Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Chris_Halkides]

Baghdad Bob is Comical Ali

The thread discussing the SC motivation. Do you mean Comical Ali?

"When asked where he had got his information he replied, 'authentic sources—many authentic sources'.[10] He pointed out that he 'was a professional, doing his job.'" link

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Nina Burleigh kindly volunteered that she herself dug up the story about the apartment fire.

Bob Graham dug it up too. I first heard about it in 2010. It's one of those things the police don't want to investigate, and they don't want anyone else to investigate it either. They are very protective of "poor Rudy."

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Of course you can, unless you are caught in flagrante delicto. But even in such event, in most case the state of arrest would actually last no longer than a few days.
Guede was not caught in flagrante while stealing a laptop, nor breaking into commercial facilities.

Oh I see. Because he entered what was technically classified as a 'private' property and had already stolen the laptop prior to being caught, he was home free. This means if you are not caught in the act you are off scot free. Steal all you want, as long as you are not caught in the act.

Moreover, you should know police don't have a power of arresting in Italy; they can only order 'informal' arrest (police arrest, or fermo), which would expire after 48 hours. You need a prosecutor and an invesigating judge to issue a decree of arrest and custody.

So why even call the police when you find an intruder? If they are that powerless, perhaps Italians should call whoever can really handle the situation, instead of the police.

He was caught sleeping into a private place, just having a single piece of stolen good (laptop) of limited value. No way he could be arrested on that.

Are you stating that if the laptop had been a better laptop, he might have been arrested? So it is overlooked if you steal a cheap laptop. Steal all you want, as long as it isn't good stuff. Got it. Do you comprehend how ridiculous your excuses are?

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #25

Oh I see. Because he entered what was technically classified as a 'private' property and had already stolen the laptop prior to being caught, he was home free. This means if you are not caught in the act you are off scot free. Steal all you want, as long as you are not caught in the act.


So why even call the police when you find an intruder? If they are that powerless, perhaps Italians should call whoever can really handle the situation, instead of the police.




Are you stating that if the laptop had been a better laptop, he might have been arrested? So it is overlooked if you steal a cheap laptop. Steal all you want, as long as it isn't good stuff. Got it. Do you comprehend how ridiculous your excuses are?

Machievelliver's Travels "They keep him tied up, believing that they can control him, while in truth he could destroy them effortlessly. In this way, "

"I am not in the least provoked at the sight of a lawyer, a pickpocket, a colonel, a fool, a lord, a gamester, a politician, a whoremonger, a physician, an evidence, a suborner, an attorney, a traitor, or the like; this is all according to the due course of things"

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh I see. Because he entered what was technically classified as a 'private' property and had already stolen the laptop prior to being caught, he was home free. This means if you are not caught in the act you are off scot free. Steal all you want, as long as you are not caught in the act.

He would be basically free extremely soon in any event, even if he was caught in flagrante.
But basically, yes; his crime was having a stolen item, not breaking into a property. And anyway he was not caught on the act.

So why even call the police when you find an intruder? If they are that powerless, perhaps Italians should call whoever can really handle the situation, instead of the police.

The police applies the law.
It's a matter of fact that to formalize an arrest you need a public minister and an investigation judge. The police doesn't have a power of issueing arrests; their legal power lasts a very short time. Within hours, a magistrate must take power.

Are you stating that if the laptop had been a better laptop, he might have been arrested?

No. He should have had a stock of about at least 10 laptops - that is, there is basically no possibility of cautionary custody if the value of the stolen items hold is below 5,000 euros.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's too bad Rudy can't afford to have paid supporters on his side. You know, someone that would know what information was already in the public domain so they wouldn't waist time and embarrass their client by trying to contradict what was already well known. An anonymous Internet poster might make the mistake of forgetting about the knife taken from the kitchen of the nursery or the cell phone found in his pack. A pro would not stumble on such trivia.

This makes no difference. The cell phone was not mentioned but makes no difference. The knife was not stolen (and has no value).
You need to forget dreaming that someone would be arrested and kept in custody for an episode like that.

 

[Machiavelli]

This was that the police could not arrest Guede for having a stolen knife in a nursery after having broken in. Yet you say they could arrest Raffaele for having a pocket knife while in a police station. You never answered my question: is it illegal to carry a pocket knife in a public place in Italy, but legal to carry a knife in a nursery school while an intruder?

The "arrest" of a person for carrying a knife - if ever occurs - would last something three hours, then any normal person would be free. Just like it occurred to Guede.
It is illegal to carry a knife without justified reasons in public places. Guede was carrying a knife, btw; he had a knife in his rucksack (which belonged to the kitchen) but he was not carrying anything. To carry an object you need to take it to go somwhere. Now, I guess Guede was questioned about the knife, but it's obvious there is no evidence Guede was going somewhere carrying the knife with him.

 

[MDDVS]

This makes no difference. The cell phone was not mentioned but makes no difference. The knife was not stolen (and has no value).
You need to forget dreaming that someone would be arrested and kept in custody for an episode like that.

I agree, it's much more important to criminalize important things like telling man he has no balls then to deal with dangerous criminals like Guede. I think you have your priorities right.

 

[Mary_H]

The "arrest" of a person for carrying a knife - if ever occurs - would last something three hours, then any normal person would be free. Just like it occurred to Guede.
It is illegal to carry a knife without justified reasons in public places. Guede was carrying a knife, btw; he had a knife in his rucksack (which belonged to the kitchen) but he was not carrying anything. To carry an object you need to take it to go somwhere. Now, I guess Guede was questioned about the knife, but it's obvious there is no evidence Guede was going somewhere carrying the knife with him.

I guess he was going to put it back in the kitchen before he left.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's the same here, more or less. Who is arguing the police can arrest and detain without limit. 48 hours fermo would have been fine. Then either charge or release on police bail (or its equivalent) pending enquiries. I don't know why these cases weren't followed up after Rudy was arrested for the murder frankly. Well, of course, I do know very well, but the point is this recent spate of criminal activity could have had useful probative value providing a context for Guede's conduct. How come Mignini was so uninterested?

No, you still don't understand the law. You can't have a 48h fermo, just like that. When there is a fermo, a magistrate must be immediately called. Not after 48h. The law says "with no delay". The 48h is a maximum limit, not an option.
There is no charge - and there can't be a police bail - police simply doesn't have that powers, a magistrate won't issue a charge but a charge in any event has nothing to do with arrest; what you need is an issue of cautionary custody, which is simply not going to be agreed to by any judge on a possible charge of theft. Really, you have no chance. You don't have a clue of how things work. It's very funny this strange resisting to believe this legal truth, which is just obvious to any Italian.

Look, you may read a story from a local newspaper, about a man who was caught in flagrante while stealing a bicicle - helping himself with a large iron cutter - he was soptted by an assessor of the city government who called the police. Because called in flagrante, the public minister validated the police arrest. After a few hours he was free again. The following day he was caught again on stealing furhter two bicicles. Was he arrested? No. This time, not even for an hour. The police didn't see him in the exact moment while he was stealing them, so they only filed the minutes for possesssion of stolen items. He walked free, to stal other bicicles. The police called the immigrant office, who are those who can actually will handle the problem: they will expel him as an illegal immigrant, given that he is from Morocco. The forced expulsion is the "only legal procedure" capable of preventing him from stealing an indefinite number of bicicles.

http://lanuovaferrara.gelocal.it/cronaca/2013/06/25/news/il-bis-del-ladro-di-biciclette-appena-libero-ruba-ancora-1.7318425

 

[Machiavelli]

I guess he was going to put it back in the kitchen before he left.

There is no penalty for intentions, deeds not yet committed.

 

[MDDVS]

No, you still don't understand the law. You can't have a 48h fermo, just like that. When there is a fermo, a magistrate must be immediately called. Not after 48h. The law says "with no delay". The 48h is a maximum limit, not an option.
There is no charge - and there can't be a police bail - police simply doesn't have that powers, a magistrate won't issue a charge but a charge in any event has nothing to do with arrest; what you need is an issue of cautionary custody, which is simply not going to be agreed to by any judge on a possible charge of theft. Really, you have no chance. You don't have a clue of how things work. It's very funny this strange resisting to believe this legal truth, which is just obvious to any Italian.

Look, you may read a story from a local newspaper, about a man who was caught in flagrante while stealing a bicicle - helping himself with a large iron cutter - he was soptted by an assessor of the city government who called the police. Because called in flagrante, the public minister validated the police arrest. After a few hours he was free again. The following day he was caught again on stealing furhter two bicicles. Was he arrested? No. This time, not even for an hour. The police didn't see him in the exact moment while he was stealing them, so they only filed the minutes for possesssion of stolen items. He walked free, to stal other bicicles. The police called the immigrant office, who are those who can actually will handle the problem: they will expel him as an illegal immigrant, given that he is from Morocco. The forced expulsion is the "only legal procedure" capable of preventing him from stealing an indefinite number of bicicles.

http://lanuovaferrara.gelocal.it/cronaca/2013/06/25/news/il-bis-del-ladro-di-biciclette-appena-libero-ruba-ancora-1.7318425

So, is it possible for a legal resident to make a living out of stealing things with no repercussion whatsoever?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The police applies the law.
It's a matter of fact that to formalize an arrest you need a public minister and an investigation judge. The police doesn't have a power of issueing arrests; their legal power lasts a very short time. Within hours, a magistrate must take power.

Do magistrates arrest people who have committed crimes? Who physically arrests a criminal?

 

[Bill Williams]

The "arrest" of a person for carrying a knife - if ever occurs - would last something three hours, then any normal person would be free. Just like it occurred to Guede.
It is illegal to carry a knife without justified reasons in public places. Guede was carrying a knife, btw; he had a knife in his rucksack (which belonged to the kitchen) but he was not carrying anything. To carry an object you need to take it to go somwhere. Now, I guess Guede was questioned about the knife, but it's obvious there is no evidence Guede was going somewhere carrying the knife with him.

I guess he was going to put it back in the kitchen before he left.

There is no penalty for intentions, deeds not yet committed.

Hey Machiavelli, does your expertise on these issues come from your theatre training, or from the experiences with sleep deprivation which causes you to issue a pseudo-diagnosis about Knox's ability to withstand sleep derpivated stress going into interrogation?

Or is it your expertise in saying that Rudy Guede should not have been tracked as a petty criminal, and if so Meredith might still be alive?

Or is it your implied believe that Rudy should not even have had these pre-Nov 1 criminal acts raised at trial?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Look, you may read a story from a local newspaper, about a man who was caught in flagrante while stealing a bicicle - helping himself with a large iron cutter - he was soptted by an assessor of the city government who called the police. Because called in flagrante, the public minister validated the police arrest. After a few hours he was free again. The following day he was caught again on stealing furhter two bicicles. Was he arrested? No. This time, not even for an hour. The police didn't see him in the exact moment while he was stealing them, so they only filed the minutes for possesssion of stolen items. He walked free, to stal other bicicles. The police called the immigrant office, who are those who can actually will handle the problem: they will expel him as an illegal immigrant, given that he is from Morocco. The forced expulsion is the "only legal procedure" capable of preventing him from stealing an indefinite number of bicicles.

So the police arrested him. Just as we thought.

 

[RWVBWL]

Rudi Guede visits Milan...

He would be basically free extremely soon in any event, even if he was caught in flagrante.
But basically, yes; his crime was having a stolen item, not breaking into a property. And anyway he was not caught on the act.

The police applies the law.
<snip>

Hi Machiavelli,
Can you help me understand The Law
and help me to see The Truth?

You do want to get to The Truth in this horrible murder case we've been discussing for years now,
don'tcha?

I gotta few questions about Rudi Guede's visit to Milan.
Supposedly his Auntie lived there, right?

After travellin',
IIRC, some 400 miles from Perugia to Milan,
why didn't Rudi just head over to her place to spend the night?

Heck, my relatives in Las Vegas, only 250 miles away,
don't mind putting me up, ya know, let me stay over at their place,
at any hour of the day:
"Hi Randy!!! It's great to see ya, come on in"!!!

But what about Rudi Guede.
he who was without a job in October of 2007,
he whose own rent in Perugia was $320 Euro a month at that time,
he, a dude apparently not on a budget, who says that he had paid $50 Euros to stay the night in a little kids school in Milan,
he who had a laptop in his possesion that was reported stolen,
1 that he had already put his own photo on it as the screensaver:



I gotsta wonder:
With Rudi's pic on the screensaver,
how did the cops in Milan even know this laptop was stolen?
Did The Rudi tell 'em?

Another question:
Did the cops confiscate this laptop from The Rudi?
Or give it back to him because his pic was on the screensaver?

Guede-o also had in his possesion a womans gold watch.
Why, I don't know. Do you?
Christmas was far in the future, as most definitely was Valentines Day too.
And as far as I know, The Rudi did not have a girlfriend and his mommy was far away and he wasn't even speakin' with her, right?
Why did RG even have a womans gold watch on him, hmmmm, my enquirin' mind on this summer evenin' wantsta know!?!

Another question:
What became of this womans gold watch?
Did the cops in Milan confiscate that womans gold watch?
Or the cell phones or the whole lotta keys that The Rudi had on him?

Or give 'em all back to The Rudi?

Thanks for a reply Machiavelli,,
I'm just tryin' to getto The Truth...
RWVBWL

 

[Dan O.]

No, you still don't understand the law. You can't have a 48h fermo, just like that. When there is a fermo, a magistrate must be immediately called. Not after 48h. The law says "with no delay". The 48h is a maximum limit, not an option.

Where have we seen an Italian law that say a "with no delay" before? Wasn't that in the law that deals with when a witness makes a self incriminating remark.

 

[RWVBWL]

Memory...

A plane crashed in San Francisco a coupla days ago.

Yesterday, I was listening to the local Los Angeles news radio ,
KNX 1070 news radio, and they said, IIRC, this:

"Investigators want to interview the pilots as soon as they can,
while the memory of what happened is still fresh in their minds."

Can you imagine if the pilots came out 1 year later and told a different story?


That's what some court in Italy wants me to believe here in this horrible murder case we discuss.

That the store owner who was 1st questioned by the police within days of a bloody murder+did not see Amanda Knox in his store soon afterwards,
A YEAR LATER, comes forward at the behest of some newspaper journalist + says that he did,
and then gives the police a very detailed description.

Right...

 

[acbytesla]

A plane crashed in San Francisco a coupla days ago.

Yesterday, I was listening to the local Los Angeles news radio ,
KNX 1070 news radio, and they said, IIRC, this:

"Investigators want to interview the pilots as soon as they can,
while the memory of what happened is still fresh in their minds."

Can you imagine if the pilots came out 1 year later and told a different story?


That's what some court in Italy wants me to believe here in this horrible murder case we discuss.

That the store owner who was 1st questioned by the police within days of a bloody murder+did not see Amanda Knox in his store soon afterwards,
A YEAR LATER, comes forward at the behest of some newspaper journalist + says that he did,
and then gives the police a very detailed description.

Right...

Don't you know? Prosecution witnesses's memories improve over time.

In fact the more detailed they are, the more likely they are to be true. You see, Quintavalle is one of those rare people who's short term memory is poor but who's longer term memory is exceptional. This is why he didn't say anything when shown a photo days after the murder, but over time his memory improved, even detailing clothes that Amanda would buy in the future in his detailed description of the girl with the piercing blue eyes.

 

[yimyammer]

Anglo perhaps you could expand on this whistle-blower letter a bit. It is very hard to read as is.

Thank you Grinder, I thought I was the only one confused