Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Now you're just being ridiculous.

You guys are slaying me!

 

[christianahannah]

The right of appeal of the prosecution has limitation in the abbreviated trial.
General limitations are stated by article 443 - title I of the Code of Penal Procedure:

"Art. 443 - Limiti dell'appello

1. L'imputato e il pubblico ministero non possono proporre appello contro le sentenze di proscioglimento
2. (Comma abrogato).
3. Il pubblico ministero non può proporre appello contro le sentenze di condanna, salvo che si tratti di sentenza che modifica il titolo del reato.
4. Il giudizio di appello si svolge con le forme previste dall'articolo 599

Paragraph 1 is the remain of an article that has been modified by the Constitutional Court . Paragraph 2 was declared unconstitutional in 2006 and doesn't exist anymore.
Paragraph 3 is still active and of interest in our case.

The prosecutor could not appeal on the merits of Rudy's 16 years sentence, because the sentence was a verdict of guilt on all charges (all those that were appeald, in this case, being an appeal trial) and the defendant was pronounced guilty without modifcation of the title of charges.
So by the code, the prosecutor cannot appeal.
Anyway the prosecutor could not have appealed because it is already a sentence by a Court of Appeal.

An appeal of the prosecutor to the Supreme Court, at first sight would be against paragraph 3 and would be an unicum, a first case in judicial history, would imply a calling for a higher court to solve a question of constitutionality about paragraph 3. I don't know if any sentence by the Consitutional court already exist for the interpretation of this case.

More important to know is that an appeal by the Prosecutor General to the Supreme Court would be something entirely different fram what you apparently think. It would be a ridiculous move. It would mean, a Prosecutor General appeals a sentence where had won entirely in an abbreviated trial, and on which the defendant is appealing too, and not to obtain a change in the enalty but just to obtain a new trial, that would be identical to the previous, and where potentially he could only loose. The same result is obtained if Guede wins his appeal to the Supreme Court: he would just obtain a new trial.

Thank you Machiavelli. I had been trying to find the appeal information but was looking under Libro 9: Impugnazioni Titolo II: Appello.


Is the information here the current article (it appears paragraph 2 is missing or they forgot to numeral it)?

Art. 443 Limiti all'appello
l. L’imputato e il pubblico ministero non possono proporre appello contro le sentenze di proscioglimento, quando l’appello tende ad ottenere una diversa formula a) le sentenze di proscioglimento (529 s.), quando l'appello tende a ottenere una diversa formula; b) le sentenze con le quali sono applicate sanzioni sostitutive . 3. Il pubblico ministero non può proporre appello contro le sentenze di condanna (533), salvo che si tratti di sentenza che modifica il titolo del reato. 4. Il giudizio di appello si svolge con le forme previste dall'articolo 599.

 

[quadraginta]

LOL, you got it wrong
Scene one:

What's that guy doing on that balcony?
after some 30m :
He just pried the shutters open!
after another 30m:
and now he's kicking in the glass door!
another 30m:
Let's park behind those bare trees to get a better view. He's really nervy to do it in full view and in the light of that streetlight.​

Are you saying you believe it would take an hour and a half to get through that patio door?

I don't.

Are you claiming the streetlights shine directly on the balcony? I like that. Meanwhile we are told that the side of the house exposed directly exposed to the street is obscured in shadow.

... and up is really down, and black is really white, and sunrise is really sunset.

Scene two:

It's November but this large tree is still beautiful and green, isn't it?​

quadraginta, you've been caught red handed cherry picking the photos to suit your position, how do you feel about it ?.

I chose the clearest, closest view that I could find, for the purposes of demonstrating the best possible opportunity to see the balcony. Past the point I chose the entire balcony is quickly obscured. Prior to that point the perspective, while there, was less perfect. If I had offered a collection of POVs along that road it would have been identical to your rather pitiful attempt at a 'gotcha', but would only have demonstrated the same thing that I did with one image. The very best viewpoint for that balcony is not very good at all, and it isn't there for very long.

Google Earth is a free application. Anyone else has always had the same opportunity to look at all of the same images if they were interested enough. It seems that the main difference in conclusions is when someone has a monomaniacal fixation on excluding every means of entry to that apartment except for Filomena's window. I'm only interested in what is plausible and likely, not what is remotely possible and convenient to a particular argument, and to me what we know about the conditions there do not put that window at the top of any rational list.

I feel just dandy. Thanks for asking.

 

[quadraginta]

RWVBWL,

If you told me you thought you might have been present in a small apartment during a murder, but didn't give any indication of having heard the murder taking place, I would have asked about screams as well.

Well, considering that we have also learned in this thread that standard police procedure would include waiting several days before asking the roommate who discovered the body what her whereabouts and activities were on the night of the murder, I guess this witness interview thing is much more arcane than either of us suspected.

 

[Justinian2]

I saw an amazing PMF post that I'd summarise as "Nobody can look at a picture of Amanda Knox without feeling uncontrollable hatred. I blame her family, her PR company and the media. Without them we wouldn't be exposed to her picture so often so we wouldn't hate her so much".

It was absolutely breathtaking in its lack of self-reflection, or responsibility, or even simple recognition that not everyone goes into a Pavlovian hate trip at the trigger of Amanda Knox's face.

A relative, a doctor, and an Amanda look alike went through Europe and was loved by the Irish, French and English. However, in Italy, the Italian 'men' of Italy were EXTREMELY RUDE, prejudiced and arrogant to her.

However, Italian-American men love her. Go figure...

 

[moodstream]

If the Court confirms the verdict, yes.
It will be no longer possible to put him on trial again for the same crime (ne bis in idem). So he will be free to talk with no consequences.



No.

Thank you.

Here is the last paragraph of this http://www.rtl.de/medien/informati...ca-22/amanda-knox-fakten-hinter-dem-fall.html German article:

Angesichts so vieler neuer Umstände ist die Verteidigung guter Hoffnung, dass sie bei den Berufsrichtern und Schöffen des Appellationsgerichtes von Perugia den berühmten "berechtigten Zweifel“ an der Schuld Amandas und Raffaeles wecken kann. Doch das Risiko für die beiden jungen Leute ist groß. Rudy Guede hat den Deal mit der Staatsanwaltschaft gemacht und kann in mutmaßlich fünf bis acht Jahren als freier Mann das Gefängnis wieder verlassen. Amanda und Raffaele aber gehen das Risiko ein, für die nächsten 20 Jahre hinter Gittern sitzen zu müssen.


Google translates the last line as Rudy Guede has the deal made with prosecutors and is suspected in five to eight years to leave the prison a free man again. Amanda and Raffaele, but run the risk of having to sit for the next 20 years behind bars.


It’s hard to believe he can commit murder and get out of jail so soon. Is this implying he will get this deal if he speaks the prosecutions version of events, or is it no strings attached?

 

[capealadin]

Read what I said again (hint, same thing you just said).
Your link does not work.
Saying Get it is being rude.

No, you need to read my post again. And, the question, was if the Prosecutor can appeal, not Rudi.

Your remarks re; John Kercher were beyond rude.

 

[capealadin]

Which is what I said, from the very beginning on this issue. BTW, what you indicate on this now, compared to what you indicated before is not the same.

You still don't get it. How you Choose to interpret is not my problem. As you were.

 

[Dan O.]

Memories can and do change over time. Details that were left out or misplaced will be restored. Sometimes incorrect details get inserted by mistake or the order of events gets confused. As I said, this happens mostly unconsciously. Those that study memories say that over time, memories become more detailed and less accurate.

The only way to get an accurate reconstruction of an event from memories is to take multiple independent reports and look for comonalities. Those will be the most likely to be the truth.

Okay, now how does the above invalidate Machiavellis argument?

I'm just hearing a voice say "Why", "Why", "Why". You'll need to paraphrase what you believe the basis of Machiavelli's argument is if you want me to continue to explain this for you.

 

[Dan O.]

Carrying a crowbar around at night will earn you a prison sentence in the UK for 'going equipped' if caught by the police.

Since I actually have one of those Pry bars in my trunk (mine is probably bigger than the one shown), I looked up the US statutes for possession of burglary tools. In each state I checked, the statute only applies if there is intent to use the tool in the commission of a crime.


This line of the discussion though is probably immaterial. I recall that there was testimony that there was no evidence that a tool was used to open the shutters.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Are you saying you believe it would take an hour and a half to get through that patio door?

Of course not, it takes the whole winter to drive that 90 m

Are you claiming the streetlights shine directly on the balcony?

There's an unobstructed streetlight some 20m from that balcony. And the next one down the street has a direct line of sight, too. It's actually better then Filomena's window, isn't it?

I like that. Meanwhile we are told that the side of the house exposed directly exposed to the street is obscured in shadow.

I have a feeling you're creating some alternative reality here.

I chose the clearest, closest view that I could find, for the purposes of demonstrating the best possible opportunity to see the balcony. Past the point I chose the entire balcony is quickly obscured. Prior to that point the perspective, while there, was less perfect. If I had offered a collection of POVs along that road it would have been identical to your rather pitiful attempt at a 'gotcha', but would only have demonstrated the same thing that I did with one image. The very best viewpoint for that balcony is not very good at all, and it isn't there for very long.

Google Earth is a free application. Anyone else has always had the same opportunity to look at all of the same images if they were interested enough.

The longer you're explaining yourself the less convincing it sounds.

I'm only interested in what is plausible and likely, not what is remotely possible and convenient to a particular argument, and to me what we know about the conditions there do not put that window at the top of any rational list.

Just face it, you carefully chose the photo that shows nothing and labeled it the best possible view. It was convenient for your argument, yes, and it's called cherry picking

 

[Amazer]

I'm just hearing a voice say "Why", "Why", "Why". You'll need to paraphrase what you believe the basis of Machiavelli's argument is if you want me to continue to explain this for you.

You made the claim that Machiavelli's argument is invalid on the basis of how memory works. All i'm asking you to do is to substantiate this claim.

 

[quadraginta]

Of course not, it takes the whole winter to drive that 90 m

<snip

Just face it, you carefully chose the photo that shows nothing and labeled it the best possible view. It was convenient for your argument, yes, and it's called cherry picking

If I had been picking out the best one to support an assertion that the balcony wasn't very visible simply for the convenience of my argument, then I wouldn't have offered the one which showed the very best visibility available out of all the Google camera shots.

This is in stark contrast to those posts which choose the one or two camera positions Google offers that have a tree obstructing Filomena's window, and ignore all the others where it stands out like a cherry in whipped cream, or the ones with snapshots taken on a foggy night with a perspective which occludes almost the entire side of the building.

Yep, I'm still feelin' dandy.

 

[TomCH]

]It's November but this large tree is still beautiful and green, isn't it?

Yes.

Even here, which is several hundred miles north of Perugia, the trees are only just starting to change color around November 1st.

 

[TomCH]

Thank you.

Here is the last paragraph of this http://www.rtl.de/medien/informati...ca-22/amanda-knox-fakten-hinter-dem-fall.html German article:

Angesichts so vieler neuer Umstände ist die Verteidigung guter Hoffnung, dass sie bei den Berufsrichtern und Schöffen des Appellationsgerichtes von Perugia den berühmten "berechtigten Zweifel“ an der Schuld Amandas und Raffaeles wecken kann. Doch das Risiko für die beiden jungen Leute ist groß. Rudy Guede hat den Deal mit der Staatsanwaltschaft gemacht und kann in mutmaßlich fünf bis acht Jahren als freier Mann das Gefängnis wieder verlassen. Amanda und Raffaele aber gehen das Risiko ein, für die nächsten 20 Jahre hinter Gittern sitzen zu müssen.


Google translates the last line as Rudy Guede has the deal made with prosecutors and is suspected in five to eight years to leave the prison a free man again. Amanda and Raffaele, but run the risk of having to sit for the next 20 years behind bars.


It’s hard to believe he can commit murder and get out of jail so soon. Is this implying he will get this deal if he speaks the prosecutions version of events, or is it no strings attached?

No, the 'deal' was simply opting for the fast-track trial, which got him a 16 year sentence, which in reality means that he will be (partially) out after 8 - 11 years (depending on behavior), and he's already been in for three thus the 5 -8.

 

[quadraginta]

]It's November but this large tree is still beautiful and green, isn't it?

Yes.

Even here, which is several hundred miles north of Perugia, the trees are only just starting to change color around November 1st.

Katody and LJ should get together and compare gardening tips. Apparently LJ's arboretum over on the other side of the house was suffering from an early onset of winter.

Those micro-climates can be a real bitch, can't they?

 

[Matthew Best]

Does that mean that Knox and Sollecito can also expect to serve only half of their sentence? If not, why not? If so, why does the story say they can expect to be behind bars for 20 years?

(Apologies for asking a question I don't know the answer to. Hope I can be forgiven on this occasion.)

 

[Withnail1969]

Sure they don't. I mean after all, they wouldn't want to break any laws, would they?

Carrying something which is certain to get you arrested, if caught, before you've had the chance to carry out a burglary, can't be wise.

 

[Withnail1969]

Since I actually have one of those Pry bars in my trunk (mine is probably bigger than the one shown), I looked up the US statutes for possession of burglary tools. In each state I checked, the statute only applies if there is intent to use the tool in the commission of a crime.

I would assume that a petty criminal like Rudy with a history of burglaries would not do particularly well in court arguing he had legitimate reason to carry a crowbar around the streets of Perugia at night, therefore it would be too risky for him to carry one.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Katody and LJ should get together and compare gardening tips. Apparently LJ's arboretum over on the other side of the house was suffering from an early onset of winter.

Those micro-climates can be a real bitch, can't they?

LOL, quadraginta, that's just too funny

TomCH was actually confirming my point.
Here's "your" trees, quite bare by Nov 2007:


And that's how the driveway tree looked like about the same time: