Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

After wearing out three keyboards on this, I am now stuck for something to post.

Can world peace be far behind?

Do you like motherhood and apple pie Bill?

 

[marplots]

Now that she's off the hook, can she confess to what she did without consequences?

 

[LashL]

He can't have his sentence increased. It looks like he's got a free shot, depending on the wording of the motivations report, to go for trial review. All upside and no downside.

I would not expect Guede to do that. He has known since day one that he was given a gift when Mignini was assigned to the case and gave Guede an easy out to a lesser sentence. I think that Guede will serve the last bit of his remaining sentence (he should be out soon given the usual discounts for good behaviour and all of that) without making a peep. It seems to me that there would be a huge downside for him to do or say anything to try to re-open his own sentence, in light of the gift that Mignini gave him and the gift that the guilters keep on giving him. I would expect him to just stay quiet, get out at the earliest opportunity, and then relocate to somewhere that nobody recognizes him, comfortable in the knowledge that Mignini and the guilters have downplayed his crimes for him.

 

[Strozzi]

Yes, and put in some statements about doing forensics, especially DNA profiling, according to the recognized international protocols.

But remember, there has never been an instance of contamination in Dr. Stefanoni's forensic lab!

Actually, what she was quoted in English as saying is that she has never heard there was contamination in her lab. Notice the crafty way she worded it. Stefanoni is an evil manipulator.

 

[Kaosium]

Now that she's off the hook, can she confess to what she did without consequences?

She already has, you can relive her entire experience during the time of the murder by smoking a doobie, watching some movies and cuddling with your significant other.

 

[Kaosium]

I suspect that Maresca will have lost much of his appetite for pursuing those actions after today's decision, but I guess we will see in the upcoming months.

Thank you for your expert analysis and it's great to see posting here again. As for the latter part I quoted I'm less optimistic than you, I suspect Maresca will try to recoup his losses and this is one very important reason to hope the ECHR gives a favorable ruling on the original calunnia charge; all the rest of the actions against Amanda and her family stem from what occurred in the Questura that night.

A wild thought just occurred to me regarding Rudy Guede being re-tried: one thing I came across that allows for double jeopardy exceptions in some places is new evidence. What if the semen stain were to be tested and come up Rudy? Would that constitute 'new evidence?'

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Many here seem to be giving Mach slack. I happen to remember all of the foul things he said about Amanda.

Same here. I didn't find him an honorable poster at all. I think people are being too charitable as a result of the giddiness that things finally went the right way.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thank you for your expert analysis and it's great to see posting here again. As for the latter part I quoted I'm less optimistic than you, I suspect Maresca will try to recoup his losses and this is one very important reason to hope the ECHR gives a favorable ruling on the original calunnia charge as all the rest of the actions against Amanda and her family stem from what occurred in the Questura that night.

A wild thought just occurred to me regarding Rudy Guede being re-tried: one thing I came across that allows for double jeopardy exceptions in some places is new evidence. What if the semen stain were to be tested and come up Rudy? Would that constitute 'new evidence?'

Usually new evidence has to be evidence that could not have been adduced, assuming reasonable diligence, first time round. Otherwise you could tactically decide to keep something in reserve, have a dry run and then take a second pot shot later. Obviously, negligent failure to adduce evidence that ought to have been available cannot be grounds for a second trial either.

ETA in a sensible and fair legal system, that is.

 

[Kaosium]

Usually new evidence has to be evidence that could not have been adduced, assuming reasonable diligence, first time round. Otherwise you could tactically decide to keep something in reserve, have a dry run and then take a second pot shot later. Obviously, negligent failure to adduce evidence that ought to have been available cannot be grounds for a second trial either.

That occurred to me as well, I'm not saying this is a good idea without inherent corrupting potential, just that it occurred to me and I wondered if it might be a possibility in the Italian System which seems to have all sorts of legalese like that. Thus I'm not promoting it but merely bringing it up for discussion in the presence of real lawyers and making arguments to while away the time and my own personal curiosity.

Regarding the semen stain it wasn't officially acknowledged until Vinci (defense expert) discovered it halfway through Raffale and Amanda's trial, circa May of 2009. At that point the first part of Rudy's trial was over due to his taking the fast track option and if I understand correctly that's the only place evidence is presented, the rest of the fast track process is just paperwork and court time. By the time the semen stain was (officially) discovered there was no real way to use it against Rudy Guede.

Incidentally, those judges who voted for a clean acquittal and noted the "colossal" errors in the case against them get my own personal Profiles in Courage award this year.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

WOW!!!

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Someone here asked about the civil trial. Isn't that over also?

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I noticed that no one from the probability guilty crowd has posted here with some kind of drive-by BS yet. Wonder why?

That was a rhetorical question, because I know why.

The pleasure of being snarky is over forever.

Damn idiots,

d

-

 

[Samson]

Thank you for your expert analysis and it's great to see posting here again. As for the latter part I quoted I'm less optimistic than you, I suspect Maresca will try to recoup his losses and this is one very important reason to hope the ECHR gives a favorable ruling on the original calunnia charge; all the rest of the actions against Amanda and her family stem from what occurred in the Questura that night.

A wild thought just occurred to me regarding Rudy Guede being re-tried: one thing I came across that allows for double jeopardy exceptions in some places is new evidence. What if the semen stain were to be tested and come up Rudy? Would that constitute 'new evidence?'

Rudy Guede is subject to jeopardy. I believe this happens on final release. Machiavelli, when he returns, will know if this scenario is legally possible.

The Italian newspapers offer a vast sum of money for an interview, on the basis there are no restrictions on questions.

He agrees, and the first question is exactly where did you meet up with Amanda, then exactly where did you meet up with Raffaele, then did you watch Amanda unlock the front door?

 

[Strozzi]

Now that she's off the hook, can she confess to what she did without consequences?

In falsely accusing Knox of involvement in Guede's murder of Meredith Kercher, you are one of those who shield him from full responsibility for his crime.

 

[Strozzi]

Same here. I didn't find him an honorable poster at all. I think people are being too charitable as a result of the giddiness that things finally went the right way.

Mach's mission is to defend Mignini and Stefanoni, two evil manipulators.

 

[LashL]

Thank you for your expert analysis and it's great to see posting here again. As for the latter part I quoted I'm less optimistic than you, I suspect Maresca will try to recoup his losses and this is one very important reason to hope the ECHR gives a favorable ruling on the original calunnia charge; all the rest of the actions against Amanda and her family stem from what occurred in the Questura that night.

A wild thought just occurred to me regarding Rudy Guede being re-tried: one thing I came across that allows for double jeopardy exceptions in some places is new evidence. What if the semen stain were to be tested and come up Rudy? Would that constitute 'new evidence?'

It's good to see you, too.

I expect Ms. Knox's case regarding her callunia conviction to be successful at the ECHR. The circumstances of her interrogations are pretty much text book violations, and I will be very surprised if the ECHR doesn't take that view as well.

As for Guede being retried on the basis of new evidence, no, I do not think that anyone involved in Guede's conviction will try that on. To amount to "new evidence", it typically has to be something that was (a) not known at the time of trial and (b) not available by way of reasonable diligence to have been known at the time of trial. There is a reasonable diligence component, and that does not extend to evidence to which a party was wilfully blind or evidence that a party deliberately ignored. In an application to adduce "new evidence", the party seeking to adduce the evidence has to show that the "new evidence" is not something that they were aware of previously or that they should have been aware of previously by the exercise of reasonable diligence. In the circumstances of this case, I do not think that either Guede or the prosecution could legitimately make such a claim, and I do not think that either of them will go anywhere near that putative semen stain. Everyone has known about the putative semen sample for years, and neither Guede nor the prosecution wanted it tested (or wanted the results of any testing to be made public if the prosecution did actually test it and suppressed that fact).

So, it seems to me that neither Guede nor the prosecution will claim that it is "new evidence" at this stage.

As to whether Maresca continues the other civil actions, you may be right, and he may be foolish enough to go there, but I tend to doubt it. The optics will be very bad. Plus, for him it's always been about how much money he can get out of this case, and there is very little money to be gained in pursuing the remaining claims. He stands to gain next to nothing even if the remaining (ludicrous) civil claims are successful. His only financial payoff would ever have come as his percentage of the multi-million euro judgments he hoped to be able to collect upon in relation to the civil side of the murder charges. With all hope of that payoff gone now, I think he will cut his losses.

As always, though, one never knows, and it will be interesting to see what happens next.

 

[Samson]

Mach's mission is to defend Mignini and Stefanoni, two evil manipulators.

Yet I agree in part with anglolawyer's position. Machiavelli is a man who has run several marathons. He is totally unique. His stamina is beyond question. He is as Bill Williams has said, the most interesting poster encountered on internet. I probably hold a nuanced opinion, but still he has been very important on this thread.

Charlie Wilkes said many months ago, "I expect a good outcome, but I am not sure how."

I have learned a vast amount from his analysis of these types of cases. I am now using material from this forum to try to change things in New Zealand.

ETA. I truly hope RandyN is celebrating.

 

[Strozzi]

Thank you for your expert analysis and it's great to see posting here again. As for the latter part I quoted I'm less optimistic than you, I suspect Maresca will try to recoup his losses and this is one very important reason to hope the ECHR gives a favorable ruling on the original calunnia charge; all the rest of the actions against Amanda and her family stem from what occurred in the Questura that night.

A wild thought just occurred to me regarding Rudy Guede being re-tried: one thing I came across that allows for double jeopardy exceptions in some places is new evidence. What if the semen stain were to be tested and come up Rudy? Would that constitute 'new evidence?'

Maybe Maresca can earn a living defending/protecting various Perugia police and prosecutors in investigations and lawsuits for professional negligence and concealing and destroying evidence.

 

[Desert Fox]

I expect Ms. Knox's case regarding her callunia conviction to be successful at the ECHR. The circumstances of her interrogations are pretty much text book violations, and I will be very surprised if the ECHR doesn't take that view as well.

With the serious conviction overturned, I expect Italy to look for a mutual settlement instead of pushing anything. I think it is what the ECHR prefers anyway, for the two sides to work it out.

 

[Kaosium]

It's good to see you, too.

I expect Ms. Knox's case regarding her callunia conviction to be successful at the ECHR. The circumstances of her interrogations are pretty much text book violations, and I will be very surprised if the ECHR doesn't take that view as well.

As for Guede being retried on the basis of new evidence, no, I do not think that anyone involved in Guede's conviction will try that on. To amount to "new evidence", it typically has to be something that was (a) not known at the time of trial and (b) not available by way of reasonable diligence to have been known at the time of trial. There is a reasonable diligence component, and that does not extend to evidence to which a party was wilfully blind or evidence that a party deliberately ignored. In an application to adduce "new evidence", the party seeking to adduce the evidence has to show that the "new evidence" is not something that they were aware of previously or that they should have been aware of previously by the exercise of reasonable diligence. In the circumstances of this case, I do not think that either Guede or the prosecution could legitimately make such a claim, and I do not think that either of them will go anywhere near that putative semen stain. Everyone has known about the putative semen sample for years, and neither Guede nor the prosecution wanted it tested (or wanted the results of any testing to be made public if the prosecution did actually test it and suppressed that fact).

So, it seems to me that neither Guede nor the prosecution will claim that it is "new evidence" at this stage.

As to whether Maresca continues the other civil actions, you may be right, and he may be foolish enough to go there, but I tend to doubt it. The optics will be very bad. Plus, for him it's always been about how much money he can get out of this case, and there is very little money to be gained in pursuing the remaining claims. He stands to gain next to nothing even if the remaining (ludicrous) civil claims are successful. His only financial payoff would ever have come as his percentage of the multi-million euro judgments he hoped to be able to collect upon in relation to the civil side of the murder charges. With all hope of that payoff gone now, I think he will cut his losses.

As always, though, one never knows, and it will be interesting to see what happens next.

Thank you again and I take your point on the other suits, come to think of it I suspect those were more for propaganda and harassment purposes anyway. The semen stain wasn't (officially) discovered until roughly May of '09 and I'd still like to see it tested, but if it can't be used against Guede it probably never will be now. Oh, well.