• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
-


-

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

-
Okay; the context is that Raffaele and Amanda lost their appeal. Now, please explain to me how complaining on an English language discussion site is constructive?

Guede’s sentence is not going to change, period. Am I happy with this fact, No.
 
-

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?
-

Fine, are you glad Rudy got a lenient sentence? Also, do you think Amanda and Raffaele got a lenient sentence also? So far legally, they got what they deserved under the Italian system.

I disagree with the DP in this country, but it's part of the legal system, but that doesn't make it right in my mind.

From this perspective, regardless of the legal logic behind it, do you think Rudy got a lenient sentence as compared to Amanda and Raffaele's sentence?

d

-
 
These two pieces on CNN's webpage summarize in succinct fashion where this case is, following yesterday's appeal's court confirmation of guilty verdicts for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/30/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-verdict-explainer/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Despite the ruling of the Supreme Court, there was little difference in the evidence or details of the case, and prior to Thursday's verdict it was unclear how presiding judge Alessandra Nencini would rule.

The retrial in Florence has renewed questions about the effectiveness of Italy's justice system, given doubts about the handling of the investigation and key pieces of evidence. When Knox was first convicted of murder, there was outcry in the U.S. that she was wrongfully convicted, based on shoddy evidence. When she was acquitted, there was nearly as much of an outcry in Italy that the courts had succumbed to American pressure.

And from last March..... note the author... this is Machiavelli's "approximate reporter" Barbie Nadeau!

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/27/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-analysis-nadeau/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Knox and Sollecito were initially found guilty in connection with Kercher's murder, but were ultimately acquitted two years later on appeal. Knox went home to Seattle to finish her studies at the University of Washington. Sollecito moved to Verona to take up studies in robotic surgery. The case seemed to be over. For most people, especially those of us who followed the case closely, the high court hearing was supposed to be just a formality -- they would confirm the acquittal and we could all go home and put the case to rest.

Now everything is up in the air again. Italy's highest court decided to reject the acquittal in its entirety and send the case back to a panel of appellate judges to reconsider. What that means in practical terms is nothing short of a complicated, confusing mess. When Knox was first convicted of murder, there was outcry in the United States that she was wrongfully convicted, based on shoddy evidence collected by sloppy Italian police. When she was acquitted two years later, there was nearly as much of an outcry in Italy that the courts had succumbed to American pressure. Now, the outcome is again uncertain, with the only guarantee that whatever happens, it will again cause an outcry -- it's just not clear yet by whom.

We now know. Nencini has followed the stipulations of Cassazione to return a guilty verdict, despite the evidence.
 
I really do not understand people writing about what Meredith would or would not have liked, I didn’t know her, so I don’t have a clue, but that’s me.

true but isn't it the case that PGP say this is for Meredith or some such thing?
 
I really do not understand people writing about what Meredith would or would not have liked, I didn’t know her, so I don’t have a clue, but that’s me.

With all due respect, CoulsdonUK, the prosecution has used Meredith terribly in this. It's yet to be seen if Nencini was convinced by this, but Crini advanced a theory of an alleged, and highly uncharacteristic, bad reaction by Meredith to household cleanliness (pooh in the toilet) that escalated into this tragedy.

It might help to give this advice to all sides in this. Meredith's memory is being used to vilify, and convict, innocents. With that off the table, what Meredith would or would not have liked, Crini could not have advanced yet-another-motive like he did, which casts her in somewhat bad light.
 
-

Okay; the context is that Raffaele and Amanda lost their appeal. Now, please explain to me how complaining on an English language discussion site is constructive?

Guede’s sentence is not going to change, period. Am I happy with this fact, No.
-

no arguements with most of that except you are confining your arguement to the past. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm also concerned with future actions such as Rudy being out there free. What kind of programs do they have in place to keep track of him? Or, is he able to go about without any constraints?

Is that constructive enough for you? I'd be interested to know the answers to those, for starters... Do you know anything about that or know where I can go to find out?

Would you consider me a stalker if I wanted to keep tabs on the guy?

d

-
 
true but isn't it the case that PGP say this is for Meredith or some such thing?
Grinder

I speak only for myself, I am no more responsible for PGP anymore than you are for PIP points of view, when I read your post I am responding to you.
 
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?

1. An alibi (in the Italian law) is a defensive argument (it can be proven, not proven, or false). It is a positive argument, theoretically falsifiable, not a place nor a testimony. An argument that is put forward by the defence, not by other witnesses.

2. Independently from point 1. and from defence arguments, a testimony about someone being elsewhere can be exculpatory evidence (work as kind of "alibi", even if it's not an alibi but evidence ex aliunde). However, it may be also not be. If the drunk man said that he doesn't remember anything about that night and a witness places him at a bar, that may be useful evidence. But if the allegedly drunk man puts forward a completely different recollection of events and is basically sure about it, this means the drunk man is lying. Depending on the details of the case, it is possible that this even has implications against the suspect rather than in his favour.
So it may well depend on what the drunk man says, as well as on the degree of reliability of the witness, and on the context of the details of the case, or on a combination and interaction between all these three elements.
 
With all due respect, CoulsdonUK, the prosecution has used Meredith terribly in this. It's yet to be seen if Nencini was convinced by this, but Crini advanced a theory of an alleged, and highly uncharacteristic, bad reaction by Meredith to household cleanliness (pooh in the toilet) that escalated into this tragedy.

It might help to give this advice to all sides in this. Meredith's memory is being used to vilify, and convict, innocents. With that off the table, what Meredith would or would not have liked, Crini could not have advanced yet-another-motive like he did, which casts her in somewhat bad light.
Bill

This is where I am. Raffaele and Amanda lost their appeal yesterday the next milestone is the motivations of the appeal, that’s where I am; where are you?
 
I really do not understand people writing about what Meredith would or would not have liked, I didn’t know her, so I don’t have a clue, but that’s me.

CoulsdonUK,
Nobody who is horribly murdered would want anyone getting a discounted prison term. In this brutal case we discuss, the womans name is Meredith Kercher...

Rudy Guede was convicted of murder in October 2008.
Perugia Shock was there in court:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015182552/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html

In Dec. 2009, he gets a great discount on his sentence for murdering Meredith Kercher.
Perugia Shock was once again in court:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015...-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50

Rudy Guede has some good lawyers,
read the links above.
"Nuff said...
 
Last edited:
-

From this perspective, regardless of the legal logic behind it, do you think Rudy got a lenient sentence as compared to Amanda and Raffaele's sentence?

-

The difference between Rudy's sentence and the other two is due exclusively to the 1/3 cut because of fast track trial, so should I re-formulize your question as follows: are you asking me if I agree with the mechanism of 1/3 cut as incentive in the fast-track trial? Or if I connsider 1/3 a too generous cut instead?

If this is the question, I'm not sure about the answer. I don't know if a smaller reduction (like 1/4) would be better. It would be more fair, but might be ineffective as incentive. So, I don't know.
 
For all those who think Raffaele was "fleeing to Austria", even the cinvicting Judge, Nencini, sides with Raffaele on this one!

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english/2014/01/31/Judge-rules-new-Sollecito-measures-Austria-trip_9996047.html

Sollecito took a ride through Austria before handing in his passport, triggering press speculation that additional security measures could be implemented on him by the judicial authorities.

He denied allegations of attempting to flee, adding the brief trip was to relax from a stressful 12-hour court session Thursday. Sollecito was sentenced to 26 years in prison and Knox to 28 years and six months in the fourth verdict on the case.

"The measures have been introduced. That's it. He remains in Italy, and there is nothing more to say", Florence appeals court president Alessandro Nencini told ANSA on his ruling Thursday. He added that there was "no motive to imagine other" additional cautionary measures being applied on Sollecito.

Still, it was pretty stupid to go into Austria.... but as the judge said, there was no particular intent which required sanction.
 
With all due respect, CoulsdonUK, the prosecution has used Meredith terribly in this. It's yet to be seen if Nencini was convinced by this, but Crini advanced a theory of an alleged, and highly uncharacteristic, bad reaction by Meredith to household cleanliness (pooh in the toilet) that escalated into this tragedy.

It might help to give this advice to all sides in this. Meredith's memory is being used to vilify, and convict, innocents. With that off the table, what Meredith would or would not have liked, Crini could not have advanced yet-another-motive like he did, which casts her in somewhat bad light.

The motivations should clearly spell out Miss Kerchers vile temper and attitude about poop. Certainly a prosecutor cant simply make up something like this. So I am expecting details about this new proven motive. Miss Kercher had to show some sort of anger issues to create such a fuss over what most would consider a minor issue.

Does Crini hold something that is buried in the 50 thousand pages? A anger management order against Kercher perhaps? There has to be something ....no responsible prosecutor could just toss something like this out on a whim. Right?
 
reread it - it does not have to be a judge of federal district court

A local magistrate can issue the warrant but the extradition hearing will be heard by a US Court judge and that in Western Washington is the Western District Court.

From my understanding, Italy requests extradition. The State Department then seeks an arrest warrant in the appropriate Federal jurisdiction. NOT a State or Municipal Court Judge. But a Federal Court and in Western Washington that means the Western District Court in Seattle at 700 Stewart.
 
-


-

no arguements with most of that except you are confining your arguement to the past. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm also concerned with future actions such as Rudy being out there free. What kind of programs do they have in place to keep track of him? Or, is he able to go about without any constraints?

Is that constructive enough for you? I'd be interested to know the answers to those, for starters... Do you know anything about that or know where I can go to find out?

Would you consider me a stalker if I wanted to keep tabs on the guy?

d

-
Do you live in Italy?

Complain about the lenient penal system as a non Italian if you like. The Italian judicial\penal system is not going to change because of Meredith’s murder, as much as I would like that, it is for the Italian people to effect change, not a bunch of foreigners posting on an English language based discussion site.

Hey stalk Guede, whatever works for you.
 
Last edited:
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.

That didn't even engage my argument.

Again, it was the way this case was prosecuted and the evidence (and 'evidence') presented in court which led to Rudy Guede's being eligible to walk the streets soon. Amanda and Raffaele were convicted of 'staging' Rudy's break-in and for committing Rudy's theft and were given primary roles in the murder while Rudy's was dimished in contradiction to all the evidence.

Also, Rudy could have been prosecuted for his previous recent burglaries, which was the duty of Mignini and/or Comodi as PMs, was it not? Those additional crimes would have led to Rudy being put away for longer as well. However had an investigation been done and evidence gathered and Rudy properly prosecuted for those crimes it would have been damned deadly difficult to pretend that there was a 'staged break-in' and the two innocents left over from their bungled first arrest had conspired with Rudy to murder Meredith for no definable reason anyone has been able to support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom