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

[Matthew Best]

Apart from this possibly showing one of Amanda's phone acquaintances might have been a "drug dealer", as well as knowing Amanda, I can't see any relevance to any committed crime. Many here are likely to have children to whom this vague innuendo could be attached, but I realise this is a pure diversion from the murder case. Unless that number was Rudy's, zilch nada nil relevance.

And, of course, zilch nada nil evidence. Just more assertion.

 

[LondonJohn]

And, of course, zilch nada nil evidence. Just more assertion.

No no no! The police said it was true! You believe the Perugia police don't you?! After all, they've never been known to be liars, dissemblers and thugs before, have they?!

 

[andreajo]

No no no! The police said it was true! You believe the Perugia police don't you?! After all, they've never been known to be liars, dissemblers and thugs before, have they?!

Actually, the newspaper said that the police said it was true. That makes it doubly reliable!

 

[Machiavelli]

Whether they're called mitigations (which amount to reductions) or reductions outright and which step of the abbreviated process they're officially applied doesn't really matter. What does matter is that the way Mignini prosecuted it led to a huge reduction in sentence for Rudy Guede, making true Barbie Nadeau's report of eating with Biscotti, Rudy's lawyer, and him getting a call saying he got a deal for Rudy.

Kaosium, I think you understand that you lost all arguments. You say the logical steps in between how to come to the reduction don't matter; but actually they do matter a lot to your reasoning. They are your reasoning. And they are wrong.
Now, because you lost them, you want to leap across them to get to a conclusion directly, without any reasoning in between: basically your only assertion is that the Guede final reduction is evidence by itself, you believe it is evidence of a particular "way Mignini prosecuted Guede". Basically you admit you have no argument.
You don't have any evidence that Mignini prosecuted Guede in any different way. You only have evidence of the contrary. But you decide to leap across all the facts, and you kind of deduce the existence of an event "Mignini prosecuted Guede in a particular favourable way" by making it stem directly, and solely, from the simple existence of Guede's final reduced sentencing, and from nothing else.

Now, why wasn't there any appeal to the mitigations or advancing of aggravations in the Rudy Guede case?

Guede got 30 years in the first instance. Do you understand that? 30 years!
they won. You don't appeal something that you won. It would bee like shooting at your foot.
It means the prosecution won their case completely in terms of sentencing. They obtained the maximum. It's almost the maximum that any accused can possibly get in an anbbreviated trial. A life sentencing on abbreviated trial it's something so rare, almost unique, which would require some extreme aggravation, like a cold-minded premeditation by a professional with terrorist purposes, or killing a second person, something like that, something really extreme.
A common criminal doesn't get life on abbreviated trials. Not even a murderer. Normally, not even a terrorist. It's something very rare. And in this case, the scenario was that of a troubled young person who took part in committing a non premeditated murder together with other people, and who returned back to Italy by train to give himself up to the police. This is a common crime. He was not the mastermind and he was not even the person who gave the fatal blow, in the judges' minds.
How can you reasonably expect that he would get more than 30 years despite a short track trial?
Mignini and Comodi obviously did not appeal agaisnt a 30 years sentencing.
But even if they appealed to increase it to life, that wouldn't have changed anything in the reality of events. The Prosecutor General in fact demanded the Borsini Belardi court to confirm the first instance sentencing, 30 years. Had Mignin and Comodi appealed, they (Mignini and Comodi) could have proposed the judge to increase the sentencing to life, but the only difference would have been such phonetic exercise.
The fact is the prosecution general lost their argument for the 30 years sentencing. They lost it. They asked 30 years again (a request that could have been legally founded) and the judges decided otherwise. They lost it because the defence won, and they won partly because Knox and Sollecito got their mitigations too; the judges of Borsini-Belardi court opted for mitigation so the prosecution would have equally lost the argument for a life sentencing (whch would have been legally unfounded).

And that's the proof of it all, Mignini didn't try to prosecute Rudy for the theft, in defiance of the evidence showing that even if Raffaele and Amanda were involved in the murder, Rudy was the one who ended up with the cash.

But what are you talking about, since Mignini charged Guede with theft, and Micheli found him innocent for lack of proof?
And why do you think that a petty offence like theft (which is not theft but even pettier illicit appropriation, since you can't commit a theft in detriment of a dead person) would have been determinant? Guede would have got 30 years anyway, no more than that. Think about that Solelcito and Knox were found guilty of committing sexual violence, and then sidtrackings (staging, cleanup) and calunnia in continuance, and even illicit appropriation, and despite these aggravations they did not get life. And now Crini is requesting to remove generic mitigation, yet he is still not asking for life. And they are even in a regular, expensive and renewed process, not in a short track.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Well, actually Meredith had an exclusive relation, which tended to remain stable through many weeks, as for Knox and Guede I was thinking more to a casual episode rather similar to those Knox had with Daniel, Federico & Juve, or with the hypothetical encounter with the drug dealer.

What you were thinking was obvious; that's why I asked the question.

However I am not interested in judgeing what a "relation" is as opposed to an "episode". If Knox had a "relation" with Guede, I'd call that a relation "Knox-style" (Federico, Daniel, Juve etc.) rather than a "Meredith-style" relation.

May I ask how you know Meredith had not had several sexual encounters during her first weeks in Perugia? Giacomo did not consider their relationship mutually exclusive; maybe Meredith didn't, either. She also may have had more boyfriends in England than Amanda had in Seattle.

 

[Bill Williams]

Kaosium, I think you understand that you lost all arguments. You say the logical steps in between how to come to the reduction don't matter; but actually they do matter a lot to your reasoning. They are your reasoning. And they are wrong.
Now, because you lost them, you want to leap across them to get to a conclusion directly, without any reasoning in between: basically your only assertion is that the Guede final reduction is evidence by itself, you believe it is evidence of a particular "way Mignini prosecuted Guede". Basically you admit you have no argument.
You don't have any evidence that Mignini prosecuted Guede in any different way.

Kaosium has "lost the arguments" perhaps only in the Italian courts, which is the jurisdiction of record in declaring winners and losers.

What Kaosium is arguing, though, is not winning and losing, but right and wrong.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, I have several questions and ask for you insight how the Italian justice system works.

If Guede stated in priviliged discussions with his attorney that he alone committed the crime or that he was accompanied by another and it was not Knox and Sollecito - and the discussions were overheard by microphones in the room where they met - what could prison officials, police or Mignini do with the information?

The detectives could use it to make strategic decisions in their investigation. But the prosecutors could do nothing with the recording or testimony in court. It could not be entered and not be used by the judges in court.

If Guede stated to Mignini or the police that he alone committed the crime or that he was accompanied by another and it was not Knox or Sollecito, would Mignini or the police be obligated to disclose this a) to the court trying Guede? b) to the courts trying Knox and Sollecito?

As for a), they would be absolutely prevented by the law from doing this.
As for b), they could not inform the court about them, but the situation may change depending if the prosecutors are currently prosecuting Knox and Sollecito, or if they are no longer doing that. If they are still prosecuting them, they may take the elements in account in drawing their own arguments, based on their own professional ethics. If instead its another court now prosecuting them, they can't interfere.

 

[LondonJohn]

And in this case, the scenario was that of a troubled young person who took part in committing a non premeditated murder together with other people, and who returned back to Italy by train to give himself up to the police.

I had to draw out this little gem from Machiavelli's post.

Firstly, I'm lost as to why the suggestion that Guede was "troubled" should be of any relevance whatsoever to his sentencing. I'm hearing unpleasant resonances of "poor Rudy" I'm afraid....

Secondly, it's of course arrant nonsense that Guede "returned back to Italy by train to give himself up to the police". He was arrested by German police on November 20th for travelling without a ticket. I am guessing he was trying to return to Italy because he had run out of the money he stole from Meredith, and he was a fish out of water in Germany. Regardless, there's absolutely zero reason to believe that he was returning to give himself up to police (but of course ample reason why Guede might subsequently make this false claim).

Guede was held in custody in Germany once the Germans realised Guede was wanted in Italy for murder. He was extradited back to Italy on 6th December.

Lastly, even if Guede had been returning to give himself up (which he wasn't), I suggest that this would easily be offset by the twin facts that he went out dancing merely a couple of hours after murdering Meredith Kercher, and that he fled Perugia within 36 hours of the murder. In fact, given that there's zero credible evidence that he intended to "give himself up", his dancing and flight to Germany can clearly be added as aggravating factors.

Poor Rudy..............

 

[Machiavelli]

I had to draw out this little gem from Machiavelli's post.

Firstly, I'm lost as to why the suggestion that Guede was "troubled" should be of any relevance whatsoever to his sentencing. I'm hearing unpleasant resonances of "poor Rudy" I'm afraid....

Secondly, it's of course arrant nonsense that Guede "returned back to Italy by train to give himself up to the police". He was arrested by German police on November 20th for travelling without a ticket. I am guessing he was trying to return to Italy because he had run out of the money he stole from Meredith, and he was a fish out of water in Germany. Regardless, there's absolutely zero reason to believe that he was returning to give himself up to police (but of course ample reason why Guede might subsequently make this false claim).

Guede was held in custody in Germany once the Germans realised Guede was wanted in Italy for murder. He was extradited back to Italy on 6th December.

Lastly, even if Guede had been returning to give himself up (which he wasn't), I suggest that this would easily be offset by the twin facts that he went out dancing merely a couple of hours after murdering Meredith Kercher, and that he fled Perugia within 36 hours of the murder. In fact, given that there's zero credible evidence that he intended to "give himself up", his dancing and flight to Germany can clearly be added as aggravating factors.

Poor Rudy..............

Rudy was acknowledged to be returning to Italy, he was in fact captured in Koblenz on a train to Milan. He could have opposed to his extradition to Italy, instead he accepted. He had said he was going to return to Italy to give himself up to the police, he said that on his Skype conversation to Benedetti, said he would take a train to Italy, and what he did is consistent with what he said. There is no evidence to believe the contrary, and in dubio pro reo.

Now, the things that you'd like to pin on him as "aggravating factors", might be seen as aggravation in some jurisdictions maybe, but once again here it appears you reveal a poor knowledge about the specifics of the Italian system.
Running away is not an aggravating factor.
The other factors that you dismiss (like being "troubled") are instead relevant.

These apparently small mitigating things are determinant for a judge, especially if it's about deciding on an extreme aggravation scenario such as one that would imply life on a short track trial.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
May I ask how you know Meredith had not had several sexual encounters during her first weeks in Perugia? Giacomo did not consider their relationship mutually exclusive; maybe Meredith didn't, either. She also may have had more boyfriends in England than Amanda had in Seattle.

Look, these are examples of what I really don't appreciate about your approach to discussion, why I always see your arguments as not intellectually honest.
I don't know what Meredith did with other guys. But you asked about whether a casual sexual encoutner was the same thing as the Meredith-Giacomo relation. I answered, well, it is apparently not exactly the same thing, if we want to be pedantic. But it doesn't matter, and shouldn't matter, we are not judgemental about private behaviours.
Then you come back again on the topic of Meredith's private life - or better with speculations about what could be the unknown part of Meredith private life.
I don't think this line of discussion on your part makes any sense.
Are you contending that a scenario of a meeting between Knox and Guede is unreasonable? Because if you have something to say in terms of evidence that such scenario is unreasonable, that would be the only subject of relevance in a discussion about this point.

 

[Mary_H]

Look, these are examples of what I really don't appreciate about your approach to discussion, why I always see your arguments as not intellectually honest.
I don't know what Meredith did with other guys. But you asked about whether a casual sexual encoutner was the same thing as the Meredith-Giacomo relation. I answered, well, it is apparently not exactly the same thing, if we want to be pedantic. But it doesn't matter, and shouldn't matter, we are not judgemental about private behaviours.
Then you come back again on the topic of Meredith's private life - or better with speculations about what could be the unknown part of Meredith private life.
I don't think this line of discussion on your part makes any sense.
Are you contending that a scenario of a meeting between Knox and Guede is unreasonable? Because if you have something to say in terms of evidence that such scenario is unreasonable, that would be the only subject of relevance in a discussion about this point.

The point is, the case for guilt depends on rumor, gossip and hearsay, while the case for innocence demands rigorous adherence to facts and facts only. If you are not going to refrain from speculation about Amanda, then you should not refrain from speculation about Meredith.

There is nothing more intellectually dishonest than claiming not to be judgmental about private behaviors while simultaneously pointing out differences between Amanda and Meredith's sexual behaviors in a way that supports the prosecution's case that Amanda's sexual behavior is compatible with being a murderer while Meredith's sexual behavior is compatible with being a victim. That is the claim the original case relied on and that is the claim you continue to rely on, regardless of how many times you ask, "Who, me?"

 

[LondonJohn]

Rudy was acknowledged to be returning to Italy, he was in fact captured in Koblenz on a train to Milan. He could have opposed to his extradition to Italy, instead he accepted. He had said he was going to return to Italy to give himself up to the police, he said that on his Skype conversation to Benedetti, said he would take a train to Italy, and what he did is consistent with what he said. There is no evidence to believe the contrary, and in dubio pro reo.

Now, the things that you'd like to pin on him as "aggravating factors", might be seen as aggravation in some jurisdictions maybe, but once again here it appears you reveal a poor knowledge about the specifics of the Italian system.
Running away is not an aggravating factor.
The other factors that you dismiss (like being "troubled") are instead relevant.

These apparently small mitigating things are determinant for a judge, especially if it's about deciding on an extreme aggravation scenario such as one that would imply life on a short track trial.

Oh dear.

To me it's abundantly obvious that if Guede was returning to Italy when he was arrested aboard the train in Germany, it was because he had run out of money and decided to take his chances on his "home turf". Regardless, there is absolutely ZERO credible evidence to suggest that Guede was returning back to Perugia to give himself up to the police. It's somewhat astonishing that some people are too blind to see how it would be convenient for Guede to subsequently claim that this had been his intention.

I also find it astonishing that someone might see Guede's acquiescence with extradition as a "plus point": he would have had legal advice that his extradition was absolutely inevitable, and that a refusal to cooperate would only have meant a longer stay in a German prison and several court appearances, at the end of which he would without doubt have been extradited anyway.

And thanks for tutoring me in "Italian law". So it's not an aggravating factor to flee the country following a crime of which you are subsequently convicted? But yet apparently it is a mitigating factor if you claim you were returning from the country to which you had fled, in order to give yourself up (even when there's no credible evidence that this was your true motivation for returning to Italy)?

PS: Perhaps Machiavelli (or anyone else for that matter) would be so kind as to point me to the part of the transcript of Guede's Skype conversation with Benedetti in which Guede states that he is going to return to Italy to give himself up to the police.

You see, my problem is that the only relevant part of the conversation that I can currently find is this:

Benedetti:
But if you have nothing to do with it why don't you come back? I'll help you to find a good lawyer who can clear things up.

Guede:
I'm afraid. But I don't want to stay in Germany, I'm black and if the police catch me I don't know what they might do to me. I prefer Italian jails.

And that doesn't sound at all like Guede saying he's coming back to Italy to give himself up (unless the reader has no reasoning skills and an inbuilt bias of some sort....). But perhaps I'm missing another part of the Skype conversation in which Guede does explicitly say he is going to return to Italy to give himself up to the police. I don't know.


PPS: Machavelli's argument of "in dubio pro reo" is not relevant here, since Guede's claim is clearly a self-serving one. And ironically this same legal standard doesn't ever seem to be applied by Machiavelli (or pretty much any other pro-guilt commentator) to Knox or Sollecito. Funny, that.......

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't think this line of discussion on your part makes any sense.
Are you contending that a scenario of a meeting between Knox and Guede is unreasonable? Because if you have something to say in terms of evidence that such scenario is unreasonable, that would be the only subject of relevance in a discussion about this point.

This is where your reasoning makes no sense.

Yes, it IS unreasonable to continue to speculate about "a meeting between Knox and Guede." This is especially true in the context of a murder trial, where it is not required just to suggest that this is "reasonable", it is required to prove that there is any indication that it ever happened.

So far you have Guede being Knox's pimp..... er, oh, check that. You have it as Knox exchanging sex for drugs... er check that.

I'm actually now not interested in how to choose to characterize their non-existent "meeting." The prosecution should not be allowed to speculate that something is reasonable to assume, or rasonable to assert apart from any evidence there'd been a meeting - at least a meeting apart from the known chance encounters when they were with others and barely knew of each other's existence.

You have them consorting to commit murder. The point is there is NO evidence they ever consorted to commit murder, aside from the fact that they EVER "met" each other in the normal sense of that term - esp. in the sense you are using it.

It is not about asserting that there is evidene to find that their meeting is unreasonable - in normal judicial systems, it is up to a prosecutor to prove that they met - or else why even bother trying to coerce Curatolo into saying so?

Your reasoning in the context of a murder trial is completely unreasonable.

 

[Bill Williams]

Can the mods explain why these three posts rated deletion?

This should be read again and again. The only thing worse that if this is complete bollocks, would be if Machiavelli is actually describing how the ISC works. It is Byzantine.

Kaosium has "lost the arguments" perhaps only in the Italian courts, which is the jurisdiction of record in declaring winners and losers. What Kaosium is arguing, though, is not winning and losing, but right and wrong.

Machiavelli is now departing from dietorolgy to simply asserting completely unfounded factoids. Much like the way Mignini conducted the case against RS and AK, Machiavelli is simply making things up. It's as you say, Mary_H. Machiavelli used to be content with the (also) unproven "Knox had the number of a drug dealer in her phone," ramping up the factoidness of this to what he now goes on about. The dietrology will be when he starts in on why he didn't actually say what he said. It's good to have both a Fastball and a good curve in your repertoire!

 

[Mary_H]

Can the mods explain why these three posts rated deletion?

This should be read again and again. The only thing worse that if this is complete bollocks, would be if Machiavelli is actually describing how the ISC works. It is Byzantine.

Kaosium has "lost the arguments" perhaps only in the Italian courts, which is the jurisdiction of record in declaring winners and losers. What Kaosium is arguing, though, is not winning and losing, but right and wrong.

Machiavelli is now departing from dietorolgy to simply asserting completely unfounded factoids. Much like the way Mignini conducted the case against RS and AK, Machiavelli is simply making things up. It's as you say, Mary_H. Machiavelli used to be content with the (also) unproven "Knox had the number of a drug dealer in her phone," ramping up the factoidness of this to what he now goes on about. The dietrology will be when he starts in on why he didn't actually say what he said. It's good to have both a Fastball and a good curve in your repertoire!

They weren't deleted; a new thread has been started and they were moved to it. Scroll up this page and you will see them. (I had the same thought when I saw my inbox).

 

[LondonJohn]

Can the mods explain why these three posts rated deletion?

This should be read again and again. The only thing worse that if this is complete bollocks, would be if Machiavelli is actually describing how the ISC works. It is Byzantine.

Kaosium has "lost the arguments" perhaps only in the Italian courts, which is the jurisdiction of record in declaring winners and losers. What Kaosium is arguing, though, is not winning and losing, but right and wrong.

Machiavelli is now departing from dietorolgy to simply asserting completely unfounded factoids. Much like the way Mignini conducted the case against RS and AK, Machiavelli is simply making things up. It's as you say, Mary_H. Machiavelli used to be content with the (also) unproven "Knox had the number of a drug dealer in her phone," ramping up the factoidness of this to what he now goes on about. The dietrology will be when he starts in on why he didn't actually say what he said. It's good to have both a Fastball and a good curve in your repertoire!

Relax! Not deleted: just moved from the "part six" thread to the new "part seven" thread, in order to facilitate continuity of discussion on the new thread.

I got a similar - but brief - reaction when I saw that two of my posts had been moved, but quickly realised that they too had merely been transferred from the now-old thread to the shiny new one

 

[Bill Williams]

Relax! Not deleted: just moved from the "part six" thread to the new "part seven" thread, in order to facilitate continuity of discussion on the new thread.

I got a similar - but brief - reaction when I saw that two of my posts had been moved, but quickly realised that they too had merely been transferred from the now-old thread to the shiny new one

My apologies to the mods!

My bad.

I am thanking the Lord Almighty I didn't type what I was thinking!

Again, apologies to the mods!

 

[kwill]

The point is, the case for guilt depends on rumor, gossip and hearsay, while the case for innocence demands rigorous adherence to facts and facts only. If you are not going to refrain from speculation about Amanda, then you should not refrain from speculation about Meredith.

There is nothing more intellectually dishonest than claiming not to be judgmental about private behaviors while simultaneously pointing out differences between Amanda and Meredith's sexual behaviors in a way that supports the prosecution's case that Amanda's sexual behavior is compatible with being a murderer while Meredith's sexual behavior is compatible with being a victim. That is the claim the original case relied on and that is the claim you continue to rely on, regardless of how many times you ask, "Who, me?"

Second all of that. If there had been a sexual relationship/encounter/episode of any sort between Amanda and Guede, it would be worth knowing about for its possible relevance to the case, imo. There wasn't. There is nothing anywhere in any record to suggest that such a thing ever happened, because it never did.

Since that's the case, her sexuality ought to be just as much off limits as that of Meredith. Instead Amanda's life is seen as fair game for the hunters. Somehow she's made some sort of peace with this, I suppose, but it's infuriating, sexist, and cruel.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium, I think you understand that you lost all arguments. You say the logical steps in between how to come to the reduction don't matter; but actually they do matter a lot to your reasoning. They are your reasoning. And they are wrong.
Now, because you lost them, you want to leap across them to get to a conclusion directly, without any reasoning in between: basically your only assertion is that the Guede final reduction is evidence by itself, you believe it is evidence of a particular "way Mignini prosecuted Guede". Basically you admit you have no argument.

Nah, it just means the Byzantine machinations of the Italian Court System don't really interest me and it doesn't matter much that I may have some terminology wrong. I do recognize when my argument is dodged and what I get back amounts to semantic quibbling however.

You don't have any evidence that Mignini prosecuted Guede in any different way. You only have evidence of the contrary. But you decide to leap across all the facts, and you kind of deduce the existence of an event "Mignini prosecuted Guede in a particular favourable way" by making it stem directly, and solely, from the simple existence of Guede's final reduced sentencing, and from nothing else.

Everything that happened afterward was based on the evidence Mignini presented in court in Rudy's trial. The result of the rest of his appeals process flowed from the case Mignini brought against him, and also ended up affecting Raffaele and Amanda's trial as well, including that they had to stand trial at all.

My evidence for this can be summed up quite simply from the fact that Rudy was cleared of the theft and Raffaele and Amanda were convicted of it despite the evidence. Again: Rudy left his DNA all over and around the owner of what was stolen, including her purse, and he was the one who really needed money and stuff to sell and they did not. Then there's the recent thefts Rudy was involved in that Mignini failed to prosecute, despite him piling charges on Raffaele and Amanda as well as their families on specious evidential grounds.

Guede got 30 years in the first instance. Do you understand that? 30 years!
they won. You don't appeal something that you won. It would bee like shooting at your foot.

It means the prosecution won their case completely in terms of sentencing. They obtained the maximum. It's almost the maximum that any accused can possibly get in an anbbreviated trial. A life sentencing on abbreviated trial it's something so rare, almost unique, which would require some extreme aggravation, like a cold-minded premeditation by a professional with terrorist purposes, or killing a second person, something like that, something really extreme.

A common criminal doesn't get life on abbreviated trials. Not even a murderer. Normally, not even a terrorist. It's something very rare. And in this case, the scenario was that of a troubled young person who took part in committing a non premeditated murder together with other people, and who returned back to Italy by train to give himself up to the police. This is a common crime. He was not the mastermind and he was not even the person who gave the fatal blow, in the judges' minds.

Because of the way Mignini prosecuted it! He was the one responsible for adducing the evidence in court and he did so in a way that excused Rudy Guede from participating much in the crime, despite all the evidence that would objectively place him in the forefront (being as he was the only one involved that would kinda figure) but even someone who wanted to include Raffaele and Amanda could have prosecuted the case against Rudy fairly, and Mignini most certainly did not do that.

How can you reasonably expect that he would get more than 30 years despite a short track trial?

If it is not possible that means expecting a (final) sentence against anyone that amounts to more than the 16 years Rudy got is basically impossible, and we both know that isn't true. Taking fast track cannot be a guarantee of a mere 16 year sentence.

Mignini and Comodi obviously did not appeal agaisnt a 30 years sentencing.
But even if they appealed to increase it to life, that wouldn't have changed anything in the reality of events. The Prosecutor General in fact demanded the Borsini Belardi court to confirm the first instance sentencing, 30 years. Had Mignin and Comodi appealed, they (Mignini and Comodi) could have proposed the judge to increase the sentencing to life, but the only difference would have been such phonetic exercise.

The fact is the prosecution general lost their argument for the 30 years sentencing. They lost it. They asked 30 years again (a request that could have been legally founded) and the judges decided otherwise. They lost it because the defence won, and they won partly because Knox and Sollecito got their mitigations too; the judges of Borsini-Belardi court opted for mitigation so the prosecution would have equally lost the argument for a life sentencing (whch would have been legally unfounded).

How about a more likely answer: they won because Mignini tanked the evidence against Rudy in his trial. What are the ones involved in the rest of the fast track process to rely on if the proper evidence is not adduced in the original trial?

But what are you talking about, since Mignini charged Guede with theft, and Micheli found him innocent for lack of proof?

Despite all the real evidence of it above, that's damned curious as is the fact Raffaele and Amanda were convicted of it despite no evidence (on that charge). None, Machiavelli, none.

What I meant by 'not prosecuting' was that he didn't try to get a conviction on the theft charge, but the way he did it effectively cleared him of ever being convicted of it, on that specific charge at least. Did he appeal that acquittal?

And why do you think that a petty offence like theft (which is not theft but even pettier illicit appropriation, since you can't commit a theft in detriment of a dead person) would have been determinant? Guede would have got 30 years anyway, no more than that. Think about that Solelcito and Knox were found guilty of committing sexual violence, and then sidtrackings (staging, cleanup) and calunnia in continuance, and even illicit appropriation, and despite these aggravations they did not get life. And now Crini is requesting to remove generic mitigation, yet he is still not asking for life. And they are even in a regular, expensive and renewed process, not in a short track.

Yet Raffaele and Amanda both had charges piled upon them and Rudy Guede did not. He escaped scot-free of everything else, and had his murder conviction generously mitigated on dubious or ridiculous grounds.

 

[kwill]

And in this case, the scenario was that of a troubled young person who took part in committing a non premeditated murder together with other people, and who returned back to Italy by train to give himself up to the police. This is a common crime.

What you describe is of course not what happened, which is already troubling - but what's really disturbing in that snip is the last sentence.

This is a common crime???

Troubled young people taking part in non-premeditated murder together with other people is a common crime?

Is that really the case in Perugia?