Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

Without wishing to split hairs, the reduction in mitigation is not actually six years is it? It's much more. The 30 year sentence is the fast track discounted sentence. So actually it is correct to argue that the effective sentence reduction in mitigation on appeal was really 21 years! That is because 30 years represents a third off a life sentence which must notionally be 45 years for the maths to make sense. The 24 year sentence then gets the third off too.

There's (at least two) different motivations at work here, the 'generic' mitigation as Machiavelli termed it and then the fast track mitigation. 'Generic mitigations' are available to everyone, Raffaele and Amanda got one too (though Mignini appealed those unlike with Guede) and that's applied before the fast track mitigation takes place. So the math works like this: 30 year sentence -6 years for the 'generic' mitigation= 24 years and then the one third discount makes it a final 16 year sentence which may also be reduced further on the basis of behavior and so forth.

Thirty years is considered a 'life' sentence, to get more than that I think they need to prove an aggravation or a motive, the latter being more than just any explanation for his behavior, I think it has to do with being able to prove premeditation and isn't easy to do.

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh, that is interesting!

What time was that? There's no way this can look good being as their own records preclude Domino getting there before midnight....

From memory, some time shortly after 10.00 p.m. Notice that Mach is not denying it.

 

[Diocletus]

That doesn't necessarily mean he did anything more that what could be found by reviewing electropherograms. Has the Novelli Report been translated?

Yes, it has. It says:

Since for the right compensation I would contend that the moon is made of green cheese, and since I have been paid lots of money by the civil parties and the prosecution, I hereby declare that there was isn't and never will be any contamination anywhere within 100 km of Patrizia Stefanoni's immaculate and perfect lab.

Signed

The embryologist

 

[Diocletus]

They tried to rise the instance of " late discovery", but it was not about raw data. Their instance was rejected by all judges, including Hellmann.

That's true. Hellman acquitted them on the merits. Judges who acquit on the merits always reject technical defenses in favor of the winner.

 

[Diocletus]

That doesn't necessarily mean he did anything more that what could be found by reviewing electropherograms. Has the Novelli Report been translated?

You're right. For all we know, he looked for the contamination log, found that there wasn't one, and concluded that the lab was never contaminated. I can tell you for sure that he didn't look at the quantification records for this case, because they actually prove contamination, notwithstanding Machiavelli's latest arguments that the contamination is actually allele drop in which is expected and hoped for.

 

[Kauffer]

There's (at least two) different motivations at work here, the 'generic' mitigation as Machiavelli termed it and then the fast track mitigation. 'Generic mitigations' are available to everyone, Raffaele and Amanda got one too (though Mignini appealed those unlike with Guede) and that's applied before the fast track mitigation takes place. So the math works like this: 30 year sentence -6 years for the 'generic' mitigation= 24 years and then the one third discount makes it a final 16 year sentence which may also be reduced further on the basis of behavior and so forth.

Thirty years is considered a 'life' sentence, to get more than that I think they need to prove an aggravation or a motive, the latter being more than just any explanation for his behavior, I think it has to do with being able to prove premeditation and isn't easy to do.

We agree. It's just there is another stage. The 1st sentence is life. So it goes like this:

1) Life reduced to...
2) 30 years (fast track discount) reduced to..
3) 24 years (generic mitigation from the life sentence) reduced to..
4) 16 years (fast track discount)

The generic mitigation reduction comes off the life sentence not the first fast track discount, otherwise they wouldn't give him a second fast track discount. His first sentence is life; his second sentence is 24 years; therefore the effective value of the generic mitigation is in fact 21 years since fast track discounts are worth a third off.

 

[Kauffer]

You're right. For all we know, he looked for the contamination log, found that there wasn't one, and concluded that the lab was never contaminated. I can tell you for sure that he didn't look at the quantification records for this case, because they actually prove contamination, notwithstanding Machiavelli's latest arguments that the contamination is actually allele drop in which is expected and hoped for.

Diocletus - this is one of the huge claims from the 'new' evidence in this case. Is there any way a bona fide forensic scientist could legitimately argue that the quantification records do not in fact prove contamination or otherwise assert that the contamination they prove does not impinge upon the quality of the prosecution's case, notwithstanding the fact that it's existence was denied. Is there any other way of looking at these things, which might support a pro guilt spin?

 

[Diocletus]

Diocletus - this is one of the huge claims from the 'new' evidence in this case. Is there any way a bona fide forensic scientist could legitimately argue that the quantification records do not in fact prove contamination or otherwise assert that the contamination they prove does not impinge upon the quality of the prosecution's case, notwithstanding the fact that it's existence was denied. Is there any other way of looking at these things, which might support a pro guilt spin?

Nope, they show contamination. They also clearly show 2 instances of machine malfunction that required the lab to change its hardware.

The one thing is that these are quantification records, so they don't go directly to the amplification product (quantification being a collateral exercise). But I'll bet that if we got the amplification records we would see the same thing because the basic process is the same, the lab was not run well, and they were performing LCN analysis as a matter of course.

I know I'm right, because if I was wrong, we would have the amplification records.

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps this is the source of my confusion. The original sentence requested for Guede was 30 years - please correct me if this is not true.
Then on appeal this was reduced first to 24 years, due to "generic mitigation." Please explain this term "generic mitigation" - what are the details?
I understand that the fast-track trial itself gives a reduction in sentence - is the new sentence always 2/3 of the sentence otherwise imposed?

It's simple. Fast track trial always produces a 1/3 discount from the code (edittale) sentence if the defendant is found guilty., except in the event that the sentence is life, in that case the fast track sentence will be 30 years. If the code sentence is more than "life" (that is "life + isolation") the fast track sentence is life.

The generic mitigation is a type of mitigation provided for by the penal code. The Italian Penal Code has "charges" but also "mitigating" or "aggravating" "circumstances" which are added and put on the accused just like additional charges themselves, and they qualify the offence.
The generic mitigation is a type of mitigation not related to other specific mitigating circumstances also provided by the code, and it is very frequently employed, especially on serious charges. Most of the times first time offenders (those without a serious criminal record) manage to get generic mitigation. Expressing remorse or being cooperative during the trial usually is most helpful to obtain generic mitigation. But also other subjective consideration from the judge may count, for example a defendant is poor and had a traumatic life or is believed to be not dangerous, things like this. Generic mitigation is mostly based on a lenient assessment about the character and profile of the person, about good perspectives of rehabilitation, usually it is not based on the crime committed.

 

[Kaosium]

We agree. It's just there is another stage. The 1st sentence is life. So it goes like this:

1) Life reduced to...
2) 30 years (fast track discount) reduced to..
3) 24 years (generic mitigation from the life sentence) reduced to..
4) 16 years (fast track discount)

The generic mitigation reduction comes off the life sentence not the first fast track discount, otherwise they wouldn't give him a second fast track discount. His first sentence is life; his second sentence is 24 years; therefore the effective value of the generic mitigation is in fact 21 years since fast track discounts are worth a third off.

Are you sure about this? I think life=30 years without any aggravation or motive being proved. Your way of tallying it doesn't square with Raffaele and Amanda's sentences as they didn't take fast track and ended up with 30 year sentences with six years of mitigations (like Rudy). However they had added charges for 'staging,' 'transporting the knife' and 'thieving' the phones adding a year (total) with Amanda getting an extra year (initially) for the calunnia conviction making Amanda and Raffaele's sentences 26 and 25 years respectively. Since Hellmann increased the calunnia sentence to 3 years that gives Amanda a final tally of 28 years.

They didn't take fast track yet they ended up with 24 year sentences (after the generic mitigation) for the murder, same as Rudy Guede.

 

[Kauffer]

Nope, they show contamination. They also clearly show 2 instances of machine malfunction that required the lab to change its hardware.

The one thing is that these are quantification records, so they don't go directly to the amplification product (quantification being a collateral exercise). But I'll bet that if we got the amplification records we would see the same thing because the basic process is the same, the lab was not run well, and they were performing LCN analysis as a matter of course.

I know I'm right, because if I was wrong, we would have the amplification records.

So forgive me for playing catch up but, is any of this stuff in Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito's appeal?

 

[Diocletus]

So forgive me for playing catch up but, is any of this stuff in Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito's appeal?

Alas no. But, they did raise the suppressed controls.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's true. Hellman acquitted them on the merits. Judges who acquit on the merits always reject technical defenses in favor of the winner.

Hellman rejected the instance at the opening of his trial. That is supposed to be completely unrelated to his assessment of the evidence. It's because the instance of "late discovery" had no merit.
However it is interesting that you call the instance a technicality, almost dismissively, while apparently you claim that issue of laboratory DNA data is not a point of merit.

 

[Numbers]

Alas no. But, they did raise the suppressed controls.

Do you know if either of them in this possibly final round of appeals to the CSC raised the issue of not having received the EDFs?

 

[Diocletus]

Hellman rejected the instance at the opening of his trial. That is supposed to be completely unrelated to his assessment of the evidence. It's because the instance of "late discovery" had no merit.
However it is interesting that you call the instance a technicality, almost dismissively,

No, I said it was a technical issue meaning an issue not going to the merits, although violation of equality of arms by the prosecution is certainly a serious issue and was a violation by Italy of its treaty obligations.

while apparently you claim that issue of laboratory DNA data is not a point of merit.

LOL. "Laboratory DNA": the stray DNA floating around the lab that happens to get into stuff.

So, there we have it, folks. Machiavelli concedes that there was contamination but thinks we should just call it "Laboratory DNA". And, Barbie Nadeau is an approximate reporter.

 

[Machiavelli]

There's (at least two) different motivations at work here, the 'generic' mitigation as Machiavelli termed it and then the fast track mitigation. 'Generic mitigations' are available to everyone, Raffaele and Amanda got one too (though Mignini appealed those unlike with Guede)

You are making a mistake here; you say "unlike with Guede" thus implying that the prosecution didn't appeal against Guede's generic mitigation. But this is false, since the fact is Guede did not receive generic mitigation on his first trial. He got 30 years and no generic mitigation.
No generic mitigation in first instance, that's why the prosecution didn't appeal. You don't appeal when you win completely.
But then Guede appealed, and by that time there was a different prosecution.

 

[Kauffer]

Are you sure about this? I think life=30 years without any aggravation or motive being proved. Your way of tallying it doesn't square with Raffaele and Amanda's sentences as they didn't take fast track and ended up with 30 year sentences with six years of mitigations (like Rudy). However they had added charges for 'staging,' 'transporting the knife' and 'thieving' the phones adding a year (total) with Amanda getting an extra year (initially) for the calunnia conviction making Amanda and Raffaele's sentences 26 and 25 years respectively. Since Hellmann increased the calunnia sentence to 3 years that gives Amanda a final tally of 28 years.

They didn't take fast track yet they ended up with 24 year sentences (after the generic mitigation) for the murder, same as Rudy Guede.

Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito didn't get life sentences; Guede did. Look, I'm just arguing logically from the narrative and the numbers. For your 'version' it would require Guede to have a final sentence of 24 years since his 30 year sentence already contained the fast track discount (from life) and he should not be entitled to another. If Guede had not gone fast track and had received the same sentencing without the fast track discount but with the generic mitigation reduction, what would his final nett sentence have been? Perhaps he would have got 39 years. Or perhaps not.

 

[Machiavelli]

There's (at least two) different motivations at work here, the 'generic' mitigation as Machiavelli termed it and then the fast track mitigation. 'Generic mitigations' are available to everyone, Raffaele and Amanda got one too (though Mignini appealed those unlike with Guede) and that's applied before the fast track mitigation takes place. So the math works like this: 30 year sentence -6 years for the 'generic' mitigation= 24 years and then the one third discount makes it a final 16 year sentence which may also be reduced further on the basis of behavior and so forth.

Thirty years is considered a 'life' sentence, to get more than that I think they need to prove an aggravation or a motive, the latter being more than just any explanation for his behavior, I think it has to do with being able to prove premeditation and isn't easy to do.

No. It's incorrect. I am surprised that still people here don't seem to have even understood a simple legal mechanism like this count. No wonder they are confused about everything else.

Let's use correct labels. The generic mitigation is a mitigation, the fast track trial automatic discount is a discount.

The application of discount and mitigation is simultaneous (in the same verdict) but the discount is applied to the issued sentence after all mitigations and aggravations are calculated.

The calculation of Guede's sentencings:

I trial: no generic mitigation, fast track discount: life => 30 years

Appeal: Generic mitigation: life => 24 years; + fast track discount: 24 years => 16 years

Let's not forget that all three defendants not only had a mitigation, they also had an aggravation, this is why the count started from "life" (because voluntary murder without aggravation and with no mitigation itself is a charge that carries a penalty of 21 years, never far from that).

 

[Kauffer]

No. It's incorrect. I am surprised that still people here don't seem to have even understood a simple legal mechanism like this count. No wonder they are confused about everything else.

Let's use correct labels. The generic mitigation is a mitigation, the fast track trial automatic discount is a discount.

The application of discount and mitigation is simultaneous (in the same verdict) but the discount is applied to the issued sentence after all mitigations and aggravations are calculated.

The calculation of Guede's sentencings:

I trial: no generic mitigation, fast track discount: life => 30 years

Appeal: Generic mitigation: life => 24 years; + fast track discount: 24 years => 16 years

Let's not forget that all three defendants not only had a mitigation, they also had an aggravation, this is why the count started from "life" (because voluntary murder without aggravation and with no mitigation itself is a charge that carries a penalty of 21 years, never far from that).

This is probably no more than intellectual onanism, but you will see my argument that if a fast track discount is worth a third then the 30 year sentence is based on the principle that the full tariff of life imprisonment is in fact notionally 45 years (45 less a third is 30). Now that might not be in the Italian CCP but it can be logically inferred. Therefore, the mitigation applied on appeal is effectively worth 21 years as it's a reduction from the notional value of the life sentence at 45 years. If they had applied the mitigation at the first trial, what would Gude's sentence have been before appeal?

 

[Machiavelli]

No, I said it was a technical issue meaning an issue not going to the merits, although violation of equality of arms by the prosecution is certainly a serious issue and was a violation by Italy of its treaty obligations.

Come on you were dismissive, you meant it was ok that Hellmann rejected it, because "winners" have these technical instances rejected.
You have very curious arguments.

LOL. "Laboratory DNA": the stray DNA floating around the lab that happens to get into stuff.

So, there we have it, folks. Machiavelli concedes that there was contamination but thinks we should just call it "Laboratory DNA". And, Barbie Nadeau is an approximate reporter.

I never conceded anything like that at all, you are making up stuff. Please don't try to be a second Bill Williams, we had it already enough of this tedious game. Try to think seriously about the fact that even the Hellmann court rejected all defence claims related to data disclosure.