that their innocent was presumed given a lack of evidence with which to uphold the original sentencing.
The comments box below is there for your use.
Further reading:
- Amanda Knox acquittal: The persistence of Italian stereotypes in the British press by Giulio Sica.
- Amanda Knox case is typical of Italy’s inconclusive justice by Tobias Jones.
- Amanda Knox: What’s in a face? by Ian Leslie.
jfderry.wordpress.com 
Helpful. Thank you. I don’t know why he told Il Stampa explicitly 530.2 — he must be confused. A confused judge: Not good.
who’s guilty then?
Rudy Hermann Guede
Pingback: Caccia Alla Volpe | OSQUALITUDE
It will be interesting to hear the full judgements, which I believe are due to be delivered within three months of the appeal hearing.
Hi David, thanks for the comment, however, the full judgements have been given as read out in court by Hellmann. The reasoning (a.k.a. motivation) is due within 90 days. This will only explain why the judgements were arrived at. They will not change the judgement nor it’s interpretation in any way.
Maybe Judge Hellmann didn’t want to cast doubt about the verdict… but it’s pretty clear that there’s a lack of evidence to find them guilty.
Quite so, although he was unprofessional and inaccurate, the way he went about it.
Wonderful beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your website, how could i subscribe for a weblog site? The account aided me a appropriate deal. I were tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast provided shiny transparent concept aaadcabkecbc