Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
anglolawyer said:
A guy called roteoctober posted this snippet from Nonsencini at IIP:



To which a particularly astute poster has replied:
Click to expand...

A guy called roteoctober posted this snippet from Nonsencini at IIP:

Quote:
“In conclusion, if in point of law this Judge expresses adherence to the principle mentioned above, adhering to its precepts, in point of fact the existence of a definitive judgement attributing the murder of Meredith Kercher to a specific culprit, Hemann Rudy Guede, in complicity with other people, makes unquestionable the assumption that any fact finding having to be carried out with reference to the evidentiary compendium emerging from the documents of this proceeding will have to be performed having as an inescapable reference point the aforementioned judicially ascertained fact, and hence facing the datum, definitively established in the proceeding, that Rudi Hermann Guede participated, along with others, in the murder of Meredith Kercher”To which a particularly astute poster has replied:

Originally Posted by Clive Wismayer
Is this a ridiculous thought? Suppose Amanda and Raffaele were tried first and acquitted. Then Rudy was tried later. Given that the only people Rudy could reasonably be supposed to have committed the crime with were Amanda and Raffaele (according to Nencini) would that mean either:

A a finding of multiple killers would be impossible, or
B Rudy could not be convicted at all since the evidence pointed to multiple killers and the only people who could have been involved with him were acquitted?

Or something else?

---------------

This is a really interesting point. A fast track trial isn't inherently a bad thing. However, if the result of a fast track trial can haunt trials that follow it with findings based on abbreviated hearings, then fast Track trials should only be allowed AFTER full trials have been conducted.

That way all participants get the benefit of the most thorough exploration of evidence that the prosecution puts forward. Otherwise, we get the current injustice, where an abbreviate trial with no examination of evidence becomes somehow binding even on non-participants to the trial - perhaps a problem no matter what the order of hearings.

Another thing the Italians could try - MEET EVERY DAY INSTEAD OF TWICE A WEEK. Don't take the summers off in the middle, and no goddamn siestas if they're doing that too. Or really, just export your trials to a northern EU country with a for profit legal option; export your trials, and import EU tax dodgers. Seems like a fair deal.
 
carbonjam72 said:
A guy called roteoctober posted this snippet from Nonsencini at IIP:

Quote:
“In conclusion, if in point of law this Judge expresses adherence to the principle mentioned above, adhering to its precepts, in point of fact the existence of a definitive judgement attributing the murder of Meredith Kercher to a specific culprit, Hemann Rudy Guede, in complicity with other people, makes unquestionable the assumption that any fact finding having to be carried out with reference to the evidentiary compendium emerging from the documents of this proceeding will have to be performed having as an inescapable reference point the aforementioned judicially ascertained fact, and hence facing the datum, definitively established in the proceeding, that Rudi Hermann Guede participated, along with others, in the murder of Meredith Kercher”To which a particularly astute poster has replied:

Originally Posted by Clive Wismayer
Is this a ridiculous thought? Suppose Amanda and Raffaele were tried first and acquitted. Then Rudy was tried later. Given that the only people Rudy could reasonably be supposed to have committed the crime with were Amanda and Raffaele (according to Nencini) would that mean either:

A a finding of multiple killers would be impossible, or
B Rudy could not be convicted at all since the evidence pointed to multiple killers and the only people who could have been involved with him were acquitted?

Or something else?

---------------

This is a really interesting point. A fast track trial isn't inherently a bad thing. However, if the result of a fast track trial can haunt trials that follow it with findings based on abbreviated hearings, then fast Track trials should only be allowed AFTER full trials have been conducted.

That way all participants get the benefit of the most thorough exploration of evidence that the prosecution puts forward. Otherwise, we get the current injustice, where an abbreviate trial with no examination of evidence becomes somehow binding even on non-participants to the trial - perhaps a problem no matter what the order of hearings.

Another thing the Italians could try - MEET EVERY DAY INSTEAD OF TWICE A WEEK. Don't take the summers off in the middle, and no goddamn siestas if they're doing that too. Or really, just export your trials to a northern EU country with a for profit legal option; export your trials, and import EU tax dodgers. Seems like a fair deal.
Click to expand...


For me the big problem with this fast track trial, isn't the trial itself but the use of stipulated or procedural facts determined in this fast track trial being used in another. Amanda and Raffaele's lawyers don't really have an opportunity to argue against what happens in a trial in which they are not a party. This alone would be a reason for a US court to deny extradition of Amanda. This is depriving her of "due process". Since she was not a party to "the process" where these events were determined as facts.
 
Last edited:
God Save the Queen!

CoulsdonUK said:
I am only ever aware the Daily Mail has published something related to this case usually when a non-Brit posts a link here, weird.
Click to expand...

Good heavens, what ever made you think I wasn't fellow Brit? Chip, chip, cheerioh, tea and scones, bangers and mash, fish and chips, good lord, what, what?
 
anglolawyer said:
Look, handling always includes theft. If you are in a stolen car you are handling it what with being inside it and all. That is not the problem. You do not have to see someone steal to prove theft, obviously. The problem is what I said - drunks blag a car and drive home, dumping it a hundred yards from the house. That is not stealing since there is no intention to permanently deprive. Borrowing is not stealing. Cars are special. Trust me. I'm a lawyer.

WTH I looked it up for you in the Washington penal code:


TWOCing - US version.
Click to expand...

Quote:
(1) A person is guilty of taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree if he or she, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to possession, intentionally takes or drives away any automobile or motor vehicle, whether propelled by steam, electricity, or internal combustion engine, that is the property of another, or he or she voluntarily rides in or upon the automobile or motor vehicle with knowledge of the fact that the automobile or motor vehicle was unlawfully taken.
(2) Taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree is a class C felony.
​

Here's where the problem comes. The perp is pulled over and when quizzed says that Bob said he could drive his grandmother's car. Of course Bob can't be found.

Another issue here was that it took up to 7 convictions to actually put them in prison.


  • The Seattle Times noted the rising auto theft rate as early as February 2002 and ... it took up to seven auto theft convictions before an offender faced prison time
 
anglolawyer said:
Yes, I have heard some pretty funny stories about the lengths our cops will go to to not investigate domestic burglaries and other petty crimes (not petty to the victim of course) so I would be surprised if scenes of crime officers were dispatched to the scene en masse to give it the full once over. Maybe if the lawyers bumped someone off and dragged the body inside but not otherwise.
Click to expand...

My question is whether they looked at the computers for prints in Rudi's place and compared them to the unidentified prints from the cottage.
 
Grinder said:
My question is whether they looked at the computers for prints in Rudi's place and compared them to the unidentified prints from the cottage.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that? They could just have gotten his DNA, as they did.

The whole story around the identification of Rudy Guede is very mysterious. The DNA records relating to the testing of the stuff from his apartment appear to be deliberately obscured.

I think that they had his toothbrush very early on in the process.
 
Diocletus said:
I don't see the problem. For example, everyone knows that Santa Claus comes in through the chimney. Ergo, if a guy comes in through the chimney, then he is Santa. As proof of this, I know a guy who once tried to get into a house through a chimney and he got stuck and the fire department had to get him out. Not Santa.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Did he have a white beard? Santa Claus has a white beard, except when he's working undercover.
 
Grinder said:
Quote:
(1) A person is guilty of taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree if he or she, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to possession, intentionally takes or drives away any automobile or motor vehicle, whether propelled by steam, electricity, or internal combustion engine, that is the property of another, or he or she voluntarily rides in or upon the automobile or motor vehicle with knowledge of the fact that the automobile or motor vehicle was unlawfully taken.
(2) Taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree is a class C felony.
​

Here's where the problem comes. The perp is pulled over and when quizzed says that Bob said he could drive his grandmother's car. Of course Bob can't be found.

Another issue here was that it took up to 7 convictions to actually put them in prison.


  • The Seattle Times noted the rising auto theft rate as early as February 2002 and ... it took up to seven auto theft convictions before an offender faced prison time
Click to expand...

That's a different issue Grinder. The fact is that they were "convicted" of the crime.
 
Grinder said:
Quote:
(1) A person is guilty of taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree if he or she, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to possession, intentionally takes or drives away any automobile or motor vehicle, whether propelled by steam, electricity, or internal combustion engine, that is the property of another, or he or she voluntarily rides in or upon the automobile or motor vehicle with knowledge of the fact that the automobile or motor vehicle was unlawfully taken.
(2) Taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree is a class C felony.
​

Here's where the problem comes. The perp is pulled over and when quizzed says that Bob said he could drive his grandmother's car. Of course Bob can't be found.

Another issue here was that it took up to 7 convictions to actually put them in prison.


  • The Seattle Times noted the rising auto theft rate as early as February 2002 and ... it took up to seven auto theft convictions before an offender faced prison time
Click to expand...

What you quote above is a different offence. I quoted the Washington equivalent of TWOCing for you and my invoice will follow. Btw. why are we discussing this? I forgot.
 
Grinder said:
Nencini spells it Rudi.
Click to expand...


Nencini?
Must be another dumb^^^^, a clog in the machine.
Surely someone in Italy by now has looked at RudY Hermann Guede's
REPUBBLICA ITALIANA ID and noticed the correct spellin' of "poor" Rudy's 1st name, right?

Hey Grinder,
why dont'cha email Italy, correct this mistake
or get a copy of his birth certificate and prove me wrong!?!
RW
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
Why would they do that? They could just have gotten his DNA, as they did.

The whole story around the identification of Rudy Guede is very mysterious. The DNA records relating to the testing of the stuff from his apartment appear to be deliberately obscured.

I think that they had his toothbrush very early on in the process.
Click to expand...

They found computers according to RW's posts at Rudi's. If they dusted those for prints and found ones at the cottage that matched I would think that would make it seem that the same people were with Rudi that night at the cottage which would solve the other people question.

IIRC some prints at the cottage were never matched.
 
fast track

acbytesla said:
For me the big problem with this fast track trial, isn't the trial itself but the use of stipulated or procedural facts determined in this fast track trial being used in another. Amanda and Raffaele's lawyers don't really have an opportunity to argue against what happens in a trial in which they are not a party. This alone would be a reason for a US court to deny extradition of Amanda. This is depriving her of "due process". Since she was not a party to "the process" where these events were determined as facts.
Click to expand...

pretty much agree. It's odd to have 'facts' established in one trial, binding against different defendants in another, fast track or otherwise.
 
Grinder said:
They found computers according to RW's posts at Rudi's. If they dusted those for prints and found ones at the cottage that matched I would think that would make it seem that the same people were with Rudi that night at the cottage which would solve the other people question.

IIRC some prints at the cottage were never matched.
Click to expand...

They also found his DNA on the victim's vaginal swab. They could take his toothbrush and get a match. That's what they did.
 
anglolawyer said:
Maybe it's only news to me :(
Click to expand...
.
Anglo, Rudy having an apartment full of computers was news to me also.

It seems to me that almost everything we know about Rudy's crime history comes from private sources. Even the charges for possession of stolen goods dating back years were unknown until just recently, the same with Curatola. Who is next, Kokomaniac?

Where does Nencini get the knowledge to characterize Rudy as a professional burglar versus an amateur burglar, or even a burglar? Is he basing this on possessing stolen goods? What does he know that we do not know? For years the prosecuting team has tried to ignore Rudy's crimes. Is Nencini throwing them a curve ball? Nencini is either dumb as a post, or sly as a fox.

RandyN, I agree with you, Frank is trying to give the ISC an out, just like he tried to give Mignini one, and Stefanoni. Good luck with that Frank.

Bill, thanks for the link you posted (http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2014/05/07/the-ritual-sacrifice-of-amanda-knox/

Very insightful.
.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
Nencini spells it Rudi.
Click to expand...

RWVBWL said:
Nencini?
Must be another dumb^^^^, a clog in the machine.
Surely someone in Italy by now has looked at RudY Hermann Guede's
REPUBBLICA ITALIANA ID and noticed the correct spellin' of "poor" Rudy's 1st name, right?

Hey Grinder, why dont'cha email Italy, correct this mistake or get a copy of his birth certificate and prove me wrong!?!RW
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
Rudy spells it Rudy.
Click to expand...


He sure does, ACbyTesla!




Golly, so does the official offices of REPUBBLICA ITALIANA!!



Grinder,
Check it out, Rudy's ID!
They typed his name twice, both times with a y.
I wonder if they had to see his birth certifiafte?
Heck, it's even got his birthdate, his sex, his height or is that his weight?
Please prove us wrong, or git with it, bro! :D
RW
 
Last edited:
RWVBWL said:
Nencini?
Must be another dumb^^^^, a clog in the machine.
Surely someone in Italy by now has looked at RudY Hermann Guede's
REPUBBLICA ITALIANA ID and noticed the correct spellin' of "poor" Rudy's 1st name, right?

Hey Grinder,
why dont'cha email Italy, correct this mistake
or get a copy of his birth certificate and prove me wrong!?!
RW
Click to expand...

Italy wouldn't have one now would they and I don't speak French.

The The Ghirga-Dalla Vedova Motivation for Appeal I: uses both Rudi and Rudy.

The Bongiorno-Maori Motivation for Appeal I: uses both spellings.

Both spelling seem to be acceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom