Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
A conviction for handling stolen goods is not nearly as serious as one for criminal calunnia, which attracts up to six years' imprisonment.
The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29
- Thread starter Bill Williams
- Start date
- Status
A conviction for handling stolen goods is not nearly as serious as one for criminal calunnia, which attracts up to six years' imprisonment.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Nice try...but no one said they were comparable. In fact, no one brought up Knox at all; it was your contention that "Guede has no criminal record of trespassing or breaking in" as if that meant he had no history of doing so. Which of course, we all know he did unless you'd like to claim that Del Prato, the two workmen with her, Tramontano and his girlfriend are all liars.
I suspect you will have a bad case of the vapors when Italy abides by the ECHR findings on the calunnia conviction. You might want to have some smelling salts ready.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
You really can't see the difference between a kid retrieving a ball from a backyard and Guede illegally entering a place of business at night and making himself at home? Well, that does explain a lot.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
As you have been told; the courts did not charge him with trespassing or breaking and entry, so therefore Guede did not do anything illegal in that respect. It could have done so had it probable cause.
The fact Guede was still there in the morning when various workmen arrived tends to support his claim he went there to sleep for the night.
He might have been technically trespassing just like I might have been when I walked along somebody's wall as a kid or rang their doorbell and ran away.
Bagels claim 'Guede had a history of trespassing therefore he is the sole killer' has zippo merit to it.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Vixen's claim the Rudy Guede was a distant cousin of Mignini has zippo merit to it.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
How can I put this...shall I tell him or do you want to...?
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
As you have been told, the Milan prosecutor made the decision not to charge Guede for unknown reasons; but it certainly wasn't because what Guede had done wasn't illegal. Just because someone was not CHARGED with something does not mean what they did wasn't illegal. That really isn't a very difficult concept to understand (for most people). Are you seriously claiming that Guede going into a private place of business without the owner's consent wasn't illegal? Is that why del Prato and the workers held Guede there after calling the police? Was Guede perfectly within the law when he stashed a knife from the school kitchen into his backpack?
Is that why the police hauled his ass into the police station?
"He might have been technically trespassing"[/U][/B]? Remind me of your ridiculous claim when someone lets himself into your apartment some night and you come home to find him with some of your things in his backpack.
It would have zippo merit if that is what Bagels had actually claimed, which he did not. THIS is what he actually said:
Your penchant for misrepresenting/lying about what someone actually says is mind boggling...yet so very predictable.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Now, Bill. Shame on you. I'm sure she presented evidence of that just as she proved Dr. Sollecito attended Rocco's memorial and Raffaele was hanging out with gangsters on the beach in the Dominican Republic. After all, the pictures she provided removed all doubt. Right? And let's not forget the quote from the MR where the money theft charges were 'dropped' and Knox and Sollecito were not acquitted "for not having committed the act". She also proved there were no bars under Filomena's window in Nov. 2007 and that Knox flew home on a privately chartered 747. But her coup de grace was proving that her PR firm was paid at least $2 million. No one can argue with the evidence she presented for that. As she said, it was easily found on the internet in some article where Curt Knox was standing on some stairs somewhere.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
It's strange that some don't realize their posts are etched in stone here, always available to be referred to.
I'm just glad that she apologized for using the victim's familiar name, and undertook to never be creepy again.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
No need. The Supreme Court already told us it wasn't Knox or Sollecito. That leaves Guede. You know, the guy who admits being there during the murder, whose bloody shoe prints are both inside and outside the victim's bedroom, whose DNA in both on and in the body, whose bloody palm print was found under the body, who had cuts on his hands, who fled the country, etc. I know you find that confusing, but we've tried for years to explain it to you.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
They were just typos. Oft repeated typos.
Methos
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 870
On the higlighted parts: I think it's a save bet that the original charge A) - that for whatever reason didn't make it into the judge of first instance's motivation - was breaking and entering.
I'd love to get my hands on the original charges because charges C) and D) apparently also didn't make it into that report (translation)...
It's interesting, that it took 6 years for this "case" to get to a first instance verdict. So that even the prosecution had to ask "per capi F e G NDP per intervenuta prescrizione"... Hmmm...
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
It looks like the same sort of prosecutorial/judicial shennanigans that took place in Curatolo's case. Prosecutors had cast-iron evidence that Curatolo was dealing hard drugs (as well as being an addict himself), yet mysteriously held back on taking the case to court for years and years. Until, in fact, Curatolo was no longer of use to them in the Knox/Sollecito trial process.
To most objective eyes, it looks very suspiciously like police and prosecutors chose to deliberately hold back on trying Curatolo. And it's really not difficult to propose a reasonable motive for them to have done so: Curatolo was potentially a useful informant for them - he lived and dealt on the streets and came into direct contact with (and must have had intimate knowledge of) many of the street criminal in the centre of Perugia. Plus he then of course became a useful "witness" in the Knox/Sollecito trial process in 2007.
It's extremely easy to imagine a scenario where police or prosecutors called Curatolo in, confronted him with the cast-iron case against him, and said to him something along the lines of "We could take you to court any time we like, and you'd be convicted and jailed for a very long time.... or..... you can help us in every way we tell you to, and we'll just put any thoughts of a trial and prison on ice. Do we have a deal, Toto?"
The translation to English that you provide of this "fast-track" trial has the prosecutor requesting:
"The Prosecutor requests:
conviction for charge A for attempted burglary with aggravating circumstances;
for charge B to concede the mitigating circumstances as being equivalent to the aggravating circumstances hence 4 months of imprisonment and 300 Euros fine;
for charge E to recognize the circumstances as per article 648 of the Penal Code hence 3 months of imprisonment and 200 Euros fine;
for charges F and G no possibility to proceed for {exceeding the} statute of limitations."
Thus, according to the translation, Charge A was for Burglary with Aggravating Circumstances.
Regarding the trial, it is noteworthy that it was a "fast-track" trial, called "giudizio abbreviato" - literally, in English "abbreviated trial", "shortened trial", or "summary trial" - meaning a trial held quickly after an accused is identified with no new discovery of evidence. While this type of trial is intended to assure that the accused is tried soon after being identified, if he agrees to such a trial, the verdict was given on 18 February 2013 for a crime in which the accused - Rudy Guede - had been identified on 27 October 2007.
The delay in Guede's trial is an obvious example of official misconduct. The authorities most likely delayed his trial on these charges to secure his cooperation in the wrongful prosecution of Knox and Sollecito and to prevent an official record of Guede's criminal activity prior to the murder/rape of Kercher from potentially diminishing the supposed credibility of his statements against Knox and Sollecito.
It is not clear - apparently not discussed in the Motivation Report - why Charge A was dropped (or simply doesn't appear in the verdict).
Last edited:
I understand that Curalto had given testimony in other cases which I find a suspicious coincidence. If the police had asked Curalto to provide testimony against Amanda and Raffaele in return for not being charged for drug offences, this raises the question why would the prosecution who according to Vixen had a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk case need to resort this tactic.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
*Adopts Francis Urquhart voice* "You might think that (Mattie) - I couldn't possibly comment...."
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Quoting the Marasca-Bruno report incorrectly
Next time that someone tries to claim that the final Marasca Bruno report said that it was factual that Knox and/or Sollecito had been in the cottage at the time of death, the following needs to be posted.
It applies Italian law in relation to the requirement to ascertain the time of death, something that the original investigation did not do. In fact, adopting a time of death sometime between 9 pm Nov 1 and 4:30 am Nov 2 represented investigative incompetence, especially when you factor in that PM Mignini actually prevented the victim's body temperature being taken.
But the salient part from Marasca-Bruno, one of the chief reasons to overturn all the convicting courts for relying on faulty evidence (from the guliter-nutters' translation)....
The convicting courts, and by extension the guilter-nutters, simply moved the TOD to where they needed it to be for any one item of "evidence" to fit in, always ignoring that acc. to the Supreme Court, having the original investigation setting an almost 10-hour window for TOD is either complete incompetence.....
.... or willful tampering to allow the greatest flexibility in fitting in factoid-evidence.
You see, it's not just Section 9.4 of the M/B report that puts the kibosh on guilter-nutter claims, it is 6.2. In other words, the whole report is a trashing of all the former prosecutions as well as the former provisional guilty findings. It was a matter of law that the convicting courts erred in allowing faulty evidence to become decisive.
Next time that someone tries to claim that the final Marasca Bruno report said that it was factual that Knox and/or Sollecito had been in the cottage at the time of death, the following needs to be posted.
It applies Italian law in relation to the requirement to ascertain the time of death, something that the original investigation did not do. In fact, adopting a time of death sometime between 9 pm Nov 1 and 4:30 am Nov 2 represented investigative incompetence, especially when you factor in that PM Mignini actually prevented the victim's body temperature being taken.
But the salient part from Marasca-Bruno, one of the chief reasons to overturn all the convicting courts for relying on faulty evidence (from the guliter-nutters' translation)....
.... or willful tampering to allow the greatest flexibility in fitting in factoid-evidence.
You see, it's not just Section 9.4 of the M/B report that puts the kibosh on guilter-nutter claims, it is 6.2. In other words, the whole report is a trashing of all the former prosecutions as well as the former provisional guilty findings. It was a matter of law that the convicting courts erred in allowing faulty evidence to become decisive.
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers."
(attributed to Socrates)
This certainly explains a lot.
(attributed to Socrates)
This certainly explains a lot.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You and Socrates: 'great minds think alike'.
- Status