Unlawful entry, trespassing, theft of a weapon, leaving the kitchen trashed, lying to police, possession of stolen goods.
Definitely not 'Big', but there might be a little trouble.
But it's OK to have it in your bag at a nursery school provided you stole it from them? Walking down the street with it you can say you're just taking it somewhere, people do need to do that on occasion, like after buying one from the store. How is that worse than stealing it and having it where you don't belong amongst toddlers and the like? He wasn't planning on staying so he would have had to transported that weapon had he not been caught.
Your point is that the prosecution should have used suspicion of alleged crimes committed by Rudy to charge him with more. Your point is proven false, and my point is such alleged 'crimes' could not be used to add anything about the charges.
No, I'm saying they should have
investigated those crimes and charged him appropriately. Some there wasn't any need to investigate much, others like the possession of the stolen computers might well have led to burglary charges...
You really need to get a bit within boundaries of realiti on this one. The prosecution office of Perugia's jurisdiction coincides with almost the whole Province of Perugia, that is it's like 4000 square kilometer not more than that. The Rome office has a different territory.
People in Florence can be involved in committing crimes that took place in Perugia, like the Narducci case (body discovered on the eastern side of the Trasimeno lake, that is Perugia jurisdiction). And cases can be logically connected together if the other jurisdiction agrees that is the about same deed. But these things are only for complex things involving organized crime.
Sleeping in a school and killing Meredith Kercher are not the same case.
These are logically connected by the same man on his crime spree, and another connection is that the computers were stolen from Perugia, which is why the Milanese prosecutor called Perugia, isn't it?
Rome is in the Perugia jurisdiction for what concerns crimes committed by Magistrates (I mean Roman Magistrates).
Ah, OK, thanks for the info.
No they could not. Albeit I see you would like him to be charged of non-existent aggravating factors.
Let me put it this way: the fact that the book got thrown at Raffaele and Amanda but Rudy nearly got off scot free despite the absolutely damning evidence against him is very suspicious. Mignini showed great ingenuity in hurting Amanda and Raffaele, in part by also charging their
families with crimes. And their supporters.
This is idiotic. There isn't any charge such as "crime spree", besides there isn't any "crime spree culmnatin in". You are making up the law. In the Kercher case, he could only be charged with things directly connected to the murder of Meredith Kercher. There is no relation between sleeping in a school and the killing of Meredith Kercher. There is no relation between any other thing Guede did any other day and the Meredith Kercher murder: those alleged crimes are not part of the case.
When Italian officials capture a burglar and find evidence of other crimes during the investigation do they just ignore them?
You don't need to believe, you need to know the law, to be used to it, and acknowledge what you see.
False. Art. 104 cpp is not a 'mafia law'.
Whatever it's called it restricts the right to see a lawyer and leads to solitary confinement, I've read it was to make mafia cases easier to crack. At any rate it shows a vigor to punish Raffaele and Amanda that was entirely missing when it came to babying Rudy's bum. Why is that?
completely made up and unproven (for the sake of those accusing me of not substantiating claims).
I'm talking about the lying Mignini did before Matteini. I'll start with the 'second opinion' on Rudy's shoeprints that Mignini got an 'exact match' (to Raffaele's) report after the first was was rightfully much vaguer. That turned out to be without a doubt fraudulent evidence that he suborned. How about the nonsense regarding Amanda holding down Meredith's face? An outright lie. The whole 'sex game gone wrong' was a total fraud right from the beginning, there was absolutely
nothing about the scene which suggested a party or gathering nor anything else suggesting there was a 'sex game.' There was a broken window, a messed up room and a dead girl. They made their arrests on the basis of a phone message that suggested nothing other than a meeting (to them at least) and the statements said nothing about a 'sex game' or anything like it and didn't implicate Raffaele at all in the murder. The 'sex game gone wrong' was a total fabrication bereft of evidence and an outright lie.
Just keep "
p)" demonstrating you are not serious. I have already proven that you are wrong, you just don't want to acknowledge it.
I'm
serious it just doesn't have to impede adding some humor. The
p) was for your benefit so you'd better be able to understand what I meant by 'severe coddling.'
What does it mean "at the very least"? The truth is no money was proven to be missing, only the phones, and this is not theft but illicit appropriation (you can't steal from a dead person) and clearly taken by someone who did not intend to keep them, since the person immediately tossed them in a ravine.
It means the victim was dead and it's possible other things were stolen, no one would know for sure. Being as the
Polizia Scientifica trashed her belongings, including the last gifts she'd bought for her family that they might have wanted in remembrance of her, they wouldn't be able to say either.
Meredith's rent money was due and it was the first and hadn't been paid and has never been found. They included it as missing for a reason in the charges.
Taking the phone is not a theft, because the owner is dead; and the intent was not to have the phones, because they were tossed. The taking of phone was part of a staging.
That's just dumb, who on earth would run off with cellphones as far as they were away from the cottage to 'stage' a break-in? Just how mindless does this 'staging' have to be until people realize
there was no reason whatsoever to stage a break-in. The only reason for the 'staged break-in' is that idiot cops jumped to an extreme conclusion off limited data when they saw a
real break-in that your average pot-bellied pork product couldn't do themselves.
They were not searched. Everything untouched, everything in order. Not searched.
I've read about or seen pictures of a cracked drawer, in Laura's room I believe. Plus it does look like someone ruffled through Filomena's room!
Maybe because Guede got the maximum, 30 years? Or maybe, did you want Guede to get 16 years and 6 months?
Guede may have gotten the maximum on one charge, but it was severely mitigated and it looks like he'll be out walking the streets soon. There are ways to keep people in prison more than seven years, I know that because I've read of a number of criminals in Italy who've been there longer...on lesser offenses.
From the wiki:
In detail, according to articles 576 and 577 is punishable with life imprisonment murder committed:
In order to commit another crime, or in order to escape, of favor, or take advantage from another crime (art.61, sect.2);
Against a next of kin (parent or child) and either through insidious means, with premeditation, cruelly, of for futile motives;
By a fugitive in order to escape capture, or in order to acquire means of subsistence;
While raping or sexually assaulting a person (articles 609 bis, 609 quater, 609 octies);
By a stalker against the victim of stalking;
Against a police officer engaged in enforcing the law;
In a cruel way and/or through the use of torture (art.61, sect.1);
For abject and/or futile motives (art.61, sect.4);
Against a next of kin (parent or child);
Through insidious means;
With premeditation.
There's a number of those that could have applied to this case had Mignini prosecuted it that way.
