Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Teddy2007]

I see. So you reckon anybody from Africa, Asia or the Americas are free to travel around Europe? I don't think so!

Every time I go abroad, even by Eurostar train to Germany, I have had to show my passport, there and back. (At the Uk border)

Yes, at the UK border. That's because the UK opted out of the agreement. The Italian borders with Germany, France, Austria, don't have these controls.

 

[anglolawyer]

I see. So you reckon anybody from Africa, Asia or the Americas are free to travel around Europe? I don't think so!

Every time I go abroad, even by Eurostar train to Germany, I have had to show my passport, there and back. (At the Uk border)

Perhaps that is because the UK is not part of the Schengen area. You seem not to understand that within the Schengen area there are no border controls. I have crossed from France into Belgium, from Belgium into the Netherlands and from the Netherlands into Germany by car dozens of times and have never been required even to stop let alone show my ID.

Vixen, the range of things you seem to know nothing about, while expatiating upon them at large, is truly impressive. I take my hat off. There was once a Russian guy who used to travel round Russia giving lectures on chess despite not knowing how to play. You remind me of him.

ETA and of course multiple ninjas before this post.

 

[Kauffer]

I see. So you reckon anybody from Africa, Asia or the Americas are free to travel around Europe? I don't think so!

Every time I go abroad, even by Eurostar train to Germany, I have had to show my passport, there and back. (At the Uk border)

That's right Vixen. That's because you are a UK citizen. The UK is not part of Schengen. Everybody shows their documents at the UK border.

I go to Germany a lot. When I arrive at the airport there, I show my passport to the nice man in the booth. We say "Guten abend" to each other and then I go on my way. But I am not challenged at the other border crossings.

As for your first paragraph, you seem to be under the impression that people are able to determine matters of nationality and residency on the basis of ethnic appearance. But notwithstanding that, no papers are required. I have friends from India and we deliberately meet in Europe because they get a Schengen visa more easily than a British one. And they cross borders there freely without the need to show documents.

Got it now?

 

[Numbers]

....

Grinder is right. {About conviction for burglary being difficult without evidence of the element of "breaking and entering" by a person in possession of property stolen from the burglarized premises.}

....

A defendant facing burglary charges needs a strong defense. Fortunately, defendants have several options available to counter a burglary accusation. These defenses range from claiming actual innocence to admitting the behavior in question but arguing that it didn't in fact constitute burglary.

Before diving into the most common defenses to burglary charges, it will be useful to reexamine the elements of burglary that the prosecution must prove.

Burglary consists of:

The unauthorized breaking and entry
Into a building or occupied structure
With the intent to commit a crime inside.

Each of these elements forms a necessary component of the overall burglary charge, so if the prosecution fails to prove one element, the entire case will fail.
Actual Innocence

The most basic defense and the one that most defendants will try is a claim of actual innocence. In other words, this defense involves convincing the court that the defendant did not commit the acts in question.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so in order to defeat a burglary charge a defendant must create a plausible doubt in the minds of the jury as to whether the prosecution's evidence truly demonstrates that they committed the crime.
Defendants can call the prosecution's evidence into question in many ways, such as by presenting an alibi or creating doubt as to the scientific reliability of a forensic technique. If the defendant can successfully sow the seeds of doubt among the jury, then an acquittal is likely.
Affirmative Defenses

Another defense tactic consists of admitting to the court that the defendant engaged in the behavior described by the prosecution, but arguing that it does not amount to a crime. Essentially, this involves negating one or more of the elements of burglary listed above.

Defendants commonly make the argument that they had the consent of the owner or occupier of the property to enter, thus there was no unauthorized breaking and entry. This is a particularly effective defense under certain circumstances.

For instance, if a defendant had consent to enter a property and the owner/occupier never explicitly revoked that consent, the defendant has a strong argument that there was no unauthorized breaking and entry. Even if the defendant erroneously believed that they had permission to enter the property, the belief in the consent of the owner could be enough to defeat the burglary charge assuming that the belief was reasonable.

Source: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-defenses.html

If someone is found by police in possession of stolen property, say an expensive computer or jewelry, that can be definitely identified as coming from a place that had been burglarized, I have agreed that if that person can show that he has a defense, such as an alibi or proof that he acquired the stolen property in a legitimate transaction, that person would not be likely, or should not be, charged with burglary.

If the individual does not have that clear defense, the prosecutor may well bring charges for burglary. Then it would be a matter for the jury to consider, if the person denied acquiring the property through burglary. If the jury did not convict for burglary, there would be likely be a conviction on the additional charge of possession of stolen goods, unless there is a good defense for that as well. The indictment is likely to include both charges.

Consider a different crime - bank robbery. The robbers wear masks, etc. and are not easily identified. However, the cash taken had been marked with fluorescent dye, visible under UV. A person is later found in possession of a quantity of such cash, and dye on his hands. How likely is that person to be charged, or convicted of bank robbery? It all depends, obviously, on whether he could reasonably have received the cash without having been involved in the robbery. Time could be an important factor: ten minutes or one hour after the robbery (the money is unlikely to have circulated) v. 10 days later (when the money would have circulated, perhaps). (I am assuming that the dye could persist on the cash for 10 days.)

 

[Numbers]

Rudy Guede's adidas shoes.

Are these the shoes Guede actually wore? I thought he had disposed of those.

 

[anglolawyer]

Source: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-defenses.html

If someone is found by police in possession of stolen property, say an expensive computer or jewelry, that can be definitely identified as coming from a place that had been burglarized, I have agreed that if that person can show that he has a defense, such as an alibi or proof that he acquired the stolen property in a legitimate transaction, that person would not be likely, or should not be, charged with burglary.

If the individual does not have that clear defense, the prosecutor may well bring charges for burglary. Then it would be a matter for the jury to consider, if the person denied acquiring the property through burglary. If the jury did not convict for burglary, there would be likely be a conviction on the additional charge of possession of stolen goods, unless there is a good defense for that as well. The indictment is likely to include both charges.

Consider a different crime - bank robbery. The robbers wear masks, etc. and are not easily identified. However, the cash taken had been marked with fluorescent dye, visible under UV. A person is later found in possession of a quantity of such cash, and dye on his hands. How likely is that person to be charged, or convicted of bank robbery? It all depends, obviously, on whether he could reasonably have received the cash without having been involved in the robbery. Time could be an important factor: ten minutes or one hour after the robbery (the money is unlikely to have circulated) v. 10 days later (when the money would have circulated, perhaps). (I am assuming that the dye could persist on the cash for 10 days.)

Not sure who you have agreed with, Numbers. You and they are both wrong. The accused need show nothing at all. Mere possession of stolen property with nothing more may result in a handling charge but cannot sustain a burglary count.

Your robbery example is simply making the point that more than mere possession is required. In Rudy's case (I assume we are talking about the law firm's lap top) 'more' is present, although it may not be enough - he came from the place where the laptop was stolen, which is a coincidence. I still don't think that would be enough but it's possible. Fingerprints would be better.

 

[Vixen]

Oh that he was actually involved in the burglary.

In the early days, police were looking for two other perps.

 

[Vixen]

No, the statutes have been posted. The benefits require citizenship.

AIUI EU state citizens, which comes with EU residence rights, are entitled to freely work and be eligible for the same rights as home EU citizens, subject to local restrictions, in all other EU countries.

http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=18535

Your claim Rudy had no entitlement to state benefits in Italy does not hold water, and is pure conjecture, to support the dodgy hypothesis, "Rudy had no means of support" normally available to the unemployed/hard up in EU countries.

 

[Kauffer]

AIUI EU state citizens, which comes with EU residence rights, are entitled to freely work and be eligible for the same rights as home EU citizens, subject to local restrictions, in all other EU countries.

http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=18535

Your claim Rudy had no entitlement to state benefits in Italy does not hold water, and is pure conjecture, to support the dodgy hypothesis, "Rudy had no means of support" normally available to the unemployed/hard up in EU countries.

Your position is dependant upon Guede actually receiving state benefits. Do you have evidence of this and if you do can it be deduced from such a fact that Guede did not need to burgle, did not burgle and therefore was at the cottage for other reasons than burglary. It's a helluva stretch in any case. How much income do you think we might be talking about here? Benefits are not generous.

But first you need to provide evidence of receipt of benefits. Your interlocutors do not need to provide evidence to the contrary.

But we have evidence of Guede's impecuniousness, in any case. What do you say to this?

 

[Teddy2007]

AIUI EU state citizens, which comes with EU residence rights, are entitled to freely work and be eligible for the same rights as home EU citizens, subject to local restrictions, in all other EU countries.

http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=18535

Your claim Rudy had no entitlement to state benefits in Italy does not hold water, and is pure conjecture, to support the dodgy hypothesis, "Rudy had no means of support" normally available to the unemployed/hard up in EU countries.

I suggest you move to Italy and sign on. Let me know how that works out for you, but make sure you take enough money with you for your return journey.

 

[RoseMontague]

AIUI EU state citizens, which comes with EU residence rights, are entitled to freely work and be eligible for the same rights as home EU citizens, subject to local restrictions, in all other EU countries.

http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=18535

Your claim Rudy had no entitlement to state benefits in Italy does not hold water, and is pure conjecture, to support the dodgy hypothesis, "Rudy had no means of support" normally available to the unemployed/hard up in EU countries.

The Ivory Coast is not a member of the EU.

 

[Kauffer]

AIUI EU state citizens, which comes with EU residence rights, are entitled to freely work and be eligible for the same rights as home EU citizens, subject to local restrictions, in all other EU countries.

http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=18535

Your claim Rudy had no entitlement to state benefits in Italy does not hold water, and is pure conjecture, to support the dodgy hypothesis, "Rudy had no means of support" normally available to the unemployed/hard up in EU countries.

The Ivory Coast is not a member of the EU.

Vixen can consult this study of the Italian tax and benefits system for 2009. A quick read would appear to indicate that benefits are conditional on previous working salary and paid at a % of that for a limited time - I think it's 240 days @ 40%. There would appear to be no social assistance payments independent of employment. It would seem he was entitled to nothing. Additionally we know that his landlady wanted proof of his employment to demonstrate to her that he could pay his rent.

http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/47346697.pdf

 

[lonepinealex]

Even if Guede was receiving benefits (and by the way Vixen, EU residency rights are not the same as EU citizenship as you've attempted to fudge there), it's not going to be enough to pay his rent as well as buy dope and go out partying.

 

[Vixen]

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.
Quote:
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.

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.

Amanda's big problem here is, she didn't get a medical report, and nor did she make a formal complaint to the police, and we know Italy has a complaints procedure. I am not sure her treatment qualifies as "torture" under Article 3, which would enable her to bypass all this.

In addition, as Amanda made her claims under the legal privilege of a court hearing, Italy is bound to have as a potential defense, the prosecution's right of reply to these charges, which both parties will have at the calunnia hearing.

AIUI all internal processes should be exhausted, before applying to ECHR (except for "torture" under Article 3.

 

[lonepinealex]

Was Guede formally adopted by the Italian family? How long had he been living in Italy?

 

[anglolawyer]

Amanda's big problem here is, she didn't get a medical report, and nor did she make a formal complaint to the police, and we know Italy has a complaints procedure. I am not sure her treatment qualifies as "torture" under Article 3, which would enable her to bypass all this.

In addition, as Amanda made her claims under the legal privilege of a court hearing, Italy is bound to have as a potential defense, the prosecution's right of reply to these charges, which both parties will have at the calunnia hearing.

AIUI all internal processes should be exhausted, before applying to ECHR (except for "torture" under Article 3.

They don't have such privilege in Italy. She is being/was being sued by the dozen or so cops she maligned in her court testimony. I think Numbers has posted ample material to show that the fact she made no formal complaint is no bar to the European Court taking into account her treatment when considering the calumny appeal.

 

[Vixen]

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.

That doesn't make you safe. It could lead to a "conspiracy to steal" type charge which is considered much more serious, with tougher sentences.

 

[RoseMontague]

Vixen can consult this study of the Italian tax and benefits system for 2009. A quick read would appear to indicate that benefits are conditional on previous working salary and paid at a % of that for a limited time - I think it's 240 days @ 40%. There would appear to be no social assistance payments independent of employment. It would seem he was entitled to nothing. Additionally we know that his landlady wanted proof of his employment to demonstrate to her that he could pay his rent.

http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/47346697.pdf

And if your income is not reported, that is paid in cash under the table, do they qualify for any of this?

 

[lonepinealex]

And if your income is not reported, that is paid in cash under the table, do they qualify for any of this?

Not unless they're declaring it and paying tax.

 

[Vixen]

Schengen. Twice Ninja'd

Technically speaking, it's not. The missing ingredient is dishonesty, without which there is no theft. If you found a briefcase containing a million dollars you had better turn that in.

Grinder is right.



The visit to the law firm is a mystery. If Rudy was an informer it could be that his handler told him to straighten things out with the lawyers to persuade them not to press charges as his hands would be tied otherwise. Then came the murder and all bets were off - except the one where his status would be kept secret in return for a cushy prison term without being rubbed out. I speculate.

Well, of course, it wouldn't be theft unless or until you are convicted of it. However, technically, the police have the power of arrest and charge.

Re the lawyer. The lawyer's belief was it was someone seeking to steal confidential legal information, and that it was an insider job. Further, no fingerprint evidence incriminated Rudy.

There is a massive market in stolen electronic equipment. You can't assume the buyer is the thief.