Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

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.

My point was that Guede, Knox and Sollecito all got the exact same sentence for the murder, 24 years. Considering the theory of the crime that prevailed how could they justify giving Guede a life sentence and not Raffaele and Amanda?

 

[Kaosium]

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).

So the claim that Guede received a 'life sentence' was always meaningless because it would automatically be discounted to 30 years? Is that how they could justify giving Guede (officially) a 'longer' sentence because everyone knew it was never possible for him to serve that time?

 

[Kaosium]

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?

It may be that this is a better issue to bring before the ECHR, the Italian judiciary has shown it simply doesn't care about discovery issues.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

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.

You don't know how it works. It's better when you enter judgment on the facts instead of on a technical defense because normal appellate courts that operate correctly don't reverse decisions made on the facts. Particularly where they have heard no evidence and try to direct the lower court how to decide on remand. Only the Italian supreme court illegally does that.

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

I'm sorry, but it is not really like that. You cannot "infer" it, since in the Italian Penal Code a life sentencing (ergastolo) is considered as something separate, it is not considered a time of imprisonment (detenzione). It has a separate status.
A life sentencing cannot - technically - be reduced or parted, it can only be condoned entirely, and possibly replaced with another type of penalty.
However, who gets a life penalty is fully entitled to all prisoners privileges, including semi-freedom and conditional freedom, and has its specific timeline. In fact usually lifers are entitled to get semi-freedom regime after 18 years inprisonment and conditional freedom (that means complete freedom) after a total of 25-26 years.
This means that in the practical counts a life sentence when applied equates to a 36 years imprisonment term. But on a moral and symbolic level, in the Italian culture it is something heavier, it has a separate status, a different name ("ergastolo" = means kind of "isolated closed house", instead of "imprisonment"), it carries a sort of stigma, kind of a mark of Caine, this is why it is less discounted even in the fast track trial.

 

[Kauffer]

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

Have you looked for other near contemporaneous cases involving Stefanoni's lab where we might find useful information in the trial records pertaining to issues of discovery, contamination, made-up stuff etc etc? Is there anything before the ECHR that she had a hand in?

 

[Diocletus]

It may be that this is a better issue to bring before the ECHR, the Italian judiciary has shown it simply doesn't care about discovery issues.

Honestly, I don't think these judges have a clue in the world what an EDF is, probably suspect it to be some kind of dance music.

 

[Diocletus]

Have you looked for other near contemporaneous cases involving Stefanoni's lab where we might find useful information in the trial records pertaining to issues of discovery, contamination, made-up stuff etc etc? Is there anything before the ECHR that she had a hand in?

No. There is zero transparency into this lab. Unless you are Novelli, and then you can have the run of the place.

 

[Machiavelli]

You don't know how it works. It's better when you enter judgment on the facts instead of on a technical defense because normal appellate courts that operate correctly don't reverse decisions made on the facts. Particularly where they have heard no evidence and try to direct the lower court how to decide on remand. Only the Italian supreme court illegally does that.

The Hellmann court found there was no merit in Bongiorno's claims about late discovery. They were not a claim about raw data, let's remind this, and they were not about "lack of disclosure" - this is pro-Knox conspiracy theory - they were a claim of "late discovery". The Hellmann court found the defence claim had no merit. Better or worse, what you like is good for you at your choice, be happy it was rejected if you like that, the only fact is the Hellmann court found this claim had no merit. It is a court finding. Besides what you think is "better" or enjoyable for you, think rather about the objective meaning of this.

 

[Kaosium]

Have you looked for other near contemporaneous cases involving Stefanoni's lab where we might find useful information in the trial records pertaining to issues of discovery, contamination, made-up stuff etc etc? Is there anything before the ECHR that she had a hand in?

The only issue from this case currently before the EU is the calunnia charge as it's the only charge that the ISC confirmed in 2013, remanding the others back to re-trial. A case must have exhausted all domestic remedies before the ECHR will consider it, which means the murder and extranneous charges won't be eligible until the ISC accepts a guilty verdict.

ETA, sorry I misread your post, I thought you were asking if anything from this case Stefanoni was involved in was before the ECHR.

 

[Diocletus]

The Hellmann court found there was no merit in Bongiorno's claims about late discovery. They were not a claim about raw data, let's remind this, and they were not about "lack of disclosure" - this is pro-Knox conspiracy theory - they were a claim of "late discovery". The Hellmann court found the defence claim had no merit. Better or worse, what you like is good for you at your choice, be happy it was rejected if you like that, the only fact is the Hellmann court found this claim had no merit. It is a court finding. Besides what you think is "better" or enjoyable for you, think rather about the objective meaning of this.

It doesn't mean much, but "did not commit the act" does. And, "did not commit the act" means even more when the court didn't need the lab records to decide it.

 

[Kaosium]

The Hellmann court found there was no merit in Bongiorno's claims about late discovery. They were not a claim about raw data, let's remind this, and they were not about "lack of disclosure" - this is pro-Knox conspiracy theory - they were a claim of "late discovery". The Hellmann court found the defence claim had no merit. Better or worse, what you like is good for you at your choice, be happy it was rejected if you like that, the only fact is the Hellmann court found this claim had no merit. It is a court finding. Besides what you think is "better" or enjoyable for you, think rather about the objective meaning of this.

Could you point me to where Hellmann weighed in on discovery?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Int he early pages of Massei, Guede's two visits to the boys downstairs are detailed. One was the day they watched the Grand Prix and the other was an afterbar when he returned with them from a bar called the 'Red Zone.'

From Massei p.40 of the PMF translation

This had happened towards the middle of October. He had asked for this information from him, from Marco and from Stefano. This happened when he had gone to their place. Amanda was there with them and Rudy had noticed her.

On this occasion Meredith was there too. Rudy had asked whether Amanda was involved with a guy or not. They were together at a pub, before going home. At this time Amanda had not yet met Raffaele, so they told him she was not committed. That evening Rudy had drunk at the pub and he was somewhat free and easy in the conversation. He remembered that when they arrived home he asked if he could use the bathroom and he fell asleep on the toilet.

He also recalled another time when Rudy went to their house; this was at the end of October, on the occasion of the Grand Prix, the Sunday after the Red Zone. He had come on his own, without being invited by anyone.
He recalled that on that evening, after being at the Red Zone, he had slept in his room with Meredith; Amanda had met a certain Daniel, and had spent the night with the latter in her room upstairs, according to what Daniel had told him.

From your description it looks like that one visit he talks about during the Skype chat was the afterbar, as I recall he detailed his visit the day of the Grand Prix in his diary. Note that it's possible to figure out the exact date of these by looking up the Grand Prix schedule for October, 2007. I think that week it was a race in Brazil they were watching.

Thanks K. I didn't remember the 2 visits being described in Massei.

 

[Kauffer]

I'm sorry, but it is not really like that. You cannot "infer" it, since in the Italian Penal Code a life sentencing (ergastolo) is considered as something separate, it is not considered a time of imprisonment (detenzione). It has a separate status.
A life sentencing cannot - technically - be reduced or parted, it can only be condoned entirely, and possibly replaced with another type of penalty.
However, who gets a life penalty is fully entitled to all prisoners privileges, including semi-freedom and conditional freedom, and has its specific timeline. In fact usually lifers are entitled to get semi-freedom regime after 18 years inprisonment and conditional freedom (that means complete freedom) after a total of 25-26 years.
This means that in the practical counts a life sentence when applied equates to a 36 years imprisonment term. But on a moral and symbolic level, in the Italian culture it is something heavier, it has a separate status, a different name ("ergastolo" = means kind of "isolated closed house", instead of "imprisonment"), it carries a sort of stigma, kind of a mark of Caine, this is why it is less discounted even in the fast track trial.

Can you work this out? What would Guede's final sentence have been if he had not had the privilege of a fast track trial?

I hear what you say, but given the fact that his 30 year sentence was a discounted tariff, merely to apply just one day's generic mitigation to this results in the sentence being cut by ten years. This seems extraordinarily lenient. We have a discounting system in the UK but it doesn't work like this and requires a guilty plea and no trial. But then again, from your point of view, Guede did no stabbing and murdering so you won't agree. Nevertheless, at fast track, most murderers will have a maximum sentence after appeals of less than 20 years, it seems.

 

[Machiavelli]

So the claim that Guede received a 'life sentence' was always meaningless because it would automatically be discounted to 30 years? Is that how they could justify giving Guede (officially) a 'longer' sentence because everyone knew it was never possible for him to serve that time?

No, it is not completely meaningless, because - as I explained above - the Italian Penal Code has also a penalty that is "heavvier than life" (ergastolo + isolamento diurno), Mignini had asked for this extreme penalty, which becomes "life" when discounted under the fast track trial.
However, it is practically meaningless. That was in fct an extreme request, there was no significant probability that the prosecution could obtain that for Rudy Guede; the prosecution made this extremely high request of "life" even with the fast track discount, because they were hoping to obtain 30 years, or at least 20 years.
They obtained what was the maximum they were actually hoping they could have, and the prosecution was very satisfied.

 

[Kauffer]

The only issue from this case currently before the EU is the calunnia charge as it's the only charge that the ISC confirmed in 2013, remanding the others back to re-trial. A case must have exhausted all domestic remedies before the ECHR will consider it, which means the murder and extranneous charges won't be eligible until the ISC accepts a guilty verdict.

ETA, sorry I misread your post, I thought you were asking if anything from this case Stefanoni was involved in was before the ECHR.

That's right, as you have picked up.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

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).

I really don't want to beat a dead horse, but do you mean:

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

Because if 30 years includes a fast track reduction of 1/3rd, then the original sentence was 45 years, no?

 

[Machiavelli]

Can you work this out? What would Guede's final sentence have been if he had not had the privilege of a fast track trial?

The fast track trial is not a privilege, it is a choice available to anyone. Theoretically if he had chosen the long trial, his equivalent penalty would have been 24 years.
In practice, this is unpredictable, because if he had chosen a long trial - a hypothetical event from a parallel world, that didn't happen - Guede would have been tried together with Knox and Sollecito and we would have only one trial for all three, in which we don't know what the defence strategies and judges considerations could have been.

I hear what you say, but given the fact that his 30 year sentence was a discounted tariff, merely to apply just one day's generic mitigation to this results in the sentence being cut by ten years. This seems extraordinarily lenient.

It is, but I didn't write the Penal Code. The truth is the Italian procedure code and penal code are extraordinarily favourable to defendants, and maybe in particular to guilty ones.

We have a discounting system in the UK but it doesn't work like this and requires a guilty plea and no trial. But then again, from your point of view, Guede did no stabbing and murdering so you won't agree.

I don't think Guede is less guilty than Sollecito and Knox. I think I have never implied anything like that. He is fully guilty of murder.
However, I believe all three are guilty of the same gang-like type of sexual assault and murder. I don't believe Guede is guilty of any break in or burglary.

Nevertheless, at fast track, most murderers will have a maximum sentence after appeals of less than 20 years, it seems.

It is correct. Apart from terrorists or those who raped and killed a child, everyone gets less than 20 years if found guilty on a fast track.
The fast track option has merely one purpose: spare the taxpayers' money and courts time, by avoid having court trial hearings with experts and all stuff, and long stays in state prisons.

 

[Kauffer]

I really don't want to beat a dead horse, but do you mean:

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

Because if 30 years includes a fast track reduction of 1/3rd, then the original sentence was 45 years, no?

That's how I saw it. But he's arguing differently. It's an absurdity because a convicted murderer always gets a generic mitigation meaning that the actual sentence will be less than 20 years and still present opportunities for day and early release and whatever emptying of the prisons initiative might be operating. The 30 year sentence is a de facto discount even if not de jure.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Novelli in Nanomedicine review article and Busco

“Moreover, because the majority of commercial kits have an optimal amount of input DNA of approximately 0.5-1.0 ng, the results of forensic analysis in theses conditions are below the threshold for reliable interpretation, and several precautions and issues have to be considered to carefully interpret such profiles. Thus in these conditions [less than 100 picograms of DNA] there is a greater probability of artefacts, partial profiles with fewer alleles, contamination, preferential allele amplification, the complete absence of one allele (allele drop-out) in heterozygous loci and the nonspecific generation of extra alleles (allele drop-in) [78,79].

“Very few laboratories perform low template DNA typing properly, because it requires dedicated facilities and great experience, although there are several published methods for the interpretation of such profiles [80-82].”

These are two quotes from a review article coauthored by Dr. Novelli in Nanomedicine. There is also what he said about the unreliability of the DNA evidence in the Raniero Busco case, as reported at PerugiaShock. Why he turned around 180 degrees in the present case is something only he can answer.