Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

In summary, there is a difference between "probable cause" (justifying arrest and possibly enough information for a criminal charge) such as possession of stolen goods as an indication that the possessor obtained them through, for example, a burglary, and "conviction" meaning a court trial has found BARD that the person had committed a burglary.

It is this "subtle" difference that perhaps I did not fully explain, or that you have chosen to ignore.

ETA: And in my original post, I stated that there could be defenses to the charge of burglary. If the charge of burglary did not stick, the charge of possession of stolen goods might.

possession of stolen goods

n. the crime of possession of goods which one knows or which any reasonable person would realize were stolen. It is generally a felony. Innocent possession is not a crime, but the goods are generally returned to the legal owner.

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Possession+of+stolen+goods

So, Grinder, be careful of what goods you pick up off the street or sidewalk!

ETA: Source: Wikipedia (my favorite legal text):

All US states also have laws regarding receipt of stolen property; however, there usually is no minimum dollar amount in many jurisdictions, and, of course, the requirement in Federal law regarding interstate commerce does not apply. Also, in many states (Ohio, for example), the burden to prove criminal intent is not as stringent or is nonexistent.[5] This means that one can be charged with the crime - usually a minor degree of felony - even if the person did not know the item in question was stolen. In the Ohio case of State v. Awad, the goods did not need to actually be stolen, just represented as such.[6]

Receiving stolen property and possession of stolen property are treated as separate offenses in some jurisdictions. The distinguishing element is when the person knew that the property was stolen. If the person knew that the property was stolen at the time he received it, the crime is receiving stolen property. If the person did not know the property was stolen at the time she received it but found out after receiving possession, the crime is possession of stolen property.

The state must prove that the defendant received or possessed the property for a dishonest purpose. If, for example, the person acquired possession for the purpose of returning the property to its lawful owner, no crime has been committed.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rudy lived very nearby Raf's, Amanda and Rudy's paths crossed. Amanda's phone pinged from the same kebab house as Rudy's. Rudy hung around Plaza Grimana to play basketball.

Where on Earth do you get this nonsense from? It's even more risibly wrong that SomeAlibi's mendacious claim that Knox's phone was "within yards" of Guede.

I suspect you don't have the first idea of the primitive way the police attempted to locate the various cellphones in this case, do you? And since you don't know that, you also don't know what is true, what is patently untrue, and what is subject to interpretation (and where the prosecutors and police willfully misinterpreted).

But let's take it in small steps. The first thing you could do is to acknowledge that the highlighted part of your post above is plain wrong. Then we can move to step 2.

 

[Kauffer]

Lots of evidence. Italian tv produced a cctv video of Rudy following Amanda (or possibly Mez) into the cottage. The image is grainy, but the jacket the sinister figure is wearing, matches the quilted jacket Rudy was wearing when caught in Germany.

His travelling freely in the EU indicates EU citizenship, ipso facto, Italian residency at least.

Yes, we know he is a resident.

 

[Grinder]

He had stolen keys too.

Really to what? Whose keys?

 

[Wattson]

Lots of evidence. Italian tv produced a cctv video of Rudy following Amanda (or possibly Mez) into the cottage. The image is grainy, but the jacket the sinister figure is wearing, matches the quilted jacket Rudy was wearing when caught in Germany.

His travelling freely in the EU indicates EU citizenship, ipso facto, Italian residency at least.

"A passport may be required to travel between countries within Europe' however, 26 countries are part of the Schengen Agreement, which means that all internal borders between those countries have been eliminated. You do not need a passport to travel between Schengen Agreement countries.
Schengen countries are: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland."

I was never asked for a passport when I flew from Barcelona to Rome.

 

[LondonJohn]

Lots of evidence. Italian tv produced a cctv video of Rudy following Amanda (or possibly Mez) into the cottage. The image is grainy, but the jacket the sinister figure is wearing, matches the quilted jacket Rudy was wearing when caught in Germany.

His travelling freely in the EU indicates EU citizenship, ipso facto, Italian residency at least.

Yes - it indicates Italian residency, and nothing more than that. In November 2007, as today, Italy and Germany - and all possible countries in-between - were Schengen members, meaning that neither a passport nor a visa was required to travel between them. At the very most, Guede might have needed to show his Italian identity card at the crossing - though in fact it's most likely that the train he was on passed from Italy to (presumably) Austria then into Germany without any customs intervention whatsoever.

 

[Grinder]

Sometimes things are straightforward. It's likely he was traced on CCTV.

What motive would he have to lie?

Oh that he was actually involved in the burglary.

 

[Wattson]

Really to what? Whose keys?

Del Prato just says a set of stolen keys.

 

[LondonJohn]

"A passport may be required to travel between countries within Europe' however, 26 countries are part of the Schengen Agreement, which means that all internal borders between those countries have been eliminated. You do not need a passport to travel between Schengen Agreement countries.
Schengen countries are: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland."

I was never asked for a passport when I flew from Barcelona to Rome.

You just beat me to it

But I guess that our two posts will either fall on deaf ears or (as so often) result in an abandonment of this position (without retraction or acknowledgement of course....) and a move on to yet more spurious - or just plain false - assertions. "Plus ça change...", as I believe it's de rigueur to say in France

 

[Wattson]

You just beat me to it

But I guess that our two posts will either fall on deaf ears or (as so often) result in an abandonment of this position (without retraction or acknowledgement of course....) and a move on to yet more spurious - or just plain false - assertions. "Plus ça change...", as I believe it's de rigueur to say in France

Vixen is only interested in the truth

 

[Bill Williams]

Rudy lived very nearby Raf's, Amanda and Rudy's paths crossed. Amanda's phone pinged from the same kebab house as Rudy's. Rudy hung around Plaza Grimana to play basketball.

Where on Earth do you get this nonsense from? It's even more risibly wrong that SomeAlibi's mendacious claim that Knox's phone was "within yards" of Guede.

I suspect you don't have the first idea of the primitive way the police attempted to locate the various cellphones in this case, do you? And since you don't know that, you also don't know what is true, what is patently untrue, and what is subject to interpretation (and where the prosecutors and police willfully misinterpreted).

But let's take it in small steps. The first thing you could do is to acknowledge that the highlighted part of your post above is plain wrong. Then we can move to step 2.

Vixen has set a record for flooding with factoids which are simply, plain wrong. There is no step 2 for Vixen

 

[Bill Williams]

"A passport may be required to travel between countries within Europe' however, 26 countries are part of the Schengen Agreement, which means that all internal borders between those countries have been eliminated. You do not need a passport to travel between Schengen Agreement countries.
Schengen countries are: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland."

I was never asked for a passport when I flew from Barcelona to Rome.

Here is the Austrian-Italian border......

 

[Grinder]

The police and prosecutor take that a person is in possession of the goods stolen in a burglary as evidence of that person's participation in that burglary. One in possession would then be (very likely) charged with burglary and possession of stolen goods. Then it would be up to a court trial to determine whether or not the individual caught with the goods had committed the burglary, had legitimately acquired them, or was trading in stolen goods. This is where the defense arguments - such as, I found that laptop computer on the sidewalk, and took it with me - would become important.

Only in your imagination has the conviction occurred, since such defenses as having found the stolen objects or even that one that you are scorning, that there was a pawn shop receipt verifying a purchase with legitimate intent, must be considered at trial. I am sure that finding a (stolen) laptop or a diamond ring on the sidewalk - and not it turning in to authorities - would be a great defense in some jurisdictions. You tell me where, though.

In summary, there is a difference between "probable cause" (justifying arrest and possibly enough information for a criminal charge) such as possession of stolen goods as an indication that the possessor obtained them through, for example, a burglary, and "conviction" meaning a court trial has found BARD that the person had committed a burglary.

It is this "subtle" difference that perhaps I did not fully explain, or that you have chosen to ignore.

ETA: And in my original post, I stated that there could be defenses to the charge of burglary. If the charge of burglary did not stick, the charge of possession of stolen goods might.

So you now bring in probable cause.

Evidence of possession of stolen merchandise alone is not evidence of participating in the burglary. If they didn't have more than possession they would most likely not charge but if they did the defendant could easily beat with his story of finding or buying from a stranger. I would hate to see juries convict for burglary only on evidence of possession.

Probable cause for arrest for possession would be clear. Not so much for burglary. They would do more investigating to see if they have a case for burglary.

I believe I've been making the case that just as Rudi was convicted of possession that is the case when burglary can't be proven with more evidence than just the stolen goods.

It is good you allow for defenses.

 

[Grinder]

Rudi didn't know how much real trouble he might be in in Perugia from the police or lawyers after they learned that he had the lawyer's stolen laptop, as well as a small hammer designed to be used to break window glass and a stolen knife. Rudi went to the lawyer to try to contain or reduce potential trouble.

I know you don't want to irritate Anglo but I think you should make it clear these are only your thoughts. I could be that having not stolen the items he wanted to make that clear. He may have rationalized that fencing better than stealing.

 

[Numbers]

Warning: Discussion of an ECHR case follows.

The judgment in PETKOV AND PARNAROV v. BULGARIA 59273/10 has been released.

The above case relates to the conviction for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba of Amanda Knox and her lodging a complaint to the ECHR claiming her Convention rights were violated by Italy in that matter. One particular of Knox's situation is that when she stated during her trial testimony that she had been abused by police during her Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation, she was charged with criminal calunnia against the police, and also named in a civil calunnia action by those police.

In Petkov and Parnarov v Bulgaria, briefly, the two individuals claimed to have been assaulted by police when the two applicants attempted to intervene to protect some girls from attack by other individuals. The police arrested P & P for disrupting public order and they were jailed for 4 days, but subsequently acquitted.

After their release Mr Petkov and Mr Parnarov were examined by a forensic medical expert, who found several injuries which might have been caused by police ill-treatment at the time of their arrest. They then lodged a complaint and a preliminary investigation was conducted, after which no formal decision was taken. However, the prosecutor decided to prosecute Mr Petkov and Mr Parnarov for wrongfully accusing the police officers. Mr Petkov and Mr Parnarov were acquitted by judgment of the Sofia District Court, which judgment was upheld on appeal by the Sofia City Court on 7 November 2011. These courts considered that the applicants were justified in concluding that by arresting them in such a heavy-handed manner instead of assisting them in the wake of the altercation with the other individuals, the police officers had been acting in excess of their authority. Mr Petkov and Mr Parnarov claimed compensation for their wrongful accusation. The Sofia District Court partly upheld Mr Parnarov’s claim, whereas in June 2014 Mr Petkov’s claim was still pending.

Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Petkov and Mr Parnarov complained that they had been ill-treated by the police officers who arrested them. They also complained of the lack of an effective investigation into their complaint and the fact that they themselves had been prosecuted for wrongful accusation.

Violation of Article 3 (treatment)
Violation of Article 3 (investigation)

The case suggests that Amanda Knox's application to ECHR would be considered in light of the degree of investigation or lack of investigation of her claims of police abuse, and that the prosecutor charging her with calunnia against the police for stating a complaint may be viewed unfavorably for Italy by the ECHR.

 

[Grinder]

Del Prato just says a set of stolen keys.

She probably should have said keys that were assumed stolen unless Rudi said they were stolen.

 

[Numbers]

So you now bring in probable cause.

Evidence of possession of stolen merchandise alone is not evidence of participating in the burglary. If they didn't have more than possession they would most likely not charge but if they did the defendant could easily beat with his story of finding or buying from a stranger. I would hate to see juries convict for burglary only on evidence of possession.

Probable cause for arrest for possession would be clear. Not so much for burglary. They would do more investigating to see if they have a case for burglary.
I believe I've been making the case that just as Rudi was convicted of possession that is the case when burglary can't be proven with more evidence than just the stolen goods.

It is good you allow for defenses.

The prosecutor could make the case of probable cause for burglary based on possession. That could help generate a plea bargain for possession. And the further investigation could be done after the arrest. It's not unusual in the US for the prosecutor to charge to the most serious crime likely to have been committed. If the prosecutor could show that the possessor of the goods had the opportunity to burglarize the place where the goods came from, and the possessor did not have good evidence of having obtained them otherwise, the prosecutor may have a case. Certainly, a charge would put pressure on the possessor to name any person who conveyed the stolen goods to him. Or he could use the Grinder defense, of finding them on the sidewalk.

 

[Kauffer]

Yes - it indicates Italian residency, and nothing more than that. In November 2007, as today, Italy and Germany - and all possible countries in-between - were Schengen members, meaning that neither a passport nor a visa was required to travel between them. At the very most, Guede might have needed to show his Italian identity card at the crossing - though in fact it's most likely that the train he was on passed from Italy to (presumably) Austria then into Germany without any customs intervention whatsoever.

"The Schengen Area is the area comprising 26 European countries that have abolished passport and any other type of border control at their common borders, also referred to as internal borders. It mostly functions as a single country for international travel purposes, with a common visa policy. The Area is named after the Schengen Agreement. Countries in the Schengen Area have eliminated internal border controls with the other Schengen members, and strengthened external border controls with non-Schengen states. The Schengen area encourages the free movement of goods, information, money and people."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area#Schengen_Visa_Fee

 

[Grinder]

The prosecutor could make the case of probable cause for burglary based on possession. That could help generate a plea bargain for possession. And the further investigation could be done after the arrest. It's not unusual in the US for the prosecutor to charge to the most serious crime likely to have been committed. If the prosecutor could show that the possessor of the goods had the opportunity to burglarize the place where the goods came from, and the possessor did not have good evidence of having obtained them otherwise, the prosecutor may have a case. Certainly, a charge would put pressure on the possessor to name any person who conveyed the stolen goods to him. Or he could use the Grinder defense, of finding them on the sidewalk.

More to our case, Rudi was charged and convicted for possession. He was charged AFAIK for burglary of the lawyers' office or for breaking into the nursery.

Prosecutors can charge people for lots of things that won't hold up. With no other evidence besides possession I doubt many charge burglary but I'm sure you'll get the stats.

One of reasons burglars use fences is makes that much harder to connect to the more serious crime.

I like the Rudi defense as well; buying from a stranger in a public setting like a train station.

What is clear is that mere possession is not evidence BARD of burglary.

 

[Wattson]

She probably should have said keys that were assumed stolen unless Rudi said they were stolen.

Unless she she knew full well they were stolen.