Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Sherlock, what's funny is that the majority of "botches" and "lies" made by the police, are facts and not conjecture. The irony of your post is that the pro-guilt side are the ones who overlook all the well-documented errors made by police and overlook them because they believe Amanda and Raf have to be guilty.

Here are some examples of how "tunnel vision" is blinding the pro-guilt side:

1. Believing the Luminol prints are for a fact bloody footprints despite testing negative for blood, and despite the pesky conundrum that no Luminol prints of Amanda or Raf were found in the actual bedroom where the murder occurred. This, along with Amanda's DNA in the bathroom, offer the much more plausible explanation that since Amanda lived there it would only be natural to find her footprints and DNA there.

2. Believing the bathmat print is Rafaelle's despite the fact that Raf has an abnormally shaped big toe which is completely different in shape from the print, yet matches Rudy's print in numerous ways.

3. Believing the break-in was staged by Amanda and Raf despite the highly unlikely coincidence that it matches Rudy's m.o. of breaking into the law office just weeks prior.

4. Believing the double DNA knife is the murder weapon despite it testing negative for blood, and more importantly, that it requires believing in a bizarre scenario in which Amanda borrows from her boyfriend of a few days a large kitchen knife to keep in her purse.

5. Full faith in the police and their forensics results despite numerous documented mistakes such as attributing Rudy's shoeprint to Raf, destroying multiple hard drives, not running control tests, lying about their arrival time at the cottage, lying about entering the murder room before the carabinieri arrived, lying in court about the negative blood results, arresting Patrick without first interrogating him even though Amanda's story was not an eyewitness account of him committing the murder, etc...

6. Undying faith in witnesses despite contradictory statement by them, even one which gives Amanda and Raf an alibi.

7. Complete denial that Amanda's misremembering of details could be anything but malicious lies despite the fact that they wouldn't gain her anything and despite the fact that others in this case suffered the same problems.

8. Complete denial that Amanda's false confession could possibly be the result of coercion from the police, despite knowing that LE were convinced from the get-go that she had planned to meet someone the night of the murder and would not budge from that notion, despite the fact that Amanda knew Patrick had a cast iron alibi, despite the fact that false confessions are a documented occurrence, despite the fact that the interrogation was strangely not recorded when Mignini states he recorded all the witness and roommate interrogations, despite her being denied a lawyer when she requested one, despite the fact that she immediately afterwards wrote that she was unsure of what she had told the police.

9. Belief in a "Reefer Madness"-type scenario where smoking pot causes two young people to kill a friend despite no motive and without prior signs of violent tendencies. This has resulted in creating the lie that they were LSD and cocaine users.

10. Unquestioning faith in the court's decision, despite the fact that people have been wrongfully incarcerated and exonerated since the dawn of time.

11. Believing there was a clean-up despite no evidence of one.

12. Paranoia resulting in complete denial that anyone in the media could honestly advocate the pair's innocence, certainty that they must only be doing it for money reasons, and the subsequent character assassinations/ad hominem attacks that occur to suppress what they are saying (Hampikian, Dempsey, Waterbury, Moore, Heavey).

Nice post. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It takes a leap of faith to believe that Raffaele and the Knox girl are guilty.

 

[Mary_H]

Do you read Italian? If so could you tell me what 'culunnia'--or however you spell the word that is translated as 'slander'--means? I can't find a damn thing about it in English, though it appears there's some pages out there on it in Italian.

Kaosium, I found some more information about calunnia, written by "Ivstitia," an Italian living in the U.S. who used to post quite a bit about the case. This is from an examiner.com article; he makes additional comments about the topic further down the page.

If a police officer had beaten up Amanda s/he would have committed a crime.
Amanda therefore accused the police of having committed a crime.
If that accusation were not true, then Amanda would have committed Calumny (knowingly accusing someone of a crime). That may be just a civil matter in America, but in Italy it is considered a crime according to art. 368 of the Penal Code, which is punisheable with 2 to 6 years in prison. (Amanda already got 24 years for murder + 2 years for such crime in the Lumumba case).

Unlike in the US law system, where the prosecutor has discretion on which criminal cases to pursue or not, in Italy criminal action by the prosecution is mandatory, and the prosecutor has no discretion not to pursue it. This rule is set forth in Art. 112 of the Italian Constitution which states:
"The prosecutor has the obligation to pursue the penal action". This principle was therefore included in the art. 50 of the Code of Penal Procedure.

THE PENAL CODE ARTICLE ON WHICH THESE CHARGES ARE BASED.

Art. 368.
Calunnia.
Chiunque, con denunzia, querela , richiesta o istanza, anche se anonima o sotto falso nome, diretta all'autorità giudiziaria o ad un'altra autorità che a quella abbia obbligo di riferirne, incolpa di un reato taluno che egli sa innocente, ovvero simula a carico di lui le tracce di un reato, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni.

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION BELOW)

Article 368.
Slander.
Anyone who, with denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even if anonymously or under a false name, directed to the court or other authority that has the obligation to report it, blames someone of a crime that s/he knows innocent, or anyone who stages a crime against another person, is punished with imprisonment from two to six years.


http://www.examiner.com/political-b...st-amanda-knox-senator-cantwell-s-cause-celeb

 

[RoseMontague]

My understanding is that Rudy"s appeal judge (Borsini) did not have to grant him a reduction in sentence, that it was not automatic due to the fast track nature of the trial. It appears he granted him a reduction based on the fact that he named Amanda and Raffaele as helping him with the assault, he said he was sorry for what he did, he had a hard childhood, and he did not fight extradition from Germany. The appeal judge did not accept his plea that he tried to help Meredith by trying to stop the blood with the towels and did not call for help because of no phone around. Sounds pretty generous to me for someone that accused others that are innocent and of striking the fatal stab wounds. The judge accepted that he did not stage the break in and believes Amanda let him in the flat. It appears that his earlier story of being on the toilet and struggling with a stranger was not accepted (or possibly was accepted as the stranger actually being Raffaele?).

Michiavelli (or anyone else), can you explain how this works; it seems to me the first reduction was automatic in the initial trial phase due to the fast track nature of the trial but not at the appeal stage. I could be misunderstanding this and would appreciate some clarification.

 

[Machiavelli]

The bottom line is Rudy may very well be out in the relatively near future and Amanda and Raffaele now potentially face 'life' in prison. Gee, that worked out well for him, didn't it?

Now, why would he have ever tried to avoid implicating Raffaele and Amanda? That's the question that must be avoided, isn't it?

That sort of thing is all over the timeline, which is why no coherent rational theory of their involvement can be constructed.

That makes no sense. I don't know what is the problem to you. Rudy didn't try to avoid implicating Raffaele and Amanda, but he just gradually implicated them only in a degree when they begun to implicate him, but with the circumspection due to remaining within the boundaries of a story in which he was innocent.

 

[Machiavelli]

For some reason, I thought a requirement of Guede's trial was an acceptance of the facts as presented by the prosecution. If Guede were to reveal that he alone killed Meredith, that AK/RS were not there, and confessed as I believe the crime played out, would he not be invalidating the basis under which the trial was allowed? Wouldn't that destroy his conviction in that court ( soon of course to be replaced with another based on the conviction).

Not at all. There was no such requirement in Guede's trial. The short track trial is no plea bargain. He probably felt he didn't have an interest in confessing during his trial. He gave a recollection of details that could be linked with Amanda and Raffaele in the end, on the line of making his story more credible to the judges.

 

[Justinian2]

Hi Mary, long time no hear. I can look at most things from both sides, so let me get this straight, his lawyers told him to accuse two innocent people?

Ya, the lawyers told me to lie in my A&B on a police officer trial too. Oh, yeah, I was charged with attacking a police officer when I removed the can of pepper spray from his hand and threw it into the woods. Carried a 2 year sentence. Fortunately I told the truth anyway, made the judge laugh and the court laughed with her. Got off by paying the cops for the fake injuries I caused them. I guess their lawyers told them to lie too.

That Guede's lawyers told him to lie is totally plausible.

Being an eyewitness to another event doesn't prove the point that lawyers tell their clients to lie. Proof is impossible. However, the supposition that lawyers tell their clients to lie is totally plausible.

 

[Machiavelli]

My understanding is that Rudy"s appeal judge (Borsini) did not have to grant him a reduction in sentence, that it was not automatic due to the fast track nature of the trial. It appears he granted him a reduction based on the fact that he named Amanda and Raffaele as helping him with the assault, he said he was sorry for what he did, he had a hard childhood, and he did not fight extradition from Germany. The appeal judge did not accept his plea that he tried to help Meredith by trying to stop the blood with the towels and did not call for help because of no phone around. Sounds pretty generous to me for someone that accused others that are innocent and of striking the fatal stab wounds. The judge accepted that he did not stage the break in and believes Amanda let him in the flat. It appears that his earlier story of being on the toilet and struggling with a stranger was not accepted (or possibly was accepted as the stranger actually being Raffaele?).

Michiavelli (or anyone else), can you explain how this works; it seems to me the first reduction was automatic in the initial trial phase due to the fast track nature of the trial but not at the appeal stage. I could be misunderstanding this and would appreciate some clarification.

The short track trial always implicates a 1/3 reduction on the final sentence, at any stage.
In the first degree judge Micheli granted him no mitigation at all, so he got the full life sentence (that becomes 30 years in the appeal trial).
The appeal court, which is made of 8 judges, decided he was entitled to the generic mitigation, which means he got his sentence reduced from life to 24 years. This choice is not automatic, but in a case like Rudy Guede is very likely for a number of reasons. One of the reasons for chosing the same lenght of penaly is that the accomplices got 24 years, but this will never be mentioned in the motivation report.

The legal grounds on which the judge motivate his redution are NOT his naming of Amanda and Raffaele - this didn't actually occur, and this itself would be no ground for reduction. The reasons are his personality that was believed to be not so negative by the judge, because of: his age, his background, their belief he was actually sorry. We may subscribe or not to the judges generosity, but the judges in his case are eight: this plays in favour of the defendant in case of disagreement on granting mitigation. The 16 years is low but pusposely calculated so he cannot appeal the Supreme Court on the ground that his punishment is uneven compared to the other two culprits.

 

[Machiavelli]

If you want to know more on the crime of calunnia you may search some italian law sites.

Here there is an explanatio by law professor, also with bibliograpfy and reference list of books and sentences:

Il delitto di Calunnia - Francesco Parenti

For a briefing can also try the Italian wikpedia:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calunnia

 

[RoseMontague]

The short track trial always implicates a 1/3 reduction on the final sentence, at any stage.
In the first degree judge Micheli granted him no mitigation at all, so he got the full life sentence (that becomes 30 years in the appeal trial).
The appeal court, which is made of 8 judges, decided he was entitled to the generic mitigation, which means he got his sentence reduced from life to 24 years. This choice is not automatic, but in a case like Rudy Guede is very likely for a number of reasons. One of the reasons for chosing the same lenght of penaly is that the accomplices got 24 years, but this will never be mentioned in the motivation report.

The legal grounds on which the judge motivate his redution are NOT his naming of Amanda and Raffaele - this didn't actually occur, and this itself would be no ground for reduction. The reasons are his personality that was believed to be not so negative by the judge, because of: his age, his background, their belief he was actually sorry. We may subscribe or not to the judges generosity, but the judges in his case are eight: this plays in favour of the defendant in case of disagreement on granting mitigation. The 16 years is low but pusposely calculated so he cannot appeal the Supreme Court on the ground that his punishment is uneven compared to the other two culprits.

Thanks. If I understand then the 16 years represents the automatic 1/3 deduction for the fast track trial (from 24 to 16). So he has not received any reduction at all other than the same reduction Amanda and Raffaele received in their initial trial, just that Rudy got it in his first appeal rather than the first trial and the other 8 years off is automatic?

On your posts about the Luminol, what do you think may have caused the luminol reactions at Raffaele's place?

 

[christianahannah]

Not at all. There was no such requirement in Guede's trial. The short track trial is no plea bargain. He probably felt he didn't have an interest in confessing during his trial. He gave a recollection of details that could be linked with Amanda and Raffaele in the end, on the line of making his story more credible to the judges.

Was what Rudy said during his trial or preliminary hearings (concerning Amanda and Raffaele) ever brought up in Amanda's and Raffaele's trial by the prosecution? I am sure Rudy did not testify at their trial but did the prosecution enter into evidence his statements concerning Amanda and Raffaele?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

please clarify what implicating him means

That makes no sense. I don't know what is the problem to you. Rudy didn't try to avoid implicating Raffaele and Amanda, but he just gradually implicated them only in a degree when they begun to implicate him, but with the circumspection due to remaining within the boundaries of a story in which he was innocent.

I don't understand. How could they implicate them when they (according to them) were not there? What implicates him are his words, his bloody shoeprints, etc.

Also, could the prosecution have appealed the sentence reduction for mitigating circumstances?

 

[Jungle Jim]

In the diary Rudy wrote in Germany while awaiting extradition, he stated that on the night of the murder he left his apartment at around 7:30 p.m. He then went to his friend Alex’s apartment with whom he spoke to for a bit. He then states he went to the Town Center where he bought a kebob to eat. He also said he ran into another friend, Philip, with whom he talked to for awhile. Rudy says Philip asked what he was up to and he replied that he was going to meet a girl. I presume the police interviewed both Alex and Philip. Is there a record of those interviews (e.g., Rudy’s trial transcripts)? I would be interested in knowing the answer to the following questions:

1. Did Alex and Philip confirm that they met and spoke with Rudy that evening?
2. Did either of his friends notice whether Rudy had his backpack with him?
3. Did either of his friends notice whether Rudy had his headphones on his neck?
4. Did Alex notice Rudy eating a kebob?
5. Did Alex confirm that Rudy mentioned going to meet a girl?

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks. If I understand then the 16 years represents the automatic 1/3 deduction for the fast track trial (from 24 to 16). So he has not received any reduction at all other than the same reduction Amanda and Raffaele received in their initial trial, just that Rudy got it in his first appeal rather than the first trial and the other 8 years off is automatic?

On your posts about the Luminol, what do you think may have caused the luminol reactions at Raffaele's place?

Exactly. Rudy got their same sentence, but on his appeal and in a fast trial.

I think Luminol reactions in Raffaele's apartment are all blood. Not all of them necessarily human blood.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't understand. How could they implicate them when they (according to them) were not there? What implicates him are his words, his bloody shoeprints, etc.

Their defence accused Rudy of being the lone perpetrator. The first and second Vinci expert report. Read back news from the pre-trial hearing. Maori and Ghirga's arguments. And then, obviously, the media advocates who accused Rudy outside the trial. Bongiorno looking for witnesses like Alessi and Aviello...

Also, could the prosecution have appealed the sentence reduction for mitigating circumstances?

No.
I just said this yesterday.

 

[Machiavelli]

Was what Rudy said during his trial or preliminary hearings (concerning Amanda and Raffaele) ever brought up in Amanda's and Raffaele's trial by the prosecution? I am sure Rudy did not testify at their trial but did the prosecution enter into evidence his statements concerning Amanda and Raffaele?

No his statements were not entered. Only his intercepted skype call entered the Knox Sollecito's trial.

 

[Dan O.]

In the diary Rudy wrote in Germany while awaiting extradition, he stated that on the night of the murder he left his apartment at around 7:30 p.m. He then went to his friend Alex’s apartment with whom he spoke to for a bit. He then states he went to the Town Center where he bought a kebob to eat. He also said he ran into another friend, Philip, with whom he talked to for awhile. Rudy says Philip asked what he was up to and he replied that he was going to meet a girl. I presume the police interviewed both Alex and Philip. Is there a record of those interviews (e.g., Rudy’s trial transcripts)? I would be interested in knowing the answer to the following questions:

1. Did Alex and Philip confirm that they met and spoke with Rudy that evening?
2. Did either of his friends notice whether Rudy had his backpack with him?
3. Did either of his friends notice whether Rudy had his headphones on his neck?
4. Did Alex notice Rudy eating a kebob?
5. Did Alex confirm that Rudy mentioned going to meet a girl?

It would be useful in Rudy's defense to have independent confirmation that Rudy had a rendezvous planed with Meredith on that night. However, Rudy was in contact with his friends via Skype while on the run after the murder.

Rudy would have been asking himself what excuse he had for being at the cottage that evening. A simple phone call to his friends would then confirm if they would back him up. Even just by asking if they remember such a conversation he would have contaminated their memories of those conversations.

Of course, anyone that believes Rudy had a date with Meredith that night would by inference be saying that Meredith was a promiscuous slut that was bringing boys she hardly knew back to the cottage while her current boyfriend from downstairs was out of town.

 

[el buscador]

In the diary Rudy wrote in Germany while awaiting extradition, he stated that on the night of the murder he left his apartment at around 7:30 p.m. He then went to his friend Alex’s apartment with whom he spoke to for a bit. He then states he went to the Town Center where he bought a kebob to eat. He also said he ran into another friend, Philip, with whom he talked to for awhile. Rudy says Philip asked what he was up to and he replied that he was going to meet a girl. I presume the police interviewed both Alex and Philip. Is there a record of those interviews (e.g., Rudy’s trial transcripts)? I would be interested in knowing the answer to the following questions:

1. Did Alex and Philip confirm that they met and spoke with Rudy that evening?
2. Did either of his friends notice whether Rudy had his backpack with him?
3. Did either of his friends notice whether Rudy had his headphones on his neck?
4. Did Alex notice Rudy eating a kebob?
5. Did Alex confirm that Rudy mentioned going to meet a girl?

Iirc from the Micheli report rudy also claimed to to be at A's place at about 11:30 PM that night. I guess A is Alex. I would have to assume that Alex denied this because mignini changed the time of the murder to around 11:30 PM.

 

[Justinian2]

Kaosium, I found some more information about calunnia, written by "Ivstitia," an Italian living in the U.S. who used to post quite a bit about the case. This is from an examiner.com article; he makes additional comments about the topic further down the page.

The Justinian maxims from which the Italian Judicial system was made state (paraphrased):

1) Cause no harm.
2) Give each man his due.

From http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/justinian.html

3. The maxims of law are these: to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.

Since Amanda did not file charges against the police, she caused no harm. All she was trying to do was avoid harm from false charges.

Certainly the Italian system has deliberately caused Amanda serial harm. Whether or not their harm is based on false and exaggerated statements, the harm has been done and is continuing.

The Italian system has forgotten what justice is.
I don't advocate any present government or judicial system.

 

[Mary_H]

It would be useful in Rudy's defense to have independent confirmation that Rudy had a rendezvous planed with Meredith on that night. However, Rudy was in contact with his friends via Skype while on the run after the murder.

Rudy would have been asking himself what excuse he had for being at the cottage that evening. A simple phone call to his friends would then confirm if they would back him up. Even just by asking if they remember such a conversation he would have contaminated their memories of those conversations.

Of course, anyone that believes Rudy had a date with Meredith that night would by inference be saying that Meredith was a promiscuous slut that was bringing boys she hardly knew back to the cottage while her current boyfriend from downstairs was out of town.

Actually, Valter Biscotti, Guede's defense attorney, said in his closing remarks that Meredith was a girl who liked to party and there was no reason to believe she would not have dated Rudy. I used to be able to cite the quote but I haven't been able to find it online in quite awhile. Don't know if there is a transcript available. I have always found it curious that the guilters never criticized him for that, when there is such a taboo against saying anything negative about Meredith..

 

[Mary_H]

Still looking for the quote from Biscotti, I see he had a strong hand in the dissemination of the "changing alibis" myth:

His lawyer Valter Biscotti said: "After hearing so many different versions of what happened the only one that holds firm is Rudy's.

"He has admitted being at the scene and he found poor Meredith dying on the floor but he didn't kill her.

"The accusations against him are false and are to be expected because he is an easy target. But he has never changed his story, while the other two have."

<snip>

Yesterday Mr Biscotti told the court in Perugia, the town where the murder took place: "We insist that Amanda and Raffaele were at the scene. They came back to the house to clean up. This explains the traces of blood and water found at the scene and at Sollecito's house...

"Further investigations should be carried out on Amanda and Raffaele. Just because he was at the scene doesn't mean that Rudy is the killer of poor Meredith."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...y-target-for-accusations-say-his-lawyers.html 25 Oct 2008