Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

Barry George Some gruesome images in there I have to say.

Including the one that very much influenced his conviction.
http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/this-day-in-history/April/26/about/mainPhoto/Barry-George-(640x360).jpg

This is a close parallel of the clip of Knox and Sollecito cuddling after the discovery of Meredith's body. It shows a pathetic inadequate playing childish dressing-up games in a scruffy living room with garish curtains as a backdrop. It was marketed as showing a killer with firearms expertise.

I was pretty aerated about the Barry George case at the time. And don't tell me it was because I fancied him. He's revolting.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I hope the Italians knock themselves out with reviews and re-reviews and re-re-reviews. It's all the more likely to result in Amanda's and Raffaele's total exoneration in law, fact and public opinion.

I hope someone decides to re-open Rudy's case on the back of all this, and grant him a re-trial. I'd dearly love to see him put away for life.

Rolfe.

 

[Mary_H]

Hey they stole my story.

I thought the same thing when I saw that headline! I was wondering if you told a friend, and they told a friend, and so on and so on.......

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>An interesting recent trend, I compared the trends for: Amanda Knox innocent, Amanda Knox guilty and Amanda Knox not guilty. The guilty searches far outnumber the others which in itself is surprising. But more interesting is those searches are mostly generated from two cities, London and New York. It's almost like there is a conspiracy between those two. But who could they possibly be?

Gwyneth Paltrow and Woody Allen?

 

[Machiavelli]

I hope someone decides to re-open Rudy's case on the back of all this, and grant him a re-trial. I'd dearly love to see him put away for life.

Rolfe.

This is impossible.
First, Rudy Guede can have a new trial only if he asks for it himself (however this could happen only after the end of the Knox-Sollecito trial).
Second, Rudy Guede will never risk to get more than 16 years, whatever the outcome of his retrial will be. He is totally protected by double jeopardy for what concerns penalty. No matter what he may be found guilty of, he cannot be sentenced to more than the 16 years he got for this crime, this will absolutely never happen. His liberties and penalty can only benefit by a possible new trial, he will face no risk of having them reduced nor the penalty increased.

 

[Mary_H]

Just curious: What would be the basis of an appeal of the slander charge? She did in fact say she saw Lumumba at the scene of a murder. Is duress a defense? Could she say she wasn't in her right mind and couldn't form intent? A dozen cops would claim she freely gave a "spontaneous" statement. We all know the circumstances surrounding the statement, but from the point of view of the guy who got locked up, all that matters is what she actually said.

I hope her defense takes advantage of the fact that what Amanda said is not documented. The statements were signed by her, but they were written in Italian. When she described the process of the interrogation in court, she made it clear that the police initiated the accusation of Patrick. She also stated that when they brought documents to her the next day, including her arrest warrant, she did not know what she was signing.

He who "loses" the tapes should not be allowed to claim what is on them.

 

[charlatan]

I hope someone decides to re-open Rudy's case on the back of all this, and grant him a re-trial. I'd dearly love to see him put away for life.

I think the investigation of this crime has been analogous to Millikan's (in)famous oil drop experiment:

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of - this history - because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong - and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that...

Prosecutors developed a hypothesis of the crime that was correct in some respects (Rudy's involvement) and incorrect in others (Amanda and Raffaele's involvement). Every court proceeding since then has cautiously and incrementally backed away from the errors of the original. Rudy, unfortunately, will not see more jail time but I do believe that when this process eventually grinds to a halt it will be clear to all that he was the lone assassin.

 

[Rolfe]

This is impossible.
First, Rudy Guede can have a new trial only if he asks for it himself (however this could happen only after the end of the Knox-Sollecito trial).
Second, Rudy Guede will never risk to get more than 16 years, whatever the outcome of his retrial will be. He is totally protected by double jeopardy for what concerns penalty. No matter what he may be found guilty of, he cannot be sentenced to more than the 16 years he got for this crime, this will absolutely never happen. His liberties and penalty can only benefit by a possible new trial, he will face no risk of having them reduced nor the penalty increased.

That's a shame. Though I would support it in general civil liberty terms. We've abolished the prohibition on double jeopardy here, and things are threatening to turn very nasty.

He struck it very lucky, that he was able to take advantage of the prosecution desire to pursue others for the crime, and so the scenario that he acted alone was never presented in his trial.

That's what makes the repeated claims of some guilters that the Supreme Court has ruled that there were multiple attackers so ridiculous. At no time in Guede's legal processes was the case that he alone burgled the cottage and assaulted and murdered Meredith argued. So how likely is it that any court was going to decide that's what happened?!

Guede was correctly convicted on the evidence that was led at his trials, and the Supreme Court confirmed that. Hellmann's court just destroyed the main plank of Rudy's defence, by examining and discrediting evidence that was simply not challenged in Rudy's trial, because it was not in the interests of either party to challenge it. But Rudy still benefits.

Lucky guy.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

This is impossible.
First, Rudy Guede can have a new trial only if he asks for it himself (however this could happen only after the end of the Knox-Sollecito trial).
Second, Rudy Guede will never risk to get more than 16 years, whatever the outcome of his retrial will be. He is totally protected by double jeopardy for what concerns penalty. No matter what he may be found guilty of, he cannot be sentenced to more than the 16 years he got for this crime, this will absolutely never happen. His liberties and penalty can only benefit by a possible new trial, he will face no risk of having them reduced nor the penalty increased.

Then how come his lawyer Biscotti said something about being wary of asking for a re-trial because he might be sentenced longer?

Is it possible that while the conviction for murder may not be increased, they could add new charges like perhaps burglary and break-in as well as a calunnia charge or two?

 

[Rolfe]

Maybe they could do that anyway. I got the impression he might be hearing from Sollecito's lawyers on the subject of a calunnia suit for accusing him of stabbing Meredith.

They could still charge him with actual burglary if he wasn't acquitted of that first time round, which I don't think he was.

Rolfe.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then how come his lawyer Biscotti said something about being wary of asking for a re-trial because he might be sentenced longer?

Is it possible that while the conviction for murder may not be increased, they could add new charges like perhaps burglary and break-in as well as a calunnia charge or two?

Never heard Biscotti being wary. If you have a quote, that would be helpful.
No, as far as I know, he cannot be sentenced to more prison time.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I see that Quennell's latest lunatic theory is that Berlusconi's Government (possibly with US assistance) may have nobbled Hellmann's court to produce acquittals, in order to emasculate the Perugia prosecutors and bolster Berlusconi's political (and judicial) fortunes (the "reasoning" being that a Berlusconi forced-resignation might tip Italy over the edge in financial terms - something which the US Government would seek to avoid, as would Berlusconi himself, for obvious reasons).

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...alian_vote_of_no_confidence_did_the_perugia_a

Quennell is nothing more than a sad, deluded idiot who is evidently becoming increasingly unhinged in his attempts at self-justification and rationalisation after the Hellmann verdicts were announced. I hope that for his sake he realises just what a strange and somewhat unhinged figure he cuts, and just quietly winds his odd little website down. After all, he'll have his hands full with that libel action against Bruce, won't he? Oh, wait.......

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Peter Quennell's sick site had several posts about how insulated and independent its judiciary was from the influence of Italy's government officials and legislative bodies. Now it's like that never happened. Out of ALL the guilters, he has the least credibility, and that is saying a lot. He also has serious mental problems and is an obvious compulsive liar.

If CD-Host is here, it would be nice to find the message board conversation he had with Quennell. The guy was threatening him with Calunnia charges for disparaging the prosecutor on a freaking message board. You seriously can't make these things up----and this is the recognized leader of the guilter movement. Machiavelli, maybe you should step in this guy's place and put him out of his online misery. He is not helping your cause at all.

ETA: Oh snap. Someone took the time to record Mr. Quennell's conversation.

Favorite line: "Our lawyers checked what you wrote there on that site and their strong advice to Mignini would be to find out who you are and then sue.....You are on very dangerous grounds with those invented claims".

He then argues that there were probably 3 knives used in the murder.

And then this on the judiciary: "Besides there is NO sign the Italian Judiciary can be leaned on. Go and ask Mr. Berlusconi." (I believe this is called Check and Mate).

We should really do this more often. Spitting on this joker's image is too fun and easy.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's a shame. Though I would support it in general civil liberty terms. We've abolished the prohibition on double jeopardy here, and things are threatening to turn very nasty.

He struck it very lucky, that he was able to take advantage of the prosecution desire to pursue others for the crime, and so the scenario that he acted alone was never presented in his trial.

That's what makes the repeated claims of some guilters that the Supreme Court has ruled that there were multiple attackers so ridiculous. At no time in Guede's legal processes was the case that he alone burgled the cottage and assaulted and murdered Meredith argued. So how likely is it that any court was going to decide that's what happened?!

Guede was correctly convicted on the evidence that was led at his trials, and the Supreme Court confirmed that. Hellmann's court just destroyed the main plank of Rudy's defence, by examining and discrediting evidence that was simply not challenged in Rudy's trial, because it was not in the interests of either party to challenge it. But Rudy still benefits.

Lucky guy.

Rolfe.

No, Rudy Guede will only be a source of problems for Knox and Sollecito in the future.
He has not became "guilty" of anything more, by now. He has not committed any burglary.
But if he gains a new trial, not only he will not tke any risk, he will also most likely be released.
His game - if legally conducted by his lawyers - will be: do you think I have committed a burglary and murdered alone? Then prove it.
If he is entitled a new trial on this, he has very good chances to be released in the meanwhile. And he would stay in freedom for two or three years at least (if not forever).
But this only can happen if Knox and Sollecito had won at the Cassazione. If they loose, the story will be way different.

 

[Machiavelli]

Maybe they could do that anyway. I got the impression he might be hearing from Sollecito's lawyers on the subject of a calunnia suit for accusing him of stabbing Meredith.

They could still charge him with actual burglary if he wasn't acquitted of that first time round, which I don't think he was.

Rolfe.

He was acquitted with 530.1. They cannot convict him again for burglary.

 

[Grinder]

Then how come his lawyer Biscotti said something about being wary of asking for a re-trial because he might be sentenced longer?

I think that's exactly what Mach is saying.

First, Rudy Guede can have a new trial only if he asks for it himself (however this could happen only after the end of the Knox-Sollecito trial).
Second, Rudy Guede will never risk to get more than 16 years, whatever the outcome of his retrial will be.

I think "will never risk" means he "would never risk" getting more than 16 years.

Is it possible that while the conviction for murder may not be increased, they could add new charges like perhaps burglary and break-in as well as a calunnia charge or two?

Wasn't found not guilty of the break-in and stealing the phones and money?

ETA: never mind

 

[Grinder]

No, Rudy Guede will only be a source of problems for Knox and Sollecito in the future.
He has not became "guilty" of anything more, by now. He has not committed any burglary.
But if he gains a new trial, not only he will not tke any risk, he will also most likely be released.
His game - if legally conducted by his lawyers - will be: do you think I have committed a burglary and murdered alone? Then prove it.
If he is entitled a new trial on this, he has very good chances to be released in the meanwhile. And he would stay in freedom for two or three years at least (if not forever).
But this only can happen if Knox and Sollecito had won at the Cassazione. If they loose, the story will be way different.

Why couldn't they give him life? Why must the crimes be alone? I think he did it with Koko and one other Albanian. He won't talk because he knows they will kill him.

 

[GreyFox]

If Rudy were truly innocent he would be screaming for a new trial. The fact that he's happy to do 16 years says a lot in my opinion.

Completely different stance than that of the two who were really innocent.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think that's exactly what Mach is saying.

First, Rudy Guede can have a new trial only if he asks for it himself (however this could happen only after the end of the Knox-Sollecito trial).
Second, Rudy Guede will never risk to get more than 16 years, whatever the outcome of his retrial will be.

I think "will never risk" means he "would never risk" getting more than 16 years.

I mean that if he asks for a new trial, this won't bring any risk to him. Because a retrial could never increase his penalty. Even if he was found guilty of killing a second person that night in the cottage, his maximum possible penalty for the whole case will be always 16 years, not more.
He has only to gain in asking for a new trial, there is nothing practical that he can loose.

 

[Machiavelli]

If Rudy were truly innocent he would be screaming for a new trial. The fact that he's happy to do 16 years says a lot in my opinion.

Completely different stance than that of the two who were really innocent.

He is not happy at all. He will not stay alone in jail if the other two walk. By now he has to wait, but he is going to make a move later on. Either he will ask for a new trial, or he will release a testimony against the other two. Or both in the order.

 

[Paninaro]

I mean that if he asks for a new trial, this won't bring any risk to him. Because a retrial could never increase his penalty. Even if he was found guilty of killing a second person that night in the cottage, his maximum possible penalty for the whole case will be always 16 years, not more.
He has only to gain in asking for a new trial, there is nothing practical that he can loose.

At the trial against Knox and Sollecito he gave false testimony, accusing two innocent people of being at the scene of the crime, involved in murder, when in fact they were not. Shouldn't Guede be convicted of Calunnia for this?