• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
R3 just started with the NHS and Cameron's duplicitous election "promises", then moved on to the acquittal, and then to the plane crash.

The item was worded from the Kercher's point of view, their expressions of shock and surprise, with Knox and Sollecito initially just "two people". The subtext seemed to be that the guilty had got away with it. Maybe longer news bulletins will be more balanced, but the BBC is riddled with biases so who knows.
 
They would have to apply for it, but I think that once they do it's more or less automatic. Anyone found not guilty of a crime in Italy is entitled to a certain amount for each year of unjust imprisonment. Page 15 of this document has more info: "Article 314 of the CPP provides for the possibility of compensation for the unjust period spent in pre-trial detention. In essence, a person acquitted by a conclusive decision is entitled to compensation when he/she is found not guilty [of] the offence".


Wow.
 
...
Guede's convictions will not be annulled. His convictions are final, and there is nobody who would seek to challenge those convictions at this point. Both Guede and the prosecution got what they wanted from those arrangements and Guede's convictions are no longer open to challenge.
...


Rudy Guede was tried and sentenced to the maximum of 30 years. This was automatically reduced by 1/3 for choosing the Fast Track trial.

The penalty in Amanda and Raffaele's first instance conviction was reduced from 30 years to 25 years. From this, Rudy Guede being a codefendant received an automatic reduction in his sentance from 20 years to 16 years.

The question is: Was that 4 year reduction conditional on Amanda and Raffaele being guilty and now with their exoneration does it go away?
 
Rudy Guede was tried and sentenced to the maximum of 30 years. This was automatically reduced by 1/3 for choosing the Fast Track trial.

The penalty in Amanda and Raffaele's first instance conviction was reduced from 30 years to 25 years. From this, Rudy Guede being a codefendant received an automatic reduction in his sentance from 20 years to 16 years.

The question is: Was that 4 year reduction conditional on Amanda and Raffaele being guilty and now with their exoneration does it go away?


This is what I was wondering when I asked above whether A & R were specifically named as the co-perpetrators in Guede's trial, or whether it was just two other people. This will also have implications for the ISC's motivation report.
 
Rudy Guede was tried and sentenced to the maximum of 30 years. This was automatically reduced by 1/3 for choosing the Fast Track trial.

The penalty in Amanda and Raffaele's first instance conviction was reduced from 30 years to 25 years. From this, Rudy Guede being a codefendant received an automatic reduction in his sentance from 20 years to 16 years.

The question is: Was that 4 year reduction conditional on Amanda and Raffaele being guilty and now with their exoneration does it go away?

I don't think this is quite right.

He got life, which in fast track is automatically reduced to 30 years - 1st trial

On appeal he got a reduction to 24 years and then an automatic one third discount on this to leave him at 16 years.

His sentencing cannot be uprated as far as I am aware in any circumstances and he cannot be retried for any crime based on the same facts - but, if the motivations report from cassation this time states that there were not multiple attackers, he might be able to claim that the crime he was convicted of - 'with others' - no longer exists which would entitle him to review of trial or even suspension or annulment of sentence.

This requires more analysis.
 
Last edited:
I share others' view that this is less about seeing the biggest culprits (especially Stefanoni, Mignini, most of the Perugia Flying Squad) punished per se. Rather, to me it's about a) seeing those people properly held to account, and b) taking all proper steps to minimise the chances of this sort of thing happening again.

So I think Stefanoni should be subjected to an investigation, and (after due process) removed from the forensic science community. I think Mignini should be investigated by the appropriate body, and (after due process) removed from his position of authority and formally censured over his conduct in this case. I think that most of the Perugia Flying Squad should face disciplinary investigations.

But on top of that, I think that certain structural changes need to happen, to try to minimise the chances of this happening again. Firstly, the police and courts need to get a grip on low-template DNA evidence, and put all the crucial protocols and processes into place. Secondly, the (seemingly ad hoc) practice of sending lab technicians out to process crime scenes should be formally forbidden. Italy must make sure that specialised crime scene investigators are trained and available for this sort of work. Thirdly, I think that the top brass of the Italian judiciary - probably the Constitutional Court - need to sort out the institutionalised problem of the improper relationship between trial judges and prosecutors. They need to ensure that the adversarial system is rigorously enforced, that there is full and open discovery to the defence, that defendants truly ARE treated by the courts as innocent until/unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And lastly, I think Italian legislators urgently need to draft new laws concerning police/PM practices during an investigation - something similar to the UK's PACE act.

I agree with most of what you say. I disagree with blaming Stefanoni. She operated within a system, and her practice was probably no better or worse than others. There was a director of the laboratory whose responsibility it was to ensure SOPs were in place, there was a system to monitor standards and ensure staff were appropriately trained and equipped. These were systematic errors. I do agree much could be learned from the UK system, which has tried to address these issues. There should be a Forensic science regulator who sets standards and with whom forensic scientists need to be registered. The equivalent of the PACE act and the introduction of PEACE type interviews are needed. Picking on individuals will not address the systematic failures. I do not think that Knox was uniquely badly treated, but what it led to was people with different expectations asking questions, and it could no longer be business as usual.
 
...
I would like to see Rudy give an interview and tell what he knows and did, without fear of additional charges, have the media pay millions, and have the money used to pay off his civil debt to the Kerchers.

That way, Rudy could get a fresh start, Kerchers get the truth and some compensation, and it removes any last lingering uncertainty among the public as to innocence and responsibility.


The division of the civil penalty is another issue I'm not sure of. In the first level trials there was an assigned penalty to be paid by all of the defendants that are found guilty. The question is: Had the division of that penalty been finalized for Rudy so that with the exonerations the Kerchers (and their lawyer) lost 2/3rds of what they were awarded?
 
I'd been trying to expunge the case from my mind as much as possible since the second conviction, so my knowledge of what's unfolded recently isn't all it could be. I'm gathering though that there was a change in the public and media mood in Italy over the past few months, which may or may not have had a bearing on how this was resolved. I wonder how much this might have had to do with Sollecito's heroic decision - foolhardily so, I long thought - to remain in Italy. From the limited impression I've received, this finally caused the story in Italy to become as much about him as Knox -- and he presented a far more favourable image in the court of public opinion than she did.
 
I'd been trying to expunge the case from my mind as much as possible since the second conviction, so my knowledge of what's unfolded recently isn't all it could be. I'm gathering though that there was a change in the public and media mood in Italy over the past few months, which may or may not have had a bearing on how this was resolved. I wonder how much this might have had to do with Sollecito's heroic decision - foolhardily so, I long thought - to remain in Italy. From the limited impression I've received, this finally caused the story in Italy to become as much about him as Knox -- and he presented a far more favourable image in the court of public opinion than she did.

I don't think his decision to stay in Italy was 'foolhardy'. If he had skipped town before the Nencini verdict he could never have claimed the moral high ground - it would have had a profound negative effect on the appellate process.

I do agree that he fought a great and heroic fight on a number of different fronts and that it was all helpful to him.
 
Last edited:
Potpourri

This thread is moving so quickly that it is difficult to keep up. I think if Guede mentioned that he had been downstairs and had taken a pair of pants, then I would find him more credible. If he could help to find the knife, then that would definitely boost his credibility.

With respect to the bra clasp, I agree that the autosomal profile is challenging to interpret. I think that Raf cannot be excluded as a possible contributor to the YSTR profile (along with both his male relatives and an unknown number of unrelated men).

I just wanted to give a shout out to David Marriott for sending along that new Maserati before he closed up shop. VROOM!
 
For as long as it looked like he was going to be convicted and imprisoned, which certainly seemed to be the general expectation, it certainly looked foolhardy. Didn't his father advise him to stay in Costa Rica (I think it was)? Also, it wasn't my understanding that there would have been an appellate process if the conviction was upheld yesterday.
 
For as long as it looked like he was going to be convicted and imprisoned, which certainly seemed to be the general expectation, it certainly looked foolhardy. Didn't his father advise him to stay in Costa Rica (I think it was)? Also, it wasn't my understanding that there would have been an appellate process if the conviction was upheld yesterday.


There wouldn't, except for the ECHR.
 
(And I feel strangely confident that Stilicho, if he ever resurfaces, will promote the idea that it's only a matter of time before Knox and/or Sollecito "kill again".........)

Did he get banned or just disappeared after the verdict? I saw one of them ask where he was but no one answered.
 
Is there anything Guede could say that would convince us of his truthfulness? How could we be sure he was not just pushing some angle? I suppose he could lead us to the knife, assuming he recalls roughly where he tossed it and it's still there. If he just parroted the lone wolf theory as hypothesised by most of us why would we be justified in accepting his word?


He could provide a narative that is not contradicted by the known facts. He has considerable leeway in spinning his version given that just about every fact that is knowable is already known.

If Rudy were to accept responsibility, he could provide closure that the Kerchers could accept. The truth which Rudy knows likely diverges from what we have pieced together. This would at least give us something to discuss.
 
This thread is moving so quickly that it is difficult to keep up. I think if Guede mentioned that he had been downstairs and had taken a pair of pants, then I would find him more credible. If he could help to find the knife, then that would definitely boost his credibility.

With respect to the bra clasp, I agree that the autosomal profile is challenging to interpret. I think that Raf cannot be excluded as a possible contributor to the YSTR profile (along with both his male relatives and an unknown number of unrelated men).

I just wanted to give a shout out to David Marriott for sending along that new Maserati before he closed up shop. VROOM!

You got a Maserati? I got a bus pass!
 
One thing I would really like to see is Amanda and/or Raffaele getting a court order somewhere to force the hate guilter forums to be taken down.

I don't suppose anyone can stop them continuing to discuss the case, so long as they stay on the right side of defamation, but the stuff that is already there is horrendously defamatory and damaging and the world would be a better place if the only place you could access it was the Wayback Machine.

Does anyone know if it's legally possible, or does it all come under free speech?

It surely is. The Law Society got a wide ranging injunction against the web-site Solicitors From Hell a few years ago. It still exists but in watered down form. There are also criminal laws governing online abuse and harassment.
 
I'd been trying to expunge the case from my mind as much as possible since the second conviction, so my knowledge of what's unfolded recently isn't all it could be. I'm gathering though that there was a change in the public and media mood in Italy over the past few months, which may or may not have had a bearing on how this was resolved. I wonder how much this might have had to do with Sollecito's heroic decision - foolhardily so, I long thought - to remain in Italy. From the limited impression I've received, this finally caused the story in Italy to become as much about him as Knox -- and he presented a far more favourable image in the court of public opinion than she did.

IMO the separation strategy worked. There were many who believed the separation strategy was the equivalent of throwing Amanda under a bus.

In my view, it forced Cassazione to take the two of them one at a time, rather than both together. The millstone around Sollecito's judicial neck was that he was being convicted on pseudo-evidence about Amanda; that when you looked at it, had nothing to do with him.

So take it one at a time. Forget Amanda Knox. Where's the evidence to convict Raffaele?

Your mileage may vary, but if you come to the conclusion that there isn't any, THEN and ONLY THEN bring Amanda back into the equation. If Raffaele is innocent and obviously innocent, what then is the case against Amanda? That a 20-year-old foreigner broke under interrogation?

Raffaele is innocent. Amanda is innocent. Raffaele AND Amanda are innocent. All three of those things are true, and demonstrably true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom