Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

You do realise that:

a) Sollecito - and Knox - has been acquitted and effectively pronounced innocent by the Italian courts; and

b) The available evidence* (and lack of evidence) shows clearly that Sollecito - and Knox - almost certainly had nothing whatsoever with the attack and murder of Kercher,

don't you?



* That is to say: credible, reliable evidence.

a) they did not "pronounce innocent" - in fact they said the pair behaved highly suspiciously.

b) even Bruno and Marasca had to admit Amanda and very likely Raff was there at the scene.

 

[Vixen]

While I understand your point Grinder, Rudy would have to persuade a jury that he didn't burglarize the law office and that he just bought those stolen items,. Considering the discovery of the stolen items was made while he was found illegally in another business I don't think his chances are very good. Also keep in mind that the standard is much different in a civil trial vs a criminal trial. The preponderance of evidence shows Rudy to be a burglar. Is that the same as beyond a reasonable doubt? No.

The question is, is it more likely than not that Rudy was committing a burglary at CT or the law office or the nursery or the cottage. Given that he is suspected at not 1 but 4 different businesses/residences I'd say he has 2 chances of winning that suit, slim and none.

There was no "preponderance of evidence". Police will have taken fingerprint samples from the burglary and they obviously did not match any to Rudy. All they could charge him with was handling stolen property, for which there was "a preponderance of evidence". Please think before putting hackneyed clichés into words, as they are meaningless, without substance.

 

[acbytesla]

a) they did not "pronounce innocent" - in fact they said the pair behaved highly suspiciously.

b) even Bruno and Marasca had to admit Amanda and very likely Raff was there at the scene.

You can say that forever...but it won't stop that from being a hypothetical.

 

[acbytesla]

There was no "preponderance of evidence". Police will have taken fingerprint samples from the burglary and they obviously did not match any to Rudy. All they could charge him with was handling stolen property, for which there was "a preponderance of evidence". Please think before putting hackneyed clichés into words, as they are meaningless, without substance.

You need to keep up. We are discussing whether it is illegal to refer to Rudy as a burglar. It is not. Rudy is a burglar. Is he a convicted burglar? No. But that doesn't mean he's not a burglar.

 

[Grinder]

Do keep up. bagels said police should have known Rudy would go on to kill Meredith, as he was a burglar. I merely challenged what is a false premise. To you, it might be given "Rudy was a burglar who went onto kill, when interrupted burgling", as you are an ardent pro-Knox advocate. A more neutral person such as a judge, will not "just take bagels' word for it".

No Bagels said that had Rudi been in jail for burglary Meredith most certainly would be alive today.

 

[sept79]

It was an error in that Mignini's administrators omitted to give Raff written notice he could consult a lawyer now he was arrested. We can infer it was an error, rather than obstruction of justice, as Raff was told this verbally and a police transcipt proves it. In addition, Raff did consult with his counsel, so no actual rights denied

Was it also an error by Mignini's administrators which prevented Amanda Knox from consulting an attorney during the same time period as Sollecito ?

 

[acbytesla]

Was it also an error by Mignini's administrators which prevented Amanda Knox from consulting an attorney during the same time period as Sollecito ?

It's such a farce to hear Vixen say this was a minor error. Ooooops, you spent 4 years in prison.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you reread the articles about this issue, you will note Mignini's defence is, as I set out, above. Bongiorno's ex-compatriot in the Italian goverrnment - the presiding judge - decided to uphold the complaint with a censure. Mignini can appeal to the ISC, as he did before.

It reeks of politics.

Shall I repeat the question:

When, precisely, did Sollecito have the first chance to communicate/confer with his lawyer(s) after the time of his arrest and detention in the early hours of 6th November 2007?

As a fleshing-out of that question: when did Sollecito have a chance to communicate/confer with his lawyer(s) between his arrest/detention and his appearance before the court three days later?

As I said before, it would be better all round if you would a) read the question(s) properly, b) provide concise and unambiguous answers, and c) not address something entirely different in your answer. It is, after all, you who have repeatedly claimed that Sollecito "did confer with his lawyers" in (presumably, from the context of your assertion - give that you're trying to minimise the Migini censure as a "minor administrative error" with no real-world adverse consequences for Sollecito) an acceptable and "normal" time frame after his arrest.

So, go ahead. Have a go at actually answering the question. OR..... withdraw your claim that Sollecito had/has nothing to complain about regarding any denial of access to a lawyer on the part of Mignini. I look forward to seeing one or the other forthwith.

 

[Grinder]

While I understand your point Grinder, Rudy would have to persuade a jury that he didn't burglarize the law office and that he just bought those stolen items,. Considering the discovery of the stolen items was made while he was found illegally in another business I don't think his chances are very good. Also keep in mind that the standard is much different in a civil trial vs a criminal trial. The preponderance of evidence shows Rudy to be a burglar. Is that the same as beyond a reasonable doubt? No.

The question is, is it more likely than not that Rudy was committing a burglary at CT or the law office or the nursery or the cottage. Given that he is suspected at not 1 but 4 different businesses/residences I'd say he has 2 chances of winning that suit, slim and none.

You have it backwards but I really don't care. The person that made the claim needs to show that it is true if truth is the defense. In the US honestly believing he was burglar would be enough, not so much in England. Rudi would not have to prove it is false but it will never happen for many reasons.

By the way, his possession of the nursery knife is not burglary since it wasn't removed from the nursery. Walking around a store with something from the store in one's pocket is not shoplifting until one leaves the store.

 

[LondonJohn]

a) they did not "pronounce innocent" - in fact they said the pair behaved highly suspiciously.

b) even Bruno and Marasca had to admit Amanda and very likely Raff was there at the scene.

You don't understand the Marasca motivations report at all. You're totally wrong.

You also still have no comprehension of the presumption of innocence and the state's burden of proof. Sad.

 

[Bill Williams]

You could be right. I know of many professional organizations where it is well within their bylaws for a colleague to bring an accusation of misconduct of a peer, where the complainant is not the subject of the accusation.

While interesting to drill down on the mechanics of how complaints arise and are adjudicated, if one is censured in such a manner - they are not going to be a happy camper, and they may want to have a look at their retirement package.

He is allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Hopefully Mignini is allowed to do as you say.

What's your point?

 

[Grinder]

It was an error in that Mignini's administrators omitted to give Raff written notice he could consult a lawyer now he was arrested. We can infer it was an error, rather than obstruction of justice, as Raff was told this verbally and a police transcipt proves it. In addition, Raff did consult with his counsel, so no actual rights denied

He did not consult with his counsel after arrest or during the interrogation as a suspect. They omitted written notice that he COULDN'T consult an attorney. How was he to contact an attorney while be held in solitary? He was held as the equivalent of a Mafia member.

Provide the transcript please.

 

[LondonJohn]

He did not consult with his counsel after arrest or during the interrogation as a suspect. They omitted written notice that he COULDN'T consult an attorney. How was he to contact an attorney while be held in solitary? He was held as the equivalent of a Mafia member.

Provide the transcript please.

Unfortunately, Vixen is making up a story out of whole cloth. Sollecito should have been able to have been visited in detention by his lawyer(s) as early as the morning of 6th November.

And in fact (associated with, but unrelated directly with, the reasons for the Mignini censure) there's also a strong case to be made that Sollecito should have been cautioned and given access to a lawyer the previous evening (5th November), when it became clear that the police were accusing him of having repeatedly lied to them about Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder. After all, this shows de facto that the police considered Sollecito to be, at the very least, a suspect of lying to the police to obstruct an investigation: a pretty serious criminal offence in itself.

 

[acbytesla]

You have it backwards but I really don't care. The person that made the claim needs to show that it is true if truth is the defense. In the US honestly believing he was burglar would be enough, not so much in England. Rudi would not have to prove it is false but it will never happen for many reasons.

By the way, his possession of the nursery knife is not burglary since it wasn't removed from the nursery. Walking around a store with something from the store in one's pocket is not shoplifting until one leaves the store.

I think we are quibbling. You're right, my description is a little bit backward. Your description is better. Is it reasonable for someone to believe Rudy is a burglar. I think we both agree the answer is yes.

But I'm afraid your analogy about the knife is wrong. This is not a department store which one is there legally but a business where Rudy is there illegally. I assure you if you were apprehended with jewelry and electronics in your backpack in a home you were trespassing you would be charged with burglary. That you were caught before you could escape with the goods would be irrelevant.

 

[Grinder]

Unfortunately, Vixen is making up a story out of whole cloth. Sollecito should have been able to have been visited in detention by his lawyer(s) as early as the morning of 6th November.

And in fact (associated with, but unrelated directly with, the reasons for the Mignini censure) there's also a strong case to be made that Sollecito should have been cautioned and given access to a lawyer the previous evening (5th November), when it became clear that the police were accusing him of having repeatedly lied to them about Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder. After all, this shows de facto that the police considered Sollecito to be, at the very least, a suspect of lying to the police to obstruct an investigation: a pretty serious criminal offence in itself.

yes that's why I wrote He did not consult with his counsel after arrest or during the interrogation as a suspect.

Another thought is how interesting the police would have a transcript of them telling him he couldn't access an attorney because he was considered too dangerous and would use his connections to disrupt the investigation, which is why the exception law exists.

Though not easy to find I would wager the need for the written reasoning is that it is given to the judge and maybe even the attorney but telling Raf would do nothing since he was held incommunicado. One would hope the judge would have seen the written order and said "whoa! let him have counsel."

 

[Grinder]

I think we are quibbling. You're right, my description is a little bit backward. Your description is better. Is it reasonable for someone to believe Rudy is a burglar. I think we both agree the answer is yes.

But I'm afraid your analogy about the knife is wrong. This is not a department store which one is there legally but a business where Rudy is there illegally. I assure you if you were apprehended with jewelry and electronics in your backpack in a home you were trespassing you would be charged with burglary. That you were caught before you could escape with the goods would be irrelevant.

I happen to believe that he was let in and was primarily only there to sleep. The definition of burglary is interesting: entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime

So by that definition if one broke in only to sleep and the stole would it be burglary?

If burglary requires theft then having possession isn't enough but it doesn't...

burglary n. the crime of breaking and entering into a structure for the purpose of committing a crime. No great force is needed (pushing open a door or slipping through an open window is sufficient) if the entry is unauthorized. Contrary to common belief, a burglary is not necessarily for theft. It can apply to any crime, such as assault or sexual harassment, whether the intended criminal act is committed or not. Originally under English Common Law burglary was limited to entry in residences at night, but it has been expanded to all criminal entries into any building, or even into a vehicle.

 

[acbytesla]

I happen to believe that he was let in and was primarily only there to sleep. The definition of burglary is interesting: entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime

So by that definition if one broke in only to sleep and the stole would it be burglary?

If burglary requires theft then having possession isn't enough but it doesn't...

burglary n. the crime of breaking and entering into a structure for the purpose of committing a crime. No great force is needed (pushing open a door or slipping through an open window is sufficient) if the entry is unauthorized. Contrary to common belief, a burglary is not necessarily for theft. It can apply to any crime, such as assault or sexual harassment, whether the intended criminal act is committed or not. Originally under English Common Law burglary was limited to entry in residences at night, but it has been expanded to all criminal entries into any building, or even into a vehicle.

But the knife was found inside his backpack so it appears that he intended to steal that at the least. Probably the knife was not his intent when he was breaking in, but that is irrelevant to the point. I as you know do not believe he was let in and I believe his original intent was to steal.

 

[bagels]

Why do ALL the judges who have reviewed the case in detail (Micheli, Matteini, Massei, Nencini, Marasca) agree there was more than one perpetrator?

Your claim to know better could be seen to be delusional.

In addition, why do Amanda and Raff claim there was only one perp so vociferously? An innocent person surely would defer to forensic knowledge, as they would not know.

It's a dead giveaway when Raff repeats the same old ******** in his latest book about the morning of 2 Nov 2007 and proclaims, "there is only one person who did this: Rudy!"

It is hard to feel sympathy for a fellow so shallow and devoid of any depth. No wonder Mignini was moved to label Raff, "icy cold". Raff wears his sangfroid on his sleeve and it's hard not to feel nauseated at his supercilious smirking face in interviews.

I do personally think there was one perpetrator because that's all there is in the evidence. With that being said you're again putting words in my mouth. I said if the only man known for a fact to have left his DNA inside Meredith's genitals, and the only man known for a fact to have been covered in Meredith's blood enough to be spreading it around the cottage, was locked up instead that night, Meredith's odds of survival would have been significantly improved. That doesn't say anything about the number of perpetrators, it's just a basic rational conclusion that the PGP in theory should agree with but in reality they don't because they have a bizarre obsession with Amanda which causes a hyper reaction against her and to do things like ignore Rudy and his crimes.

BTW you forgot to list Hellmann. Pretending as if his court has been erased from history like someone from Stalin's Great Purge is another testament to PGP delusion.

 

[RWVBWL]

Was Rudy caught inside the nursery? Was he in possession of the knife from the kitchen? Was Rudy in possession of a laptop and a cell phone stolen from a burglary that took place near his home only weeks befofe?

Clear?

Hiya ACbyTesla!
I was doin' some diggin' awhile back, as Grinder kept harpin' on the Nina angle. Finally gave up, as I don't speak nor read Italian, Google and the other translatin' sites kinda suck. And bein' as I'm over 50 nowadays, still young in mind, but gettin' older in body, well that silly request did take up a lil' bit of the last 50 years of my life, if I live to be reaaally old, ya know? Hahaha.


Besides,
it's all a waste of time,
Amanda Knox + [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollecito[/SIZE] are FREE!
Right?


Anyways, check this out.
Reading in some of the Italian Forums about this case you all still discuss daily, found by using Google.IT and digging thru many newspapers, etc. I found a lil gem that I'd never read of before. I might even have saved a link to it somewhere.

The Italian poster wrote that the backpack Rudy Guede had with him,
when busted in The Nursery School on Oct. 27th (with a huuuge kitchen knife inside, I seem to recall) well it was the same 1, I guess same name brand, color, style, etc, as 1 backpack that was stolen from Mrs. Diaz flat just a coupla days earlier, on Oct. 23rd.

If true,
well that's kinda odd.

What,
did "poor" Rudy purchase the backpack too when he bought the stolen laptop from The Lawyers Office at the train station in Milan?
Hmmmm.

See ya,
RW

 

[christianahannah]

Too funny and glad to see Migi getting sanctioned. IIRC, this was mentioned in Raffaele's first appeal. I expect to see more come out.

It was mentioned even before this. It is discussed in the Massei Motivations on pages 17 and 18;

At the hearing of January 16, 2009 the Defence for Sollecito, in limine litis, inferred the nullity of the interrogatory session by the magistrate to which the defendant had been subjected because of the violation of his right to assistance – it was affirmed that the Prosecutor, when Sollecito had been subjected to police arrest, had deferred the exercising of the right to confer with his Defence, without however issuing the required decree with the report on the grounds for arrest, as is evidenced by the physical unavailability of the provision of Article 104 section 3 of the criminal procedure code, not present in the acts; for this reason the inefficacy of the remand measure taken out against Sollecito is pleaded consequent to the nullity of the interrogatory session taken at the hearing for the ratification of the arrest; the violation of the right to a defence is inferred, in so much as the obligation to [5] deposit the acts of the investigation before the admission of the interrogatory session itself.

And so on. I only excerpted the first part.