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

[acbytesla]

I have not heard of or found a case where extradition was fought on the grounds of lack of evidence. That does not mean it doesn't happen but it certainly isn't common.

I agree Grinder, but how often do you get a case like this? Not very often.

1. You have a very weird "confession/statement.
2. You have DNA evidence that is so suspect that even that country's most notable lab and DNA experts trash it.
3. You have Luminol evidence that would be thrown out of every jurisdiction in the US.
4. You have witnesses that didn't come forward for almost a year.
5. The prosecution's star witness can't tell the difference between Halloween and the day after and he didn't come forward for 6 months. Not to mention that the guy is a junkie and his testimony if anything exonerates the defendants.
6. You have three suspects with virtually no connection to each other.
7. There is virtually no motive for the defendants to have committed the act.
8. The time of death estimated by the state of digestion makes the possibility of the crime to be damn near impossible.

Overall, you are dead on Grinder. The conviction alone would usually be enough for them to extradite Amanda. But the real question will be, can and will a judge ignore all this?

 

[Grinder]

It's on the honor system. They are instructed to avoid any publicity about the case, and they are expected to follow the instructions. When the lawyers pick the jurors, they ask them if they have ever heard about the case; if they have, then they are not picked for the jury.

Most cases are insignificant enough that the prospective jurors haven't heard about them. In high profile cases, the trial may be moved to a jurisdiction where prospective jurors are less likely to have been exposed to publicity about the case.

Not purely the honor system as they are faced with sanctions including contempt of court. If a juror slips and says something they are toast.

The fact is that in Italy there is no restriction, bad system.

 

[NancyS]

A big round turn, to show that you can't get around the point: there is a motive if the phones are tossed by RS and AK as part of a staging, while there is no motive if it's done by RG or by a thief.

If it's a stager, and if the stager is a roommate, taking the phones and toss them immediately is logical. If it's an intruder and a tieve it's not logical; it would be a sequence of illogical and unexplained actions.
It is possible. But given than one is logical, consistent, while the other is not, the non-logical option is weaker then the logical one.
And you can't get around this.

Certainly, you may decide to believe that there is a good argument based on life experience, and that you could find a proof anyway. But it's your burden to prove it. You say there is no proof because there is no focus? Then focus on it and prove it - onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit. I say there is no argument instead, and I say there would no reasonable way to convct Rudy Guede for taking of the phone, unless a judge decides to make up an unproven scenario out of his mind, without neeeding to write any logical motivation. But I think the Cassazione would crush such a conviction, given there there is no factual evidence and it's based on the logically weaker explanation.

Staging is completely illogical - the logical thing would have been to blame everything on Guede

It is illogical to think that the known burglar Guede did not break into the cottage - Guede had a history of breaking into properties by throwing rocks through second story windows - EXACTLY what happened here

It is logical that Guede had second thoughts about holding onto the phones - not a good idea to be found with the phone of someone you had just killed and sexually assaulted.

I do find your arguments incredibly Pro-Guede - I reckon Guede must be an ex-lover of Mignini, it is the only logical explanation for all the Guede support

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

Utter poppycock.

It's all yours.

There was overwhelming evidence against Guede of going equipped to steal, possession of an offensive weapon, aggravated burglary, criminal damage, theft, rape and murder. It is only if you stipulate, in the absence of any evidence obliging you to do so, that others besides Rudy and the victim were present that any room for doubt arises. But there is no such evidence.

There is not a shred of evidence. There isn't such thing as "offensive weapon" unless you talk about warfare (a weapon is a weapon; and a kitchen knife is an improper weapon). There is zero evidence of Guede committed any aggravated burglary, neither of damage of any kind.
The truth is you have no evidence to convict Rudy of these alleged crimes - there is actualy no evidence these crimes were committed by anyone at the cottage.
You need evidence for these and there is any. If you were able to prove ex aliunde, and beyond reasonable doubt, that Guede committed the crime alone or in the company of a complicit burglar, then you could logically charge him and convict him of these crimes.
But given that there is no such evidence, and that btw there is no positive proof that the roommate was not involved, you would have no chance to convict Guede.

It's a big if. Just as a matter of interest, what time (approximately) do you say Guede ran away when he ran away 'immediately'? And what had happened 'immediately' before he ran away?

I assume that what happened 'immediately' before is that Meredith received the last fatal wound. He ran away approximately between 22.00 and 23.30, leaving a trail of shoeprint showing he was walking straight out.

 

[Diocletus]

In the US, how are non sequestered jurors stopped from watching the news when they go home after a trial?

They're not. As you pointed out, not many jurors are sequestered, as this only becomes an issue in the highest profile cases. Like this one, for example.

 

[Mary_H]

A big round turn, to show that you can't get around the point: there is a motive if the phones are tossed by RS and AK as part of a staging, while there is no motive if it's done by RG or by a thief.

If it's a stager, and if the stager is a roommate, taking the phones and toss them immediately is logical. If it's an intruder and a tieve it's not logical; it would be a sequence of illogical and unexplained actions.
It is possible. But given than one is logical, consistent, while the other is not, the non-logical option is weaker then the logical one.
And you can't get around this.

Certainly, you may decide to believe that there is a good argument based on life experience, and that you could find a proof anyway. But it's your burden to prove it. You say there is no proof because there is no focus? Then focus on it and prove it - onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit. I say there is no argument instead, and I say there would no reasonable way to convct Rudy Guede for taking of the phone, unless a judge decides to make up an unproven scenario out of his mind, without neeeding to write any logical motivation. But I think the Cassazione would crush such a conviction, given there there is no factual evidence and it's based on the logically weaker explanation.

It's only logically weaker if you have already made up your mind that Amanda and Raffaele staged a burglary. Never mind that there is no proof of that.

Your point is a ridiculous one. There is no proof of a staging, there is no proof Amanda and Raffaele were there, there is no proof they took the phones. Rudy's DNA persists where the phones were, but that is somehow unrelated. Your argument is circular -- you are saying the "fact" they did the staging proves they had a motive to take the phones and the "fact" they took the phones proves they did the staging.

You are projecting a motive for theft based only on a prospective, unproven staging. Meanwhile there are many other, more probable, motives, as has been pointed out to you. The staging is not more logical, in fact it is less logical, but you like it better than the other motives. It's that simple.

 

[Diocletus]

A big round turn, to show that you can't get around the point: there is a motive if the phones are tossed by RS and AK as part of a staging, while there is no motive if it's done by RG or by a thief.

If it's a stager, and if the stager is a roommate, taking the phones and toss them immediately is logical. If it's an intruder and a tieve it's not logical; it would be a sequence of illogical and unexplained actions.
It is possible. But given than one is logical, consistent, while the other is not, the non-logical option is weaker then the logical one.
And you can't get around this.

What do you know about the logic and reasons of a particular thief? Nothing.

 

[Mary_H]

Not purely the honor system as they are faced with sanctions including contempt of court. If a juror slips and says something they are toast.

The fact is that in Italy there is no restriction, bad system.

Good points.

 

[RoseMontague]

A big round turn, to show that you can't get around the point: there is a motive if the phones are tossed by RS and AK as part of a staging, while there is no motive if it's done by RG or by a thief.

Thieves steal cell phones all the time.

 

[anglolawyer]

That's exactly what I meant . . . he's got to claim it was spontaneous because otherwise he would have had to have counsel present. The "let's just pretend I'm nothing but a notary" business is laughable.



I wish I were better at using the search function.


Right. Totally spontaneous! She could hardly stop talking about the very specific details they needed to include, because she was just so eager to share her thoughts about those very particular experiences. Sure.

Me too . Have a crack at this

 

[acbytesla]

A big round turn, to show that you can't get around the point: there is a motive if the phones are tossed by RS and AK as part of a staging, while there is no motive if it's done by RG or by a thief.

If it's a stager, and if the stager is a roommate, taking the phones and toss them immediately is logical. If it's an intruder and a tieve it's not logical; it would be a sequence of illogical and unexplained actions.
It is possible. But given than one is logical, consistent, while the other is not, the non-logical option is weaker then the logical one.
And you can't get around this.

Certainly, you may decide to believe that there is a good argument based on life experience, and that you could find a proof anyway. But it's your burden to prove it. You say there is no proof because there is no focus? Then focus on it and prove it - onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit. I say there is no argument instead, and I say there would no reasonable way to convct Rudy Guede for taking of the phone, unless a judge decides to make up an unproven scenario out of his mind, without neeeding to write any logical motivation. But I think the Cassazione would crush such a conviction, given there there is no factual evidence and it's based on the logically weaker explanation.

WRONG...WRONG....WRONG...WRONG

One, there really is no proof of staging. This is just ******** speculation.

Two. Rudy has all the reason in the world to toss the phones after he stole them. His brain came back to him. He stole them because he's a thief. And he threw them away because when he actually thought about it, he didn't want to be tied to the murder by the phones.

DUHHHHHH.

 

[Machiavelli]

Staging is completely illogical - the logical thing would have been to blame everything on Guede

It would have been extremely dangerous instead. This was Hellmann's argument, and the Cassazione pointed out how idiotic it was.

It is illogical to think that the known burglar Guede did not break into the cottage - Guede had a history of breaking into properties by throwing rocks through second story windows - EXACTLY what happened here

It is instead perfectly logical to look at the physical evidence without skipping piece, to assume that the lying roommate who leaves her DNA in mixed with Meredith's in Filomena's room is involved in a muder where a victim was assaulted by multiple killers, that she left the luminol prints shuffling on bathmat and towels during her staging, that she was the one who left her lamp in the muder room, and that her friend Solelcito left the bloody fooptint with a 30mm wide big toe.

It is logical that Guede had second thoughts about holding onto the phones - not a good idea to be found with the phone of someone you had just killed and sexually assaulted.

It is less logical than the hypothesys that the stager took the phones to toss them away, one consistent explanation that doesn't need second assumptions.

I do find your arguments incredibly Pro-Guede - I reckon Guede must be an ex-lover of Mignini, it is the only logical explanation for all the Guede support

I think instead it's your arguments that are anti-Guede, prejudicially anti-Italian and racist, and scandalously pro-Knox.

 

[Vibio]

So practically speaking: no one can stop them from watching the news... but if they do, they must keep quiet about it.

Well, that's reassuring.

------------

I am trying to find the exact quote (in Italian) where Nencini mentions the jurors + TV. If anyone has it, could you please post a link? Thanks.

 

[acbytesla]

Me too . Have a crack at this

The search functions on this site suck... I'm usually great at searching using Boolean terms, but that doesn't seem to work on this site.

 

[Kestrel]

I assume that what happened 'immediately' before is that Meredith received the last fatal wound. He ran away approximately between 22.00 and 23.30, leaving a trail of shoeprint showing he was walking straight out.

An assumption that does not fit either the evidence or Guede's explanation of what happened. The overriding concern is to leave room for the evil Amanda to be guilty, respecting the God given powers of Italian investigators to determine guilt by observing the behavior of the suspects.

 

[Diocletus]

So practically speaking: no one can stop them from watching the news... but if they do, they must keep quiet about it.

Well, that's reassuring.

I think the point I just made, which apparently you didn't get, is that except for exceptional cases, of which this is one, trials are rarely in the news. And yes, you're right, jurors are instructed not to consider or consult outside information.

Has anyone ever seen a case before where the judge brags about how the jurors were getting their information about the case from TV? It's crazy.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I do find your arguments incredibly Pro-Guede - I reckon Guede must be an ex-lover of Mignini, it is the only logical explanation for all the Guede support

I think I read about that in Oggi. Something about how Rudy had some behaviors with Mignini (including showing off, suggestions with seductive content) which were put on the record by witnesses. Anyone is free to have their opinions about them based on this material -- there is no "lie" in this. Maybe such suspicions are wrong, maybe they are false, but there is no "vicious fantasy" in them; they are reasonable legitimate scenarios based on the elements.

 

[Vibio]

I... shuffling on bathmat and towels...

Of all of their tall stories, the "bathroom Boogie" (as she recounts at trial) was particularly lame.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Re: sequestered juries.

I don't know if sequestered juries are common in Europe.

In the US, they are not very common.

One could argue that the Amanda Knox trial was so high profile that it deserved a sequestered jury, but after 6 years I can't imagine anyone who has not read about the case. The fact that the Knox trial was not televised also helps.

"Sequestration has fallen so far out of favor that judges rarely bother anymore. The current thinking is that isolating a jury causes more problems than it solves. For one, it can increase juror dropouts. Those with family responsibilities can't stomach more than a few nights away from home, and they often end up leaving midcase due to "personal circumstances." The departures, in turn, increase the likelihood of a mistrial. And there are serious concerns that the eagerness of jurors to return home could compel them to deliberate hastily.

When a judge does decide to sequester a jury, it's often because there's a critical piece of inadmissible material being discussed in the press—for example, a suppressed confession. Or there may be the threat of harassment from reporters, protesters, or the defendant's criminal associates. Less frequent nowadays is a sequestration based solely on the high-profile nature of a case; such reasoning became less popular after the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial, which featured a long sequestration that some legal observers regarded as counterproductive. In the Muhammad case, the fact that the trial is not being televised probably helped the judge decide against sequestration. When the jurors return home at night, under strict instructions not to view or read press accounts of the trial, it's obviously easier without the day's testimony plastered all over the TV.

There are a few states that have mandatory sequestration laws for the most serious criminal cases. Missouri, for example, requires that juries in death-penalty cases be sequestered. But in general, the decision is left solely to the trial judge. Either the prosecution or the defense can request a sequestration, but such motions are usually denied. There are no nationwide figures on the percentage of juries that are sequestered, but it's certainly tiny."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../2003/11/when_do_judges_sequester_juries.html

While jurors in the U.S. may not usually be sequestered, there are many more safeguards against tampering and bias in the U.S. You are not allowed to read articles related to the case or the parties involved. You are further barred from even discussing the case with other jurors until the trial is over. You're also not allowed to do your own independent research and are bound by the record at trial. Jurors are further pre-screened for bias, something that apparently is not done at all in Italy.

 

[Vibio]

Has anyone ever seen a case before where the judge brags about how the jurors were getting their information about the case from TV?

He bragged about it?

I really would like to see the quote in Italian. Thanks in advance.