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

[Strozzi]

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.



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.

Machiavelli, if the police or prosecution heard Guede say to his lawyer or directly to the police or prosecution that he alone or with another person not Knox or Sollecito committed the crime, are the prosecution or police obligated to inform the defense of this? Could the police or prosecution know of this and withhold or conceal it from the defense?

Perhaps they have been told this by Guede but don't believe him, dismiss Guede's statement as false, and are therefore not disclosing it to the defense.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

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).

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

So did I! I went to my post and read it over and over and started to figure out how to start a thread in Forum Management about why on earth my post violated the M.A. Luckily I reread the notice before I embarrassed myself over in the Management section. It sure seems we are all a bit overly sensitive about our private love notes from the mods!

 

[RandyN]

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.



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.




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.



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.



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?




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?




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.

Right! Which is why I wont soon be placing any offers on any time-shares in Italy...

A country where lying is a national pastime even when it is so obviously blatant and false so as to be insanely ridiculous. And this is just the judicial officials and police...LOL.

Evil? Guede? I suppose that depends on if he is plunging a knife into your throat and then a bit later decides to check out your Brazilian...what might you be thinking as he tears your clothes off? Gee this poor soul must have had a terrible upbringing? Poor fellow.

More evil is manipulating evidence to make a case against two obviously innocent people all while covering up and or failing to charge the real killer with his full set of crimes ....that is robbery, rape and brutal murder.

But sure, he had a bad childhood. I bet the next person he kills understands his potential to do good. Sigh. Guess who God's favorite angel turned out to be? Evidently God mishandled his upbringing too... And for the skeptics... it is at least an interesting take on things...no?

 

[moodstream]

.....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.

.....If Knox had a "relation" with Guede,

More of the wonderful game "What if?". Can I play, too? Lets see, the rule is, it has to start with a "reasonable pairing".

How about - If Hitler met Jesus? Reasonable? Sure, Hitler is the devil, and Jesus is, well, Jesus. It's reasonable. It could have happened. Machiavelli. you're good with this what if game... so, go on please, make up some details - Knox meets Guede and they have sex for drugs and kill someone. Hitler met Jesus, and what happened then.

Maybe we'd both be better off if you stick to reality. Thanks.

 

[moodstream]

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.



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.

Machiavelli,

I know that you have read Dante. I bet you can tell me without opening the book to which circle of Hell God sends the hypocrites. You are not a hypocrite. You are sincere in your beliefs, which are that Guede, Knox, and Sollecitio collectively murdered Ms Kercher. You have stated that Guede's trial is complete.

My question is, why don't you ask Guede what happened. You have to have worked several thousand hours by now on this trial. You go to the major events. You have direct sources. Yet, you seem to have no interest in the best source of all, Rudy Guede.

Rudy Guede has nothing to lose by telling you the truth, and you have nothing to fear by learning it. Or is this not the case? Of all the people who follow this case, you are perhaps the most determined to uncover the facts and present them to the world. So, what has stopped you from actually learning the facts from the one person everyone agrees knows.

I have to add, it occurs to me that deep down you doubt the truth of your own position and you are too afraid to find out. Can you show me that I am wrong?

Thanks

 

[Poppy1016]

No, no. Just a moment, you are very wrong here. This is not a suggestion: it is a fact that the drug dealer had phone contacts with Knox. Because in fact, he was investigated and charge of drug dealing because of these phone contact. I mean the police found him and they investigated him because they found his number in Knox's phone traffic. That was the element on which they started an investigation which lead them to find out three drug dealers.

Cite please.

 

[Poppy1016]

Right! Which is why I wont soon be placing any offers on any time-shares in Italy...

A country where lying is a national pastime even when it is so obviously blatant and false so as to be insanely ridiculous. And this is just the judicial officials and police...LOL.

Evil? Guede? I suppose that depends on if he is plunging a knife into your throat and then a bit later decides to check out your Brazilian...what might you be thinking as he tears your clothes off? Gee this poor soul must have had a terrible upbringing? Poor fellow.

More evil is manipulating evidence to make a case against two obviously innocent people all while covering up and or failing to charge the real killer with his full set of crimes ....that is robbery, rape and brutal murder.

But sure, he had a bad childhood. I bet the next person he kills understands his potential to do good. Sigh. Guess who God's favorite angel turned out to be? Evidently God mishandled his upbringing too... And for the skeptics... it is at least an interesting take on things...no?

The treatment of Rudy by the police, prosecution, and judges, is compatible with Rudy being a police informant.

 

[acbytesla]

No, no. Just a moment, you are very wrong here. This is not a suggestion: it is a fact that the drug dealer had phone contacts with Knox. Because in fact, he was investigated and charge of drug dealing because of these phone contact. I mean the police found him and they investigated him because they found his number in Knox's phone traffic. That was the element on which they started an investigation which lead them to find out three drug dealers.

You're going to have to stop running your mouth and actually provide evidence. Otherwise shut up.

Time and time again, you have made this absurd suggestion. Not that it has ANY relevance and not once have you actually provided a citation.

I challenge you to be honorable.

Either provide the name of the drug dealer and the actual dates and times between Knox and the alleged drug dealer or move on to something that actually resembles evidence.

This is just a smear tactic and beneath you.

 

[acbytesla]

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?!

Is this the same police who said Patrick Lumumba killed Meredith?
Is this the same police who said the shoe prints matched Raffaele?
Is this the same police who said that the CCTV camera in the garage was 10 minutes slow, when it was 10 minutes fast?
Is this the same police said Amanda had tested positive for HIV?

What do you think LJ?

 

[Matthew Best]

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

Not even that. All we know is that Machiavelli says that the newspaper said that the police said it was true. That makes it triply reliable!

 

[Poppy1016]

You're going to have to stop running your mouth and actually provide evidence. Otherwise shut up.

Time and time again, you have made this absurd suggestion. Not that it has ANY relevance and not once have you actually provided a citation.

I challenge you to be honorable.

Either provide the name of the drug dealer and the actual dates and times between Knox and the alleged drug dealer or move on to something that actually resembles evidence.

This is just a smear tactic and beneath you.

I do not understand why wild,unsubstantiated remarks and accusations are allowed on a site that uses well reasoned debate as its foundation.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[davefoc]

...
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?
....

Are the penalties and attitudes towards rape-murder that different in Italy than in the US?

The word non premeditated was what drew my attention. In the US rape is one of the crimes that can turn a killing into murder whether there was premeditation or not. The rape would make the killing a felony murder under most state law I believe. And the penalties are very severe for felony murder. In a brief review of the situation it looked like they ranged from 30 years to the death penalty. A US prosecutor would have probably charged Guede with breaking and entering and theft as well, if I understand these things correctly, and those things might have made the issue of premeditation also moot since they would also have made Guede guilty of felony murder as well even without the crime of rape.

And yet Guede's crime is reduced to 16 years and the prosecutor doesn't say anything and Machiavelli thinks that since the crime wasn't premeditated that is one of the reasons? And Machiavelli is cool with that. How is he going to feel when Guede is back on the street and he decides to be Machiavelli's next door neighbor?

And then Machiavelli says that Guede was coming back to Italy to give himself up? Why in the world would you say something like that Machiavelli? Yes, I suppose, in the philosophical sense that anything is possible it can't be ruled out that Guede was coming back to Italy to give himself up, but really Machiavelli you think that's what he was doing? And even if he was giving himself up, what would it prove? It might just be that he realized his capture was imminent or that he wasn't capable of making a life for himself as a fugitive. And when he was in custody did he admit to his crime, something that might have indicated a true desire to have given himself up?

And the judges thought that Guede wasn't the person that gave the "fatal blow"? Did I understand that correctly? Why in the world would they think that? Did they channel the crime scene and watch somebody else rape and murder Kercher so that they knew that Guede who had his DNA all over the place wasn't the main perpetrator and the people that they channeled who had managed to avoid leaving any of their DNA at the crime scene were actually the ones who committed the murder? Perhaps the alleged finding of Sollecito questionably collected and tested DNA on a piece of Kercher's bra was a more important clue to who actually committed the murder than Guede's DNA in numerous places including in Kercher?

I had a thought while I was reading through some of your most recent posts Machiavelli. I will admit that my theories about the nature of Machiavelli have ranged fairly widely since I've been following the Kercher Murder thread, but I had never considered the possibility before that you are being played. Is it possible that the people who you get information from are manipulating you by pandering to your ego while they leak bogus information to you? Maybe these little bits and pieces of inside information that you receive are designed more to deceive you and manipulate you than to provide you with truthful information?

 

[Antony]

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)?

And not only that, but voluntarily staying in Perugia and cooperating with police for 10s of hours in the 3 days following the murder before being arrested, is neither a mitigating factor nor an indicator of innocence? Sheesh.

 

[Samson]

Machiavelli,

I know that you have read Dante. I bet you can tell me without opening the book to which circle of Hell God sends the hypocrites. You are not a hypocrite. You are sincere in your beliefs, which are that Guede, Knox, and Sollecitio collectively murdered Ms Kercher. You have stated that Guede's trial is complete.

My question is, why don't you ask Guede what happened. You have to have worked several thousand hours by now on this trial. You go to the major events. You have direct sources. Yet, you seem to have no interest in the best source of all, Rudy Guede.

Rudy Guede has nothing to lose by telling you the truth, and you have nothing to fear by learning it. Or is this not the case? Of all the people who follow this case, you are perhaps the most determined to uncover the facts and present them to the world. So, what has stopped you from actually learning the facts from the one person everyone agrees knows.

I have to add, it occurs to me that deep down you doubt the truth of your own position and you are too afraid to find out. Can you show me that I am wrong?

Thanks

Searching questions, and I must concede a morbid fascination at the long run conclusion, because it will be written one day as uncontested historical fact that a bizarre injustice was perpetrated.

 

[NancyS]

I don't have to establish anything actually. But I can well assume it is reasonable to believe a reporting by Il Corriere dell'Umbria which cites a police report, and it is reasonable on my part to believe my direct sources.
Knox had phone contacts with a a drug dealer who - incidentally - was also reported by the police as having the habit of giving cocaine to female stutents in exchange for sex.
I don't know how these elements are linked together. What I believe we may be all reasonably sure about is that Amanda Knox had contact with this person and with the environment of drug dealers hanging around in Piazza Grimana.

Again I think you've lifted the plot straight out of one of Mignini's blue movies - outside of the perverted mind of the prosecution, young students are not exchanging sexual favours for cocaine. I worked at a sexual health clinic and never heard the like. You appear obsessed with young students and their sexual habits, it's all sex, drugs, sex, drugs - I'm now just waiting for you to throw in a pillow fight

Sexual favours are rarely exchanged for drugs outside of severe drug dependence and poverty - and neither applies to Amanda. However, you'll probably argue that Amanda is so sexual (and evil) that she only has to see a man for all her clothes to fall off - again this is based on any reality outside of porn

 

[Mary_H]

Again I think you've lifted the plot straight out of one of Mignini's blue movies - outside of the perverted mind of the prosecution, young students are not exchanging sexual favours for cocaine. I worked at a sexual health clinic and never heard the like. You appear obsessed with young students and their sexual habits, it's all sex, drugs, sex, drugs - I'm now just waiting for you to throw in a pillow fight
Sexual favours are rarely exchanged for drugs outside of severe drug dependence and poverty - and neither applies to Amanda. However, you'll probably argue that Amanda is so sexual (and evil) that she only has to see a man for all her clothes to fall off - again this is based on any reality outside of porn

This might be an appropriate time to remind folks of this article by Nina Burleigh, in which she referred to the type of media Machiavelli and Mignini have been immersed in for decades:

Italian women are popularly defined by their role in the Prime Minister's macho broadcast nation, where pretty girls wear lingerie on television and hanker for the loving touch of a septuagenarian. Even female news anchors reading their lines over video of gore in Afghanistan wear halter tops.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
This comment is in response to Mary's post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9696102&postcount=9959 in the closed thread. I could not quote it so I am posting a link to it instead.

When I became interested in this case, I read 'The Monster of Florence' by Spezi and Preston, written previous to Meredith's murder. I wanted to understand Italian thinking, and in particular the prosecuting team's thinking. The authors made a couple of observations I found pertinent. Paraphrasing, the first was that many Italian's have a sense of honor (personally I would call it faux honor), that does not allow them to admit to error. The second was that many Italians believe nothing is what it seems on the surface, the dietrologia Mary speaks of.

I think both of those characteristics are very evident in many players on the pro guilt side. Considering the consequences to innocent people, it is scary, and depressingly disillusioning coming from otherwise intelligent and civilized people, IMO.

I would recommend the book for anyone who wants to better understand Mignini, and this case. If the Kerchers were to read this book, they might understand why 6 years after Meredith's murder, they still do not have closure.
.

 

[NancyS]

That's a really interesting article Mary and it does seem that there is a massive difference between real Italian women and the way they are portrayed and objectified by the Italian media.

I can understand how infuriating the professional woman must find this portryal of women - and I do wonder if the cartoon version of Amanda initially presented by the media (murderous in a giggling and coquettish way and available to anyone), became the poster girl for the kind of woman they hate for letting down the sisterhood. Although, the mostly conservatively dressed and very natural looking Amanda doesn't seem an obvious choice for the role of femme fatale. Although in part this was probably due to the idea that 'all Americam girls are easy' - us Brits have a similar reputation abroad and it can lead to a lot of sexual harrasment

 

[JREF2010]

Vogt twitters....
as I read it, Maresca states theres a 1000 scenarios to this crime, I thought there was only 500+.