Appeals Court Judge Suggests Knox Might Know 'The Real Truth'

Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann

First Posted: 05/10/11 21:47 BST Updated: 06/10/11 22:41 BST   PA

The Italian appeals court judge who was part of the jury which acquitted Amanda Knox has said the American and her ex-boyfriend might know the "real truth" about who killed British student Meredith Kercher, and could even be responsible.

In his first public comments since Ms Knox and her Italian co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito were acquitted on Monday night, Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann stressed on state TV that the acquittals "resulted from the truth that was created in the trial".

"But the real truth could be different," Judge Pratillo Hellmann added. "They could also be responsible but the proof isn't there.

"So, maybe they know, too, but as far as we (the jury) go, they didn't," he added.

Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito have vehemently denied wrongdoing in the murder of Misss Kercher in Italy in 2007.

Ms Knox flew home to Seattle on Tuesday, her first full day out of jail since she was arrested a few days after the murder.

Asked who knew the truth about the killing, Judge Pratillo Hellmann referred to a third defendant, Rudy Guede, who was convicted of Miss Kercher's murder in a separate trial and is serving a 16-year sentence in Italy.

"Certainly Rudy Guede" knows. "I won't say he's the only one to know," the judge added.

Referring to Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito, who were both originally convicted of sexual assault and murder in a lower court trial, the judge said that "maybe the two defendants also know" what really happened in the murder, but "our verdict of acquittal is the result of the truth that was created in the trial".

Guede, of the Ivory Coast, has denied wrongdoing but has acknowledged being in the house when Miss Kercher was killed.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

The Italian appeals court judge who was part of the jury which acquitted Amanda Knox has said the American and her ex-boyfriend might know the "real truth" about who killed British student M...
The Italian appeals court judge who was part of the jury which acquitted Amanda Knox has said the American and her ex-boyfriend might know the "real truth" about who killed British student M...
Filed by PA  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 28
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BIllyDelyon
Last leaf fallen bare earth where green was born..
12:59 AM on 10/07/2011
And yet another horsepoop headline from HuffPo...

He didn't say 'Knox might know the truth', he said he didn't definitively know...

Cripes x a quadrillion, please get a new headline writer...
03:42 PM on 10/06/2011
A lesson for all parents before they send their children to another country for university.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pali Dumtur
07:12 AM on 10/07/2011
What an ignorant thing to say.
11:50 PM on 10/10/2011
My point is, kids from any country going to another country for their education should be made to understand they are vulnerable to the legal system of that country.Here in the states their are some colleges that allow students to carry handguns. Parents should be aware of a lot more than the college ratings when doing their college search.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:44 PM on 10/06/2011
Italy and the US need the Scots criminal law court verdict known as Not Proven (But Don't Do It Again).
lastpost
see biography
12:48 PM on 10/06/2011
'The Real Truth'
There are substantial legal bills to be met by the defendants in this case. Why doesn’t some enterprising newspaper offer to defray those debts. On behalf of any of the parties willing to undergo MRI interrogation? That might reveal who is confident of their innocence, and who is not.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Matthew Harrold
Huzzah!
11:21 AM on 10/06/2011
I have to say that the judge pretty much sums up my opinion of the whole affair. Knox was acquitted on a lack of evidence, but with her fingering an innocent man, as well as inconsistencies within her testimony, I find it hard to believe the woman wasn't hiding something.
04:08 PM on 10/06/2011
The fact that she had only been there a short time and so was not yet fluent in Italian, and the alleged intimidation and inappropriate interview techniques used by the police may have had something to do with it? Can you imagine how after being aggressively interrogated about an incident that you are already in shock about, with the fear that comes with being accused of being guilty of being the perpetrator, and you are desperately trying to find a way out of the nightmare but just telling them what actually happened doesn't appear to be working, you might try and help the police look down a different avenue. I'm not saying it is right, but I can understand very easily how a person in her situation might do that. She didn't continue to insist that it was Lumumba. There are a lot of answers to the inconsistencies, which make sense and look a lot less troubling (I'll allow you to do your own research) but the fact remains that from the start the handling of the investigation was incompetent, if not downright malicious and worse. There was no credible DNA evidence beyond what one might expect from the fact that they shared a house, while Guede's DNA was all over the crime scene and Meredith. Knox and Sollecito's was not. That is not possible. Most who believe she was guilty are basing that on a feeling. Any rational discussion of the evidence and methods automatically points to their innocence.
photo
la fourchette
There is no reason not to follow your heart
09:40 AM on 10/06/2011
"our verdict of acquittal is the result of the truth that was created in the trial".

and since that's *all* they've got to work with, having no evidence to the contrary - acquittal was the only decision they could make.

and to the many skeptics out there: until you have personal experience of being interrogated in a mediterranean country and in a foreign language, you may want to suspend your judgments. it's different here - and not speaking the language is only *one* level of vulnerability that can be overwhelming in the best of circumstances.
11:32 AM on 10/06/2011
yes, well said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pali Dumtur
01:57 PM on 10/06/2011
Learn foreign languages. It's so useful. Even if you don't end up in court.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lawyer13
retired Lawyer, General and Psychiatric Nurse, wit
08:28 AM on 10/06/2011
I am sure that Amanda Knox will be very happy to learn the real truth, so will the rest of the world too.
photo
Yank in France
Rien se cree tout se transforme
07:59 AM on 10/06/2011
There are still a lot of unanswered questions to this case, with both sides absolutely convinced that she is either an angel or a devil.

Is Amanda Knox a pure victim who was unjustly imprisoned for four long years, and a new OJ Simpson who escaped punishment through the power of the purse and her nationality?

I wonder what her dreams are like at night...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
patililac
heaven forbid!
10:17 AM on 10/06/2011
Actually, some of us are willing to admit we do not know the truth. However, with the evidence that was presented and the way she was interrogated, the whole thing was shoddily prosecuted. I am glad she is out only because they did not present enough evidence to know beyond a reasonable doubt....therefore, if she is truly innocent, she will not have to be in jail for most of her life.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pali Dumtur
01:58 PM on 10/06/2011
If she's innocent of murder, she still won't have spent 4 years unjustly. She was rightly condemned to 3 years in prison. So that would make it one year.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BIllyDelyon
Last leaf fallen bare earth where green was born..
01:05 AM on 10/07/2011
How does a false confession due to coerced interrogation make it 'rightly condemned to 3 years in prison'???

Mercy...
photo
yannb
Noblesse oblige
06:05 AM on 10/06/2011
It might also be that the judge himself did it, but we have no evidence to that effect. But it could.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ola3541
cogito ergo sum
04:31 AM on 10/06/2011
poor judge sounds confused..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:50 AM on 10/06/2011
Seems that this judge would have liked the third verdict option that we have in Scotland.
Not Proven.
01:41 AM on 10/06/2011
I agree. It would be the fair one. Too untidy in too many ways.. She was there and then she wasn't; her bf couldn't corroborate her presence at his flat, then he could; the multiplicity of stories; her uncanny knowledge of the bloody murder as reported by Meredith and her mutual friends. The litany is long. Still, if we there is nothing conclusive they have to be free. The system is very strange to me... Something like 50% go to appeal and are quashed or partially changed verdicts. Just one aspect of the case can be brought into doubt and that will bring the whole thing down. They are lucky it was not dragged out for a decade- as so many are.
07:57 AM on 10/06/2011
My understanding -- subject to correction -- is that they did have the option of the lesser acquittal, the equivalent of 'not proven', but went for the stronger one. It sounds as if Hellmann was outvoted by his fellow-jurors.
11:49 PM on 10/05/2011
"Innocent until proven guilty."
Good!
09:44 PM on 10/05/2011
This may be the most vague and arguably inflammatory thing said by a judge anywhere, anywhen.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Lane
10:09 PM on 10/05/2011
Indeed but his name is Prat(illo) !
photo
European1919
I am the PigmⒶn
06:13 AM on 10/06/2011
The world is not black and white and the "truth" is usually to be found in the gigantic grey area in between those two extremes. What the judge said is probably the closest we will ever come to this truth.