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

[Chris_Halkides]

What mitigating circumstances were there?

Guede opted for a fast track trial option, this automatically reduced his sentence by one third. In addition, the Italian penal system reduces a sentence for good behaviour and for example attending a college degree course. This is beyond yours or my control! Now do I believe this is lenient, YES. Can you or I do anything about the penal system of Italy, no. Oh I guess one could aimless whine on about it.

He also received mitigation, which the prosecution did not appeal.

 

[Grinder]

But when one has a bunch of compatibles that becomes osmatically a match, right?

Well, yes, of course.

Which sums up the problem.

Close does get you a cigar in Italy.

 

[Bill Williams]

What do you mean by "cohesive explanation"?
(Do crimes normally receive an "explanation"? Are judges required to "understand" the commission of a crime, or instead to assess evidence of a crime?)
And what do innocentisti offer? Rudy Guede breaks in through an illogical point of entry without leaving traces and without attempting to steal, kills Meredith and rapes a dying or dead victim (without leaving his bloody handprint traces on her body), washes his bare foot immersing it in bloody water without leaving traces of himself in the bathroom nor on the floor to get there than walks out with bloody shoes on. Just to start. This based on the fact that he is a thieve and slept in a nursery school in MIlan. Is this the starting of a "cohesive explanation"?

Here we go again.

1. Rudy breaks in through a very logical point of entry, esp. when compared with the deck on the other side which is fully exposed to the roads. The recent Channel 5 documentary shows how the climb through that window was done.

2. Without leaving traces.... perhaps you could back this up with pictures, reports or forensic analysis which shows this was even investigated. It was just assumed. One cannot fail to investigate it, and then later claim, "they never found any traces."

3. Without attempting to steal... except for Merediths money, and phones. Rudy suddenly came into cash to pay for his clubbing after committing this crime, as well as his flight to Germany. He left with Meredith's money after killing her.... and now who say, "Without attempting to steal"? It's assumptions like that which lead to wrongful convictions of others.

4. "without leaving his bloody handprint traces on her body", but leaving his DNA trace inside her in intimate fashion?

And on and on. In fact, it is the cohesive explanation (covered elsewhere) which does not involve a conspiracy theory of others being able to "choose not to sleep" or "speak in mafia code."

 

[acbytesla]

Double jeopardy will not be the winning argument. The treaty was made with full knowledge of the Italian system. It has been tried before and lost.

Could you provide a cite that the court can prevent extradition?

There are no cites, but it goes before a Ninth circuit court judge to verify the underlying conditions. He'll hold a hearing and it all depends on how that judge sees the case. He can in effect turn it into a trial asking for witnesses, scientific evidence or make it a 30 minute rubber stamp hearing. I would agree with you that double jeopardy doesn't seem to be the best bet, but I would certainly argue that point along with the others.

Judges love these kind of cases Grinder. It gets them noticed in an otherwise anonymous job. And judges have a great deal of authority. What I think is strange about the process is that if Italy applies for extradition, a US attorney for the State Department will press the case for the Italians in the 9th circuit. (At least that is how I understand the process).

We'll have to see how it goes.

 

[Grinder]

Has nothing to do with costumes or buses.

I know that

But while doing a search I came across that beauty which says he saw them continuously from 9:27 til almost midnight.

That is compatible with a complete alibi for the kids is it not? How many more compatibles do they need?

 

[Diocletus]

Really how would that change anything?

It would make him look righteous instead of like a vindictive fool.

 

[Kaosium]

I am pretty sure he knows Maresca, so what? He has a different perspective to his sister murder than you.

That was Maresca's job, to ask to aggravations and oppose mitigations which add to or reduce sentencing. He's also allowed to differ with the prosecution if he feels they are being too lenient and advance evidence and arguments for the court to hear.

It was the case as prosecuted that led to Guede's easy sentence, not to mention the curious omission of other charges which could have added extra years to his sentence like which happened to Raffaele and Amanda.

Do you really think most murderers are walking the streets in Italy as soon as Rudy might be?

 

[toto]

In minimal amount (as for Stefanoni's testimony at the preliminary hearing), and some of the samples were of just Guede's Y-haplotype (implies "compatible", not identfying that specific individual for sure).

What are you saying this signifies please?

 

[Bill Williams]

I know that

But while doing a search I came across that beauty which says he saw them continuously from 9:27 til almost midnight.

That is compatible with a complete alibi for the kids is it not? How many more compatibles do they need?

Speaking of botched investigations.......

I'm now reading posters referring to some of the Italian press they are reading from today. There're no links provided, and this is perhaps totally anecdotal, but the surprise is:

After the Nencini reinstatement of the Massei convictions.... some of today's comment seems to be....

That Knox and Sollecito now stand as convicted.... but:

The Italian press is making mention of the way this whole investigation was botched. Maybe I'm being pollyanna about this, but Nencini simply doing what the ISC told it to do just may have a "last straw" effect on the Italian populace.

At the end of the day, they are the people who will have to live with a system that can convict on the basis of no evidence, but as long as that lack of evidence is examined "osmotically", it results in what was seen yesterday.

It's Italians who will pay the consequences of this sort of legal reasoning.

 

[Grinder]

There are no cites, but it goes before a Ninth circuit court judge to verify the underlying conditions. He'll hold a hearing and it all depends on how that judge sees the case. He can in effect turn it into a trial asking for witnesses, scientific evidence or make it a 30 minute rubber stamp hearing. I would agree with you that double jeopardy doesn't seem to be the best bet, but I would certainly argue that point along with the others.

You missed HB's post. It goes to the local federal district court.

Judges love these kind of cases Grinder. It gets them noticed in an otherwise anonymous job. And judges have a great deal of authority. What I think is strange about the process is that if Italy applies for extradition, a US attorney for the State Department will press the case for the Italians in the 9th circuit. (At least that is how I understand the process).

We have a treaty with Italy that both countries signed. The executive is fulfilling our part of the deal. I'm not so sure that a federal judge would love this case if he wasn't planning on replacing judge Judy.

We'll have to see how it goes.

Or how it doesn't go as in the case of Bertha.

Bertha running a fever; shutdown to continue

 

[AmyStrange]

I second that nomination

-

Nominations for top ten things the PGP refuse to address:

1. De Felice and the until she buckled and told us what we knew was correct.

2. TOD evidence that everything including the digestive facts point to a death no latter than 10 pm and probably by 9:30 or earlier.

3. Time line for murder including Curatolo, the break down vehicles and the TOD.

4. Why the bathmat print looks more like Rudy's foot than Raf's.

5. Why the police didn't take reference prints or DNA from other house members?

6. Why the police didn't grab Patrick's knives and seal his apartment?

7. How the three coordinated the night's caper?

8. How they were able to remove all trace of themselves from the room and Meredith? Include how they held her down but left no DNA, in particular Amanda who seemed to have left DNA all over her bathroom?

That's a start.

9.

-

A very good start. Thank you Grinder. Somebody should keep posting this list and add their own questions.

I myself would love the answer to number one, but the only thing I'm hearing is that's not what they meant. Never answering the question. That seems out of whack to me.

9. I'd also like to add, what specific crime did Amanda confess to or accuse anyone of? No details of the actual murder at all. The worst confession I have ever read in my life, and I've read a lot of them. Another thing that's out of whack, in my opinion.

Again, thank you Grinder,

d

-

 

[acbytesla]

It will actually be a district court judge, not a ninth circuit court of appeals judge. Also, you can't necessarily guarantee that either as she could be residing or staying in another state when the extradition request comes in. If that was the case, it wouldn't necessarily be a court in Washington deciding.

You're right Humanity. As of this moment it would go to the US Federal Western District court at 700 Stewart Avenue in Seattle and then it would be appealed to the 9th Circuit court in San Francisco and then to the US Supreme Court.

I think I have it right now.

Thanks.

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps the biggest error in Abrams' piece was what it did not include, Amanda's withdrawal of her accusation against Lumumba in her second memoriale (my thanks to Katody Matrass for pointing it out by looking over Amanda's testimony). She sounds more clearheaded in it than the first memoriale. Why would a guilty person make a false accusation and then withdraw it. Her two statements sound more like coerced false confessions/accusations to me; for one thing, they don't make much sense. For another, her account of the interrogation is consistent with this hypothesis IMO. Disclaimer: I have no professional expertise in interrogations.

Many people release statements and then they withdraw them, for various reasons. But Amanda Knox did not withdraw her statement. She put it in doubt, undermined its credibility. She could have stated "I lied because I felt coerced/threatned" but instead she clearly stated that she did not lie, that her testimony was genuine.
This closes the question: to me this means no coercion (moreover there is no confession, there is only a false accusation). A claim of coerced statement has its foundation on a claim of having lied because they forced you to lie by threats or other explicit means.

Moreover the first and second memoriale actually do place further false evidence against an innocent (Lumumba). They repeatedly offer false evidence, albeit at the same time they intend to qualify this evidence as "non reliable" - but they do place false evidence, they offer a false testimony, this is a fact itself meaningful and indepent from assessment about the evidence reliability.

Knox instead claims genuine testimony (besides repeatedly placing false evidence) thus, the only innocent option would be internalized testimony, that is false memory, and confusion.
But this is not credible.

 

[GWCarver]

Just sitting here wondering what Mignini will do when Guede gets out and someone offers him a half-million dollars to tell the truth about what really happened in the House of Horrors.

 

[RandyN]

I think rather than culture there is also a problem with precise knowledge of details. There isn't a single statement of Curatolo about costumes, and there is actually no evidence he got the buses wrong (there is just an unproven defence claim).

I am reminded of the advice..."Never argue with a fool...they will drag down to their level and then beat you with experience".

 

[Machiavelli]

That was Maresca's job, to ask to aggravations and oppose mitigations which add to or reduce sentencing. He's also allowed to differ with the prosecution if he feels they are being too lenient and advance evidence and arguments for the court to hear.

It was the case as prosecuted that led to Guede's easy sentence, not to mention the curious omission of other charges which could have added extra years to his sentence like which happened to Raffaele and Amanda.
(...)

No, it was Rudy's choice of the short track trial, coupled with the fact that the other two had obtained generic mitigation.
I had demonstrated this to you already.

 

[Machiavelli]

Here we go again.

1. Rudy breaks in through a very logical point of entry, (...)

Yes, yes. Go further with your inventing things. As inventing Massei's words, etc. You can re-design the whole world.

 

[Machiavelli]

Which sums up the problem.

Close does get you a cigar in Italy.

In the whole Universe, not just in Italy.

 

[Planigale]

In minimal amount (as for Stefanoni's testimony at the preliminary hearing), and some of the samples were of just Guede's Y-haplotype (implies "compatible", not identfying that specific individual for sure).

Now for someone who only discovered DNA was not a protein a few hours ago you need to be careful; haplotype has a different meaning when used in forensic DNA analysis, usually to do with SNPs and STRs, which because of the high mutation rates in Y chromosomes does allow a high degree of certainty in identity especially if you are from a very different ethnicity from the background population.

I think it says something for the pro guilt argument that Mach only discovered what DNA was today and Briars does not believe in evolution. The principle pro-guilt proponents seem utterly ignorant of the two major advances in biology. Yet they are happy to lecture on science.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

-


-

You can call it whining if you want, but I have a "different perspective" about it and that is that I believe in questioning everything, especially things that seem out of whack, and not to mention Rudy's lenient punishment seems out of whack to me, but that is just my opinion. I hope we're stilled allowed to do that here.

Your mileage may vary depending on your current perspective on things.

I'm not complaining about you specifically C, you seem to be leaning more towards guilt, but you still have questions and you are not shy about expressing them, plus you get to the point. No beatin' around the bush.

Thank you for all of that,

d

-

Sadly, Guede’s treatment isn’t out of whack once he opted for a fast track trial the judicial\penal system of Italy took over. Now if you have something constructive to add in the context of that system, please do say.