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

[davefoc]

30 years for murder. Shortened by six years for the same sort of mitigation given to Raf and Amanda and then a third off for the fast track trial equals 16. Then their system gives time off for good behavior etc.

They don't have plea deals so no deals can be cut, supposedly.

As an aside, I genuinely appreciate your input around here. I don't know enough a lot of times to take an opposing view and it nice to see a reasoned voice that isn't quite in lock step with the choir.

As to your post: Do you think it likely that Mignini wouldn't have fought against this kind of sentence mitigation if he hadn't agreed to do it for something in return? Do you think he had no bargaining chips when he presumably negotiated with Guede's lawyer about the charges against Guede? Or to ask it another way suppose that Mignini went full blast against Guede, what was the likely outcome for Guede? And if Mignini could have made it harder on Guede why didn't he when it seems like Mignini got so little in return for easing up?

Accomplice testimony can be very strong evidence when it contains details that can be corroborated. Guede supplied nothing like that. Why did Mignini accept this piddling offering from Guede?

1. Was it because he realized that Guede alone committed this crime and Guede was in no position to provide details against RS and AK that could be corroborated?
2. Was Mignini so consumed with zeal to convict RS and AK that any statement that he could get that included RS and AK was considered a win even if the statement was not credible and was without details that could be corroborated and would in most non-Italian court rooms been completely inadmissible without the opportunity to cross examine Guede.
3. Was there something else going on with regard to Guede's sentence and trial?

It seems like most people around here believe possibility 2. I suppose that this is the most likely possibility but all the possibilities seem unlikely to me, even if one of them must be true.

 

[Bill Williams]

They were in her room WITH the police. They didn't know someone was murdered in the room down the hall. The police don't usually seal off a room in a house that was burgled. They don't usually take prints here and never DNA.

Not the Latin but some credible report that she had no more of an alibi than Amanda and Raf.

You mean there could have been four pairs of feet tramping into Filomena's room? For 15 minutes? Did they hover over the contents of the room? Gee I read somewhere that Harry Rag is still saying that mixed blood was found in Filomena's room, and one of the reasons that Massei convicted was because of factoid "forensics" found in Filomena's room.

You're now putting four people in that room for 15 minutes? Tramping the contents of the hall (and maybe even the bathroom!) into Filomena's room? Whose side are you on!?

I think the trouble is, that your contrary nature does not consider much as credible..... so I'll leave it by saying that Filomena had essentially the same alibi as Amanda, and if the police had thought about getting Marco and Filomena into the Questura on the evening of the 5th, that the two of them would have folded like bedcots, and spent the next year in prison complaining of their innocence.

If nothing else, I'm looking at the "case against Filomena" osmotically. That seems to be the standard in Italy these days. Even using Machiavelli's standard of "compatibility", then this is at least compatible with the facts....

 

[Machiavelli]

(..) Do you think it likely that Mignini wouldn't have fought against this kind of sentence mitigation if he hadn't agreed to do it for something in return? Do you think he had no bargaining chips when he presumably negotiated with Guede's lawyer about the charges against Guede? Or to ask it another way suppose that Mignini went full blast against Guede, what was the likely outcome for Guede? And if Mignini could have made it harder on Guede why didn't he when it seems like Mignini got so little in return for easing up?

1 When Guede was given the generic mitigation, which brings the penalty down from life to 24 years like Knox ans Sollecito had, Mignini was no longer the official prosecutor, and had no authority to decide anything. In fact this sentence mitigation was awarded to Guede on his appeal, when Mignini was no longer the official prosecutor.
2 There was no bargaining about the charges. First, because bargaining on charges is illegal in Italy and can’t take place (moreover charges are decided by the preliminary judge, not by the prosecutor). But above all, for sure that could never happen on appeal. That would be actually impossible, even if they wanted to commit something illegal. Even less that could happen on appeal from a trial in where the prosecution had already won, as was Guede’s trial (he got 30 years, the maximum, on his first trial). Even if Mignini had been the official prosecutor (he was not) what could he offer to a person who had been already found guilty and sentenced by a judge to 30 years, on Mignini’s own request?
3 On Guede’s appeal, the Prosecutor General asked to confirm the whole charges and to uphold the 30 years sentencing. This is what the trial paper say. No request of mitigation from the prosecution. No change in prosecution arguments between the first and the second trial. So where do you see “turn” in the prosecution line leading to mitigation?
4 What could the prosecution get from charges pushed against Guede? Realistically, on a short track trial 30 years was the maximum they could hope for. Any minimal lack of aggravation would cause the penalty to drop from 30 to below 20 years. On the fast track trial, if the accused doesn’t get the maximum (life, which becomes 30) he/she will get a penalty of 20 years or below. Nothing in between.

Accomplice testimony can be very strong evidence when it contains details that can be corroborated. Guede supplied nothing like that. Why did Mignini accept this piddling offering from Guede?

1. Was it because he realized that Guede alone committed this crime and Guede was in no position to provide details against RS and AK that could be corroborated?
2. Was Mignini so consumed with zeal to convict RS and AK that any statement that he could get that included RS and AK was considered a win even if the statement was not credible and was without details that could be corroborated and would in most non-Italian court rooms been completely inadmissible without the opportunity to cross examine Guede.

Bear in mind that the only reason why the letter by Rudy Guede was brought in Ak and RS’s appeal, it was because they called Alessi to testify about alleged Guede’s confession. This means the defences called Alessi – a child murderer – to testify about hearsay. If if was not for their choice to bring up this new topic, Guede would have never be summoned.
So Guede was called and his letter entered as a consequence of a defence move.
(btw all this happened after Guede had already obtained his reduction to 16 years).

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course I don't believe Filomena was involved in the crime. I'm trying to underscore how any alleged factoid can be interpreted, twisted, or ignored to try to support a storyline using a suspicious mind (confirmation bias). (...)

There is a basic difference between a false claim (like yours) and those that you call "factoids".
Filomena had a solid alibi which was never proved false, but also, above all, there was absolutely no evidence against Filomena. She never told loads of inconsistencies (like the mop-shower story) neither did her boyfriend.
She picked up her laptop and cleared it from glass shards - without rummaging anywhare - but this happened before the murder was discovered.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is a basic difference between a false claim (like yours) and those that you call "factoids".
Filomena had a solid alibi which was never proved false, but also, above all, there was absolutely no evidence against Filomena. She never told loads of inconsistencies (like the mop-shower story) neither did her boyfriend.
She picked up her laptop and cleared it from glass shards - without rummaging anywhare - but this happened before the murder was discovered.

AK and RS's alibi was "proved false" by a heroin addict (who even you admit could not see 30 meters), a woman who did not know the time or day of a scream she heard, and a shop keeper who initially knew nothing of Amanda Knox in her shop and where other employees denied what Quintavalle was supposed to have seen.

As Grinder has said, if their trial had been within six months of the crime, there would have been no one to challenge their alibi, as similarly if Filomena had been railroaded there was no one, reasonably, who could have challenged Filomena's alibi.

The difference was that a year after the horrible murder, usually at the urging of a reporter and not the cops (!), suddenly a case with no evidence against the two had three, count 'em, three challenges to their alibi.

All of which were dreamt up. That, my friend, is the definition of a factoid.

 

[davefoc]

[post above]

Thanks for the response Machiavelli. It is essentially what you said before.

I remain a bit skeptical of the gist however, but I can not dispute it based on any evidence I am aware of. I just find it hard to believe that Mignini had nothing to do with the light sentence that Guede received. Could Mignini have attempted to add additional crimes against Guede to the charges like breaking and entering, and theft? Could Mignini have threatened to prosecute for crimes that Guede had recently committed in addition to rape and murder? Did Mignini have to go along with the fact track trial? Did Mignini have the standing to argue against the sentence reductions?

 

[Machiavelli]

AK and RS's alibi was "proved false" by a heroin addict (who even you admit could not see 30 meters), a woman who did not know the time or day of a scream she heard, and a shop keeper who initially knew nothing of Amanda Knox in her shop and where other employees denied what Quintavalle was supposed to have seen.

RS alibi was proven false by his own computer.
First because of what was not there, since there was no trace of the writing e-mails, surfing and working as he claimed.
It was proven by his computer records also because of something which was there, since there has been half an hour activity after 5am, showing they were not sleeping all night and they did not wake up at nine as they claimed.
AK's aliby was disproven by RS himself, who changed story and withdrew it. He even told a completely different story about going out together in the evening, her coming back late etc.
The alibies were also disproven by phone records, since RS cell phone was off all night while he instead had maintained it was on (before he changed version in his book).
It was disproven by Francesco Sollecito's testimony, as he testified that the two had already found the pipe leak at 8.40pm.
It was contradicted by AK, who told that the only thing she was sure about is that they had dinner very late, later than 21.30 or 20.00 which was proven false (Sollecito and his father, and her testimony too, place instead before 8.40pm).
It was shown to be false also by its intrinsic weakness, since the alibi was unrealistically poor and did not report any details (Sollecito claims he doesn't recall if they had sex; she doesn't remember either; he doesn't remember what they ate; she neither; she doesn't remember a single thing she did, and offer an unrealistic wide array of any possible activity, all of which she did not do; he is also fails to say anything).
It was shown to be false by further details like the fact that Knox does not even recall the phone call from Solelcito's father in the morning.

It was disproven by Quintavalle, who saw Knox before his store, while the claim that other employees denied what he saw or that he himself allegedly contradicted it, is absolutely false. Those you tell about Quintavalle are lies, there are transcripts to show that.

Nara Capezzali has nothing to do with their alibi. But she is an excellent witness who was totally consistent, and she is not "one" woman alone, in fact there is also another woman who heared the scream.

As Grinder has said, if their trial had been within six months of the crime, there would have been no one to challenge their alibi, as similarly if Filomena had been railroaded there was no one, reasonably, who could have challenged Filomena's alibi.

If North-Corea vs Brazil 2012 football game had ended after 45 minutes, North Corea would have eliminated Brazil from the championship.

 

[Onofarar]

I still believe Patrick was involved with Rudy. I'm not buying his alibi.

I am afraid you will have to buy it. A Swiss professor with no skin in the game came all the way back from Switzerland to give a statement to the police that he and Lumumba had spent the entire evening of the Nov 1st talking and drinking (and solving all the world's great problems ?) at Lumumba's club. The professor came back at his own expense after his phone calls to the police giving Lumumba an alibi were ignored / rejected - that is Lumumba remained in jail.

Just to be clear I am no fan of Lumumba but he was dragged into this mess by the same incompetent gang of fools that arrested, charged and prosecuted AK & RS. Even after being released the police kept his bar closed for 6 months or longer under the fiction that it was a "crime scene". This forced Lumumba into bankruptcy. Naturally he is upset. Of course, his recourse should be against the police who caused all this but we have seen what happens in Perugia when you accuse the police of any illegal activity!

So he attacks the next best target - Amanda. After all, had she just been stronger and held out under the pressure of the police on the night of Nov 6 - 7
and not named Patrick - he might still be a thriving club owner in Perugia. Of course

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
I remain a bit skeptical of the gist however, but I can not dispute it based on any evidence I am aware of. I just find it hard to believe that Mignini had nothing to do with the light sentence that Guede received.

This is not skeptical, in fact it's very biased and prejudicial. I would say, more than prejudicial, since you have evidence of the contrary. How could Mignini have to do with his obtaining generic mitigation, when Guede got this benefit on his appeal (from Mignini's prosecution)?
And on appeal, the prosecution general even requested generic mitigation to be denied!

Could Mignini have attempted to add additional crimes against Guede to the charges like breaking and entering, and theft?

No. Or better, in order to charge Guede with breaking in and entering, you would have needed the indictment to be set on a completely different scenario and a completely different trial, no three-perpetrators scenario, no accusation against AK and RS, no investigating judge accusing them and no preliminary sending them to trial.

Could Mignini have threatened to prosecute for crimes that Guede had recently committed in addition to rape and murder?

No. Absolutely not.
And in the event that he was investigated, such investigation could not interfere with his murder trial in any way.

Did Mignini have to go along with the fact track trial?

Yes. The fast track trial is proposed by the defendant, who can also bind it to conditions. He has a right to it. The prosecution cannot refuse.

Did Mignini have the standing to argue against the sentence reductions?

No. That was an appeal. He has no standing to comment the decision of a Court of Appeals. Only the Prosecutor Generel could file a recourse at the Supreme Court to argue it.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, I doubt that the wealthy family's (earlier) support of Rudy would be a factor in a gruesome murder that brought scores of Italian and foreign reporters to Perugia. The police might have been lenient with Rudy due to the wealthy family's (earlier) support if the police caught or suspected Rudy of committing a less-serious crime, but not for the slaughter of a young woman.

But you're thinking like an American, Strozzi. We have to wonder about the meaning of the slaughter of a young woman in a culture as misogynistic as Italy's (not that ours isn't). In the Sarah Scazzi case, the dietrologia has been the thing, just as in the Kercher case. In both cases, it seems as if punishing women for the death of a woman makes more sense to them than punishing the male perpetrator.

Even in Seattle, well-connected criminals can buy their way out. This kid's parents were able to pay $2,000,000 bail to allow him to leave jail after he killed a woman while speeding in his new sports car. And often in the US we see the crimes of politicians' kids hushed up, or their sentences mitigated.

I don't know, but I am going to guess that status and money count for a lot in Perugia.

 

[Machiavelli]

But you're thinking like an American, Strozzi. We have to wonder about the meaning of the slaughter of a young woman in a culture as misogynistic as Italy's (not that ours isn't). In the Sarah Scazzi case, the dietrologia has been the thing, just as in the Kercher case. In both cases, it seems as if punishing women for the death of a woman makes more sense to them than punishing the male perpetrator.
(...)

You are a fine anthropologist, as for your deep knowledge about Italian culture.
About the Sarah Scazzi case, I suppose you also buy the summary of RoseMontague taking it as the truth, rather than reading about the case facts...

 

[Mary_H]

You are a fine anthropologist, as for your deep knowledge about Italian culture.

This is precisely why I wrote, "I don't know, but I am going to guess..."

About the Sarah Scazzi case, I suppose you also buy the summary of RoseMontague taking it as the truth, rather than reading about the case facts...

God help me if I relied on the "case facts" of the Kercher case when I could read the summary of RoseMontague.

 

[davefoc]

...[post above]

Thank you for the response. It seems reasonable. I would add an additional detail that I noticed when I was looking into this a bit. Guede was charged with theft and found not guilty.

 

[Machiavelli]

God help me if I relied on the "case facts" of the Kercher case when I could read the summary of RoseMontague.

I think you're talking about the Sarah Scazzi case...

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you for the response. It seems reasonable. I would add an additional detail that I noticed when I was looking into this a bit. Guede was charged with theft and found not guilty.

Yes. It's correct. Even if actually it was not theft, it was unlawful appropriation, because you cannot steal from the ownership of a dead person.
But if found guilty of taking the cell phones, Guede would have got maybe 16years 8months on appeal, instead of 16 years. This is the kind of difference.

 

[Mary_H]

I think you're talking about the Sarah Scazzi case...

I am trying to say that media and/or police reports are not necessarily reliable in either case.

Barbie Nadeau summed it up well: "But the Pugliese police weren’t satisfied with some of [Misseri's] details—or with his daughter Sabrina’s behavior in the days after the crime......there is scant hard forensic evidence that links Sabrina to her cousin’s murder, but, like the Kercher case, that might not make any difference in innocence or guilt."

As for Italian culture, Nina Burleigh wrote: "Many of the women in the Knox court have extensive career experience battling the epidemic that plagues Italian women of in-home rapes and murders by their partners. At a conference in 2009, Napoleoni opined that in her experience, it was easier to save prostitutes than married women from cycles of violent attacks because police can arrest prostitutes before it's too late."

ETA: "....in 2012 a United Nations’ report labelled domestic abuse in Italy as the 'most pervasive form of violence' in the country, affecting over 30 percent of Italian women."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/worldvi...-domestic-violence-persists-despite-new-laws/

The point I was trying to convey to Strozzi is that it is unlikely this pervasive cultural attitude changes the minute a woman is killed. It's not as if anybody is suddenly going to become protective and compassionate if they weren't before.

 

[Poppy1016]

Can't wait for an in situ and how the entire room was spoiled for any evidence because she 'rummaged" through it.

It did not belong to the state. They didn't own it. It could have been evidence and might have had an important print on it.

The fact that she grabbed it because it had work information is no indication of any untoward behavior.

Why don't you find some proof that she didn't have a rock solid alibi instead of pushing your swiping theory.

It's pretty obvious to most all that they didn't try to prove it was staged from physical evidence.

non furtum facies omnia

Why was she permitted to remove possible evidence and disturb a crime scene?

 

[Poppy1016]

I am afraid you will have to buy it. A Swiss professor with no skin in the game came all the way back from Switzerland to give a statement to the police that he and Lumumba had spent the entire evening of the Nov 1st talking and drinking (and solving all the world's great problems ?) at Lumumba's club. The professor came back at his own expense after his phone calls to the police giving Lumumba an alibi were ignored / rejected - that is Lumumba remained in jail.

Just to be clear I am no fan of Lumumba but he was dragged into this mess by the same incompetent gang of fools that arrested, charged and prosecuted AK & RS. Even after being released the police kept his bar closed for 6 months or longer under the fiction that it was a "crime scene". This forced Lumumba into bankruptcy. Naturally he is upset. Of course, his recourse should be against the police who caused all this but we have seen what happens in Perugia when you accuse the police of any illegal activity!

So he attacks the next best target - Amanda. After all, had she just been stronger and held out under the pressure of the police on the night of Nov 6 - 7
and not named Patrick - he might still be a thriving club owner in Perugia. Of course

The police named Patrick,and forced Amanda to agree.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am trying to say that media and/or police reports are not necessarily reliable in either case.

Barbie Nadeau summed it up well: "But the Pugliese police weren’t satisfied with some of [Misseri's] details—or with his daughter Sabrina’s behavior in the days after the crime......there is scant hard forensic evidence that links Sabrina to her cousin’s murder, but, like the Kercher case, that might not make any difference in innocence or guilt."

As for Italian culture, Nina Burleigh wrote: "Many of the women in the Knox court have extensive career experience battling the epidemic that plagues Italian women of in-home rapes and murders by their partners. At a conference in 2009, Napoleoni opined that in her experience, it was easier to save prostitutes than married women from cycles of violent attacks because police can arrest prostitutes before it's too late."

ETA: "....in 2012 a United Nations’ report labelled domestic abuse in Italy as the 'most pervasive form of violence' in the country, affecting over 30 percent of Italian women."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/worldvi...-domestic-violence-persists-despite-new-laws/

The point I was trying to convey to Strozzi is that it is unlikely this pervasive cultural attitude changes the minute a woman is killed. It's not as if anybody is suddenly going to become protective and compassionate if they weren't before.

If you talk about the Scazzi case, well, there is a bit to say about factual details beyond what is said by Nadeau and RoseMontague.

At the end, Sabrina and Cosima were sentenced to life by a judges panel leaded by to women. I would be cautious before labelling leading woman judges as "mysoginistic".

Violence against women exists as a common criminal phenomenon, but I fail to see any connection between this and guilt or innocence of Misseri. These rationalizations/connections are kind of anthropologic dietrologia, really bad stuff.

 

[RandyN]

Thanks for the response Machiavelli. It is essentially what you said before.

I remain a bit skeptical of the gist however, but I can not dispute it based on any evidence I am aware of. I just find it hard to believe that Mignini had nothing to do with the light sentence that Guede received. Could Mignini have attempted to add additional crimes against Guede to the charges like breaking and entering, and theft? Could Mignini have threatened to prosecute for crimes that Guede had recently committed in addition to rape and murder? Did Mignini have to go along with the fact track trial? Did Mignini have the standing to argue against the sentence reductions?

Yumi will tell you below... NO! It is impossible for Mignini to do this in RG case. BUTT...He will ignore the fact that both Comode and Mignini were a part of the prosecution team for the appeal of AK and RS. And they asked for additional time in jail to be increased to life on prison plus a long long stretch of solitary...and why? Because of nothing! The motivation was now nothing...they killed for nothing and so they deserve life in prison now....you cant make this stuff up...its in the case files.

A fast track trial IS NOT guaranteed. This is a lie of Yummi.

Look Mignini had RG DNA found on MK purse zipper....no one else's traces of any type anywhere and yet Mignini failed to file charges of theft against RG. Now who does that and why?

Mignini does it and he does it because he has made a deal with RG. No other explanation or conclusion can be made. Pity that in Italy no one ever gets to question Migninis highly suspicious behavior....not even the press.

Mignini needed RG case to include multiple attackers and even though no proof of that was argued much at all let alone against (RS and AK had no opportunity to cross examine anything) then this multiple attacker theory was essentially rubber stamped with no exam really...what was RG lawyer going to argue against that? No. And Mignini NEEDED there to be multiple attackers so....

The strangest thing about the illogical Italians is how they think they can get away with lumping the SC confirmation in RG case about multiple attackers into the RS/AK case. It goes against every legal principle in any civilized country...(thus)... Forget that multiple attackers is a fact less supposition. Even if it was confirmed (and it can never be so) how can it be determined that the other accomplices are RS/AK? I say the accomplices are Toto and Koko and Lumumba, Nara and Quintinvale and Filomena and her BF who have no confirmed alibi no matter how many times Yummi wishes to lie about that. Plus I hear they are all Masons or at least wear Mason shoes...so that would be enough to convict right there...

Mignini is in this up to his eyebrows...

Sara Scazzis uncle killed and then raped her dead body and then tossed her down a well...and he confessed (on tape this time) and yet the stupid Italians created just as unlikely fact less case against her aunt and cousin...and also released the confessed murderer. Why? Check out the case...you will be amazed and bewildered and you will stay far from Italy...because something must be in the water...