Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

As a beginner conspiracy theorist, I think the order of samples chosen is meaningful. I think that conscientious competent police would notice and rush the testing of the rape kit and the pillow semen stain. But the blood trail downstairs could suggest to such police that the murder/rapist was a resident of the downstairs apartment. So it would make sense to test those downstairs samples quickly as well. But apparently the downstairs profiles - and have any been released to the defense? - did not support the theory that a downstairs resident was responsible. This is in large part because the downstairs boys came back from Marche and had strong alibis.

So why was Amanda Knox suspected? What would the Italian police think:

American, young, female, sexually active, no lawyer, a resident of the upstairs apartment, in Perugia at the right time, alibi supported by boyfriend (so therefore he could be a conspirator with her), willing to speak to police, helped discover the body, works part time at a bar owned by a man of sub-Saharan African (Congolese) ancestry.

Did the police know anything about the murderer/rapist being of sub-Saharan African ancestry before interrogating Amanda and Raffaele? Is that why they purposely misunderstood the Patrick Lumumba - Amanda Knox phone messages? Is that why one of them was quoted in the media as saying, "She told us what we already knew," or words to that effect?

This might be a late comment, but weren't hair and blood also found on the break-in window upstairs? Am I wrong on this point, its come up before but my grasp of it is vague.

Point is, if the hair were of 'african' descent, perhaps that would have set the police to be on the look-out for a black person.

And as I have and others more versed than I have speculated, if police suspected it was Rudy Guede and they wanted to protect him lest they themselves be blamed for his crimes, then snagging any other black male would do just as well. It is after all what they did when they slotted Guede back in for Patrick when they had no choice of letting Guede go.

Wonderful comments on the junior conspiracy front. If the semen stain Stef was referring to isn't the stain from the Kercher crime scene, what other sexual crime scene was Stef processing at that tim, what else could it be?

 

[Machiavelli]

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

Well, you are beating a dead horse. You're wrong. I meant "yes", 30 years does include the fast track discount, yes it is a discounted sentence, as I explained above in the trhead.

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

No, as I explained above. Because a life term and a time imprisonment terms are two separate kind of punishment by the code, they receive different discounts at the fast track. If there is a life term, then the fast track does not cause a 1/3 discount, it only causes a discount to 30 years.
It is not the life term that it is bigger, it is not a theoretical 45 years. It is the discount that it is smaller, it is no longer a 1/3 discount.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

The 30 years sentence of Guede is a discount also de jure.

 

[Kauffer]

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?

Guede's final sentence was known before Massei gave out the others. Yes they were probably trying to be neat and make them all seem balanced. I suppose the prevailing feeling that Guede got an easy ride is predicated on the view that he is solely responsible for the crime(s). But in fact, the nett sentences, given the Italians' theory of the crime, are proportionate. It's just that the theory of the crime is sheer lunacy.

 

[Desert Fox]

Guede's final sentence was known before Massei gave out the others. Yes they were probably trying to be neat and make them all seem balanced. I suppose the prevailing feeling that Guede got an easy ride is predicated on the view that he is solely responsible for the crime(s). But in fact, the nett sentences, given the Italians' theory of the crime, are proportionate. It's just that the theory of the crime is sheer lunacy.

It reads like something you might expect out of J.D. Robb
Actually, probably not in that even in her books you would not expect the next best thing to strangers to do something like this. One of the major problems here is that if they had known each other longer that a week or virtually not all all, might be more believable.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've only vaguely been following this thread recently as nothing really seems to be happening with the case itself. Reading the last few pages what I find most confusing is that Machiavelli is constantly asserting the correctness of the Italian justice system and the uprightness of their court procedures, while simultaneously asserting that the justice system is riddled with corruption, bribery and Masonic influence. Baffling.

Machiavelli accuses some in the system of outright crimes. I'd mention the name again (the President of the Perugian Court of Appeal), but Machiavelli simply will not go there again.

Machiavelli calls them criminals.

But M.B., I share your observation.

 

[Kaosium]

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

Hrm.

Isn't that intriguing. They called him into the Questura and he arrived at 10:15 PM. If your memory is correct, they had absolutely no possible (official) reason for suspecting those two at that moment.

They can break into his apartment but he isn't considered a suspect worthy of legal protections? How is anyone supposed to believe that?

 

[Kauffer]

The 30 years sentence of Guede is a discount also de jure.

And yet you also argue as follows:

"...the discount is applied to the issued sentence after all mitigations and aggravations are calculated."

Except in this first instance it seems, if the 30 year sentence is a de Jure discount.

So the question still remains as to what this 30 year sentence is a discount from.

It will seem perfectly logical to the non Italians on this forum that the figure of 45 years is implied.

But what you seem to be suggesting is that there are two discounts. The first one is not specified and the second one is a third.

Either way, you have, you think, your double DNA knife but we certanly have, we know, our double discount murderer.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

"did not commit the act" in fact means nothing special, since also covers the event of reasonable doubt (in fact the Hellmann sentence concludes with a paragraph about reasonable doubt). Don't argue on this: the formula "did not commit the act" is used also when reasonable doubt paragraph is mentioned even in the dispositivo.

You dodge it, the dismissal of Bongiorno's instance means just that the instance is unfounded and nothing more. It is a preliminary instance, not something that can be weighted as "needed" - or "not needed" - for a judgement.

And it was wrong. Unfounded. From this judges' conclusion you may deduce where all those claims about "data disclosure" actualy belong. Not to reality.
What's their real value to a court? Do they exist? Did the defence rise them? Did they really exist for the defence during the trial?
One defence team attempted to rise only a "late discovery" issue - not a failure to disclose exculpatory evidence or suppressing data - and always failed, even with Hellmann.
Any normal person would assume from this that a basis for complaints about data suppression or wihholding never existed; never belonged to the real world. If there was ever somewhere a shred of element to make a claim of the kinds you make every day, about hiding exculpatory evidence etc., the defence would have risen it. They didn't rise such pro-Knoxes' wild claims like "hiding raw data" etc. because, if they did so, they would have been just laughing stocks instead of effective defence attorneys.

 

[acbytesla]

So let me see--according to you:

1) the criminal defense lawyers cannot ask the court-appointed consultants to see their raw data, but some civil party's consultant can ask the prosecution's technical consultant for her data?

2) even though the court ordered the prosecution to produce Stefanoni's raw data, and that easily could have been done by making a CD copy, it was necessary for the criminal defendants also to ask her directly and go to her lab to get it?

3) the criminal defendants can't get information about their own case, but some civil party's consultant can go and get information about different cases, and then offer hearsay testimony about it without producing a report or backup data?

This is just so silly.

It's unbelievably silly. There is no need even for a CD, it could have been "attached" to an email or uploaded to a secure FTP address. This is nothing but a dance game where Stefanoni is hiding the raw data because she is hiding something that would blow up the whole case and probably cause her to get fired.
Granted, I can't prove it, but there is and has never been a legitimate reason for her not to provide it.

I keep reading Machiavelli's posts and I am left shaking my head. The prosecution's argument is that we don't have to show you how we framed you. I mean that would really be stupid, wouldn't it?

 

[Kaosium]

Guede's final sentence was known before Massei gave out the others.

Not quite, that took place after Massei sentenced Raffaele and Amanda. That's when the generic mitigation was applied, they sold it as bringing Guede's sentence 'in line' with Raffaele and Amanda's (because they all ended up with 24 years for the murder). Guede's case was not finalized until roughly December of 2010.

Yes they were probably trying to be neat and make them all seem balanced. I suppose the prevailing feeling that Guede got an easy ride is predicated on the view that he is solely responsible for the crime(s). But in fact, the nett sentences, given the Italians' theory of the crime, are proportionate. It's just that the theory of the crime is sheer lunacy.

Had Rudy been properly prosecuted for his break-in, theft, sexual assault and murder with no mitigations for being part of a group, 'remorse' (claiming he was sorry he didn't do more to 'save her' in court) and his previous burglaries prosecuted as well he'd have been doing more time than the sixteen years he got. His coddling at the hands of Mignini is also responsible for his easy sentence and that occurred because Mignini needed to convict two innocents due to his blundering.

Incidentally the very end of the Massei Report details how the sentencing for Raffaele and Amanda worked, it's not especially easy to follow.

 

[Machiavelli]

And yet you also argue as follows:

"...the discount is applied to the issued sentence after all mitigations and aggravations are calculated."

Except in this first instance it seems, if the 30 year sentence is a de Jure discount.

So the question still remains as to what this 30 year sentence is a discount from.

It will seem perfectly logical to the non Italians on this forum that the figure of 45 years is implied.

But what you seem to be suggesting is that there are two discounts. The first one is not specified and the second one is a third.

Either way, you have, you think, your double DNA knife but we certanly have, we know, our double discount murderer.

No, it's extremely simple: the discount is a 1/3 discount if the penalty is a time imprisonment term.
It is a discount from life to 30 years if the penalty is life.
It is a discount from "life + isolation" to "life" if the penalty is "life + isolation".

Is that clear?

This is the fast track discounts rule (there are three types of discounts, so, depending on the penalty, and they are all specified).

There is no question that the 30 years is a discount form. I don't see why you have so many problems understanding these simple rules. It will be a problem when you need to learn a new language, you know declinations etc.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

No, it's extremely simple: the discount is a 1/3 discount if the penalty is a time imprisonment term.
It is a discount from life to 30 years if the penalty is life.
It is a discount from "life + isolation" to "life" if the penalty is "life + isolation".

Is that clear?

This is the fast track discounts rule (there are three types of discounts, so, depending on the penalty, and they are all specified).

There is no question that the 30 years is a discount form. I don't see why you have so many problems understanding these simple rules. It will be a problem when you need to learn a new language, you know declinations etc.

So you are saying Guede got life and it was reduced to 30 years?

Also, stop being so cranky, we're just trying to understand. Maybe we won't have to bring it up again in 3 pages if we really understand it.

 

[Kauffer]

No, it's extremely simple: the discount is a 1/3 discount if the penalty is a time imprisonment term.
It is a discount from life to 30 years if the penalty is life.
It is a discount from "life + isolation" to "life" if the penalty is "life + isolation".

Is that clear?

This is the fast track discounts rule (there are three types of discounts, so, depending on the penalty, and they are all specified).

There is no question that the 30 years is a discount form. I don't see why you have so many problems understanding these simple rules. It will be a problem when you need to learn a new language, you know declinations etc.

Yep, I've got it. Guede got a double discount (two discounts) and a mitigation. The total value was worth 14 years plus the number of years he lives after the age of 50 - calculated as Death minus 20 (his age when he committed the murder) minus 30 - the sentence he would have served had he not been mitigated and discounted the second time. Agreed?

 

[Diocletus]

You dodge it, the dismissal of Bongiorno's instance means just that the instance is unfounded and nothing more. It is a preliminary instance, not something that can be weighted as "needed" - or "not needed" - for a judgement.
.

It's very easy. You just deny it and if it turns out that you need it later because the evidence might be dispositive, then you revisit. But, if you've already made the decision on other grounds then you let it go.

Honestly, I don't think that the defense lawyers knew about the scope of the evidence suppression, for the simple reason that they didn't have the evidence.

 

[Kaosium]

So you are saying Guede got life and it was reduced to 30 years?

He's saying that it's a 'step down' as opposed to a time in years reduction at that stage of the trial. It 'steps down' from Life+Isolation to Life (another 'step') then to 30 years. That's a total of two steps from Life+Isolation to 30 years. He's saying Rudy started at 'Life' (the second step) and it was discounted to 30 years because of the fast track discount. Then there's the generic mitigation of six years that was applied at his 'appeal' stage (which still exists though they don't do a real appeal like for Raffaele and Amanda) which reduced his sentence to 24 years. From there he gets the fast track discount of 1/3rd to make his final sentence 16 years.

In other words he's claiming there's two discounts for fast track that were applied, the 'step down' from Life to 30 years and then at the end by discounting the mitigated 24 year sentence to 16.

I'm still kind of dubious that it was a fast track discount that caused him to be stepped down to 30 in the first place, that doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Diocletus]

No, it's extremely simple: the discount is a 1/3 discount if the penalty is a time imprisonment term.
It is a discount from life to 30 years if the penalty is life.
It is a discount from "life + isolation" to "life" if the penalty is "life + isolation".

Is that clear?

This is the fast track discounts rule (there are three types of discounts, so, depending on the penalty, and they are all specified).

There is no question that the 30 years is a discount form. I don't see why you have so many problems understanding these simple rules. It will be a problem when you need to learn a new language, you know declinations etc.

Lol. Life+Isolation? Is that even legal? I think not.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

He's saying that it's a 'step down' as opposed to a time in years reduction at that stage of the trial. It 'steps down' from Life+Isolation to Life (another 'step') then to 30 years. That's a total of two steps from Life+Isolation to 30 years. He's saying Rudy started at 'Life' (the second step) and it was discounted to 30 years because of the fast track discount. Then there's the generic mitigation of six years that was applied at his 'appeal' stage (which still exists though they don't do a real appeal like for Raffaele and Amanda) which reduced his sentence to 24 years. From there he gets the fast track discount of 1/3rd to make his final sentence 16 years.

In other words he's claiming there's two discounts for fast track that were applied, the 'step down' from Life to 30 years and then at the end by discounting the mitigated 24 year sentence to 16.

I'm still kind of dubious that it was a fast track discount that caused him to be stepped down to 30 in the first place, that doesn't make much sense to me.

Thank you again, Kaosium. I feel rather thick today. It must be Monday.

 

[Kauffer]

Not quite, that took place after Massei sentenced Raffaele and Amanda. That's when the generic mitigation was applied, they sold it as bringing Guede's sentence 'in line' with Raffaele and Amanda's (because they all ended up with 24 years for the murder). Guede's case was not finalized until roughly December of 2010.



Had Rudy been properly prosecuted for his break-in, theft, sexual assault and murder with no mitigations for being part of a group, 'remorse' (claiming he was sorry he didn't do more to 'save her' in court) and his previous burglaries prosecuted as well he'd have been doing more time than the sixteen years he got. His coddling at the hands of Mignini is also responsible for his easy sentence and that occurred because Mignini needed to convict two innocents due to his blundering.

Incidentally the very end of the Massei Report details how the sentencing for Raffaele and Amanda worked, it's not especially easy to follow.

Yes you are quite right. Guede's final tariff came after Massei. My apologies. Your subsequent paragraphs are excellent.

 

[Kaosium]

“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.

Would someone but me care to comment on this post? How did Novelli manage to forget all he said about LT/LCN DNA work for that case when he testified as a hired gun for the prosecution in this case?