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

[AmyStrange]

-

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.

-

OK, but do you DISagree that his sentence is too lenient. Regardless of what you think is legally sound, can we at least agree his sentence was too lenient?

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

No it is not compatible with an alibi. In order to be compatible with an alibi, they should have declared that they spent the evening sitting on that wall in that piazza.

 

[toto]

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.

So, trying to tell the truth, but totally confused?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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

Chris
Correct me if I am wrong but his mitigation effectively reduced his sentence from 30 years to whatever Raffaele was sentenced too, then reduced by one third?

 

[Grinder]

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.

Actually I don't think you have it right.

Whenever there is a treaty or convention for extradition between the United States and any foreign government, or in cases arising under section 3181 (b), any justice or judge of the United States, or any magistrate judge authorized so to do by a court of the United States, or any judge of a court of record of general jurisdiction of any State, may, upon complaint made under oath, charging any person found within his jurisdiction, with having committed within the jurisdiction of any such foreign government any of the crimes provided for by such treaty or convention, or provided for under section 3181 (b), issue his warrant for the apprehension of the person so charged, that he may be brought before such justice, judge, or magistrate judge, to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and considered. Such complaint may be filed before and such warrant may be issued by a judge or magistrate judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia if the whereabouts within the United States of the person charged are not known or, if there is reason to believe the person will shortly enter the United States. If, on such hearing, he deems the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge under the provisions of the proper treaty or convention, or under section 3181 (b), he shall certify the same, together with a copy of all the testimony taken before him, to the Secretary of State, that a warrant may issue upon the requisition of the proper authorities of such foreign government, for the surrender of such person, according to the stipulations of the treaty or convention; and he shall issue his warrant for the commitment of the person so charged to the proper jail, there to remain until such surrender shall be made​

.

It would seem from the above that "any judge of a court of record of general jurisdiction of any State" may do the hearing. It also seems that this would be very difficult to get to the Supreme Court. There would be no cause for an appeal on technical legal grounds.

This would be expensive and might cut into Brazil travel funds.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

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.

-

sorry for bringing up semantics, but what do you mean by "constructive"?

I personally think it is very constructive to complain about something as out of whack as Rudy's lenient sentence. What more do you want?

I'm willing to listen to your definition of "constructive" as a place to start my "constructive criticism" of Rudy's lenient sentence,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

No it is not compatible with an alibi. In order to be compatible with an alibi, they should have declared that they spent the evening sitting on that wall in that piazza.

Why do you cling to Curatolo? He had the wrong night. Even Crini's version of TOD means that either Crini is wrong or Curatolo is wrong. I don't understand why you cling to Curatolo as providing anything of value to understanding this horrible event.

 

[acbytesla]

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



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.

[/URL]

Yes we have a treaty and yes the executive if fulfilling our part of the deal but we have seen in the past extradition requests refused by the executive and I didn't notice Italy revoking the treaty at that time.

With all due respect Grinder I disagree with your dismissal of my point about this is the kind of case a Federal Court judge loves.

A Federal Court Judge has a job for life unless they are impeached. So unless they are hoping for an appointment on the US Supreme Court, they are beholden to no one except the Constitution. A President can't tell them what to do. In fact, that would be ILLEGAL. They are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate so they have as much authority and discretion as the law allows.

A higher court can reverse their decision, but they have no authority to reprimand or censure a lower court judge unless that judge has done something illegal. And viewing the law differently than a higher court would not be considered illegal.

 

[Bill Williams]

No it is not compatible with an alibi. In order to be compatible with an alibi, they should have declared that they spent the evening sitting on that wall in that piazza.

Instead they told the truth that they were at Raffaele's all night.

But with this said, I partially agree with you.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

But why didn't Rudy get a mitigation for truly loving the girl he raped? Was it because she wasn't a minor? True love is only a mitigation for raping children in Italy???

 

[Grinder]

No it is not compatible with an alibi. In order to be compatible with an alibi, they should have declared that they spent the evening sitting on that wall in that piazza.

You mean if a drunk said he spent the night in a bar but it turned out he had a witness that he was in a park all night that wouldn't give him an alibi?

Maybe something got lost in translation.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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

Looking righteous; whatever. Vindictiveness appears to exist in others. How can you change anything that has happened?

 

[Bill Williams]

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

Ad hominem. Did not address that Guede broke in through that window, which you claimed was an "illogical point of entry" - it was THE logical point of entry for someone with Rudy's background and ability, and that there was no evidence of him doing it, when the reality is that it was never investigated and evidence was never collected which confirmed or denied it.

Police incompetence, and myopia at getting locked into a theory too early (police triumphantly case closed before Rudy was even known about).

 

[Machiavelli]

-

-

OK, but do you DISagree that his sentence is too lenient. Regardless of what you think is legally sound, can we at least agree his sentence was too lenient?

d

-

Look, Amy, the problem I actually don't like the way you put it: why "his" sentence and not "their" sentences? Because, from my point of view, and from the point of view of the law, the three accused obtained exactly the same degree of leniency.
All three got 24 years for the charges of rape and murder, and Rudy had a 1/3 cut only because of his choice of short track trial.

And their actual prison times are not going to be that different after all. Sollecito will serve in fact likely another 8-9 years in jail not more, this means he will serve something like 12-13 years overall while Rudy will serve likely around 10 years. Knox if extradited will spend likely another 10 years so about 14 years.
Why do you say "his" sentence is lenient instead of "their" sentences are lenient?

 

[acbytesla]

Actually I don't think you have it right.

Whenever there is a treaty or convention for extradition between the United States and any foreign government, or in cases arising under section 3181 (b), any justice or judge of the United States, or any magistrate judge authorized so to do by a court of the United States, or any judge of a court of record of general jurisdiction of any State, may, upon complaint made under oath, charging any person found within his jurisdiction, with having committed within the jurisdiction of any such foreign government any of the crimes provided for by such treaty or convention, or provided for under section 3181 (b), issue his warrant for the apprehension of the person so charged, that he may be brought before such justice, judge, or magistrate judge, to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and considered. Such complaint may be filed before and such warrant may be issued by a judge or magistrate judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia if the whereabouts within the United States of the person charged are not known or, if there is reason to believe the person will shortly enter the United States. If, on such hearing, he deems the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge under the provisions of the proper treaty or convention, or under section 3181 (b), he shall certify the same, together with a copy of all the testimony taken before him, to the Secretary of State, that a warrant may issue upon the requisition of the proper authorities of such foreign government, for the surrender of such person, according to the stipulations of the treaty or convention; and he shall issue his warrant for the commitment of the person so charged to the proper jail, there to remain until such surrender shall be made​

.

Western District Court at the moment. See Highlighted text.

 

[RWVBWL]

Recognizing the Extenuating Circumstances?

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.

Meredith Kercher would have loved this...

Tuesday, December 22, 2009
GUEDE'S PENALTY REDUCED IN APPEAL TRIAL
16 YEARS TO RUDI
Recognizing the Extenuating Circumstances

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015...-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50

 

[acbytesla]

Look, Amy, the problem I actually don't like the way you put it: why "his" sentence and not "their" sentences? Because, from my point of view, and from the point of view of the law, the three accused obtained exactly the same degree of leniency.
All three got 24 years for the charges of rape and murder, and Rudy had a 1/3 cut only because of his choice of short track trial.

And their actual prison times are not going to be that different after all. Sollecito will serve in fact likely another 8-9 years in jail not more, this means he will serve something like 12-13 years overall while Rudy will serve likely around 10 years. Knox if extradited will spend likely another 10 years so about 14 years.
Why do you say "his" sentence is lenient instead of "their" sentences are lenient?

The real criminals are the guys wearing the robes in Italy. They are the people that belong in jail.

 

[Machiavelli]

Ad hominem. Did not address that Guede broke in through that window, which you claimed was an "illogical point of entry" - it was THE logical point of entry for someone with Rudy's background and ability, (...)

That was a totally illogical point of entry - that window is exposed to view and illuminated contrarily to what you say and the balcony windows are not, contrarily to what you say, the balcony is the logical point of entry (where all true break ins occurred), and Filomena's window also had its inner shutter closed and the external shutter were almost closed; moreover you require Rudy to perform a sequence of another series of illogical actions (like pulling the shutters ajar and half opened instead of leaving them opened or close them, leave the glass shards on the sill untouched etc.).

 

[Grinder]

Yes we have a treaty and yes the executive if fulfilling our part of the deal but we have seen in the past extradition requests refused by the executive and I didn't notice Italy revoking the treaty at that time.

With all due respect Grinder I disagree with your dismissal of my point about this is the kind of case a Federal Court judge loves.

A Federal Court Judge has a job for life unless they are impeached. So unless they are hoping for an appointment on the US Supreme Court, they are beholden to no one except the Constitution. A President can't tell them what to do. In fact, that would be ILLEGAL. They are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate so they have as much authority and discretion as the law allows.

A higher court can reverse their decision, but they have no authority to reprimand or censure a lower court judge unless that judge has done something illegal. And viewing the law differently than a higher court would not be considered illegal.

Thanks for the civics lesson. Technically the Senate has the role of advice and consent.

District court judges most all wish for the appellate court and those there hope for the Supreme Court.

How does Italy not revoking the treaty have any play here? You have been making legal arguments such as DJ. I would think an executive deal would more likely. Perhaps they will have her serve a few years at a Club Fed.

 

[RandyN]

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.

What evidence do you have of Lumumbas innocence?

How do you ignore the facts that his cell phone pinged a tower near the cottage, that he suspiciously changed out his sim card and that he has no cash register accounts from his business until well after 10 PM. That plus he is a "dirty black" quoting Perugia police or would that be quoting Lumumbas interview about what Perugia police called him as they were beating him....errr questioning him ....BTW was that as a witness or as a suspect? Can you tell us the name of his lawyer present at that time? Thanks. I like to hear from him about how Lumumbas interrogation went.