[gatagato]

Originally Posted by K9Grip ↗

Gata, can you read the charge sheet of Rudy Guede for me? I can't see if he was convicted of sexual assault, breaking and entering and the theft of Meredith's phones and money. In America, if you commit a sexual assault or anything else criminal, in the act of murder, you are charged with those offenses, too. Even if you were the get-away driver, you are charged with the crimes those you were with committed, too.

Yes, he was sentenced for both murder and sexual assault: he got so few years since thanks to the formula of the shortened trial, the sentence is reduced of 1/3 by default. Also the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are taken into account, but they nullified each other.
The interesting part is that he has been sentenced for "concorso in omicidio" (involvement in murder) which would imply that at least another person is charged for the same crime: but since he's been tried and convicted separately, basically THAT court decided that he had some accomplices, no matter who they were.
I (personally) would have denied the shortened trial: in a shortened trial there's no debate, the prosecutor reads the story and the courts decides.
but the judges could have decided to deny the request: also all the evidences are "frozen" from the start to the end of the trial.
Now, if the three were tried together of course i don't know how it would have ended up, but i know for sure that now we all would know MUCH more about what happened.
Most likely the (questionable) decision was taken as an act of respect towards the relatives of the victim: there was at least one who was guilty for sure, "lets sentence him as soon as possible" is what they must have though. And actually, her parents were relieved after the trial.
But this way, we've lost a GREAT part of the historical truth.


I forgot to say, before: in the motivation of the 1 degree sentence , the judge repeatedly pointed out that the crime was not planned: it will be interesting to see why now she has been sentenced to 28 years: since three years have been added to the 1st degree sentence, the court must explain black on white what else they've found out that the court of 1st degree apparently overlooked.

[gatagato]

As your brother is fluent in Italian, here's a very interesting reading, (for when you've the time): it's the motivation of the sentence against Guede:
http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=15918

I share this link as there you'll find a very very detailed description of the events, with references to the original reports from the police and all the rest.

[K9Grip]

Originally Posted by gatagato ↗

Yes, he was sentenced for both murder and sexual assault: he got so few years since thanks to the formula of the shortened trial, the sentence is reduced of 1/3 by default. Also the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are taken into account, but they nullified each other.
The interesting part is that he has been sentenced for "concorso in omicidio" (involvement in murder) which would imply that at least another person is charged for the same crime: but since he's been tried and convicted separately, basically THAT court decided that he had some accomplices, no matter who they were.
I (personally) would have denied the shortened trial: in a shortened trial there's no debate, the prosecutor reads the story and the courts decides.
but the judges could have decided to deny the request: also all the evidences are "frozen" from the start to the end of the trial.
Now, if the three were tried together of course i don't know how it would have ended up, but i know for sure that now we all would know MUCH more about what happened.
Most likely the (questionable) decision was taken as an act of respect towards the relatives of the victim: there was at least one who was guilty for sure, "lets sentence him as soon as possible" is what they must have though. And actually, her parents were relieved after the trial.
But this way, we've lost a GREAT part of the historical truth.


I forgot to say, before: in the motivation of the 1 degree sentence , the judge repeatedly pointed out that the crime was not planned: it will be interesting to see why now she has been sentenced to 28 years: since three years have been added to the 1st degree sentence, the court must explain black on white what else they've found out that the court of 1st degree apparently overlooked.

Lesser sentences for pleading guilty happen here in the USA all the time, too. If Amanda and Raffaele's convictions/overturned sentences can be retried and deemed inappropriate, why can't Rudy's? Just because he plead guilty doesn't mean that there wasn't some kind of "procedural" error that they could find, right? It just doesn't seem fair that they can change so much back and forth with Amanda and Raffaele, but not Rudy. I'm sincerely trying my best to understand all the law aspects of this to best of my ability and I apologize if I'm being irritating.


I just read several articles where the latest judge has said, "If Amanda had gone to work, probably we wouldn't be here." Well, it was Patrick who called her and told her not to come into work as business was very slow due to the Holiday weekend. So, how can this be used against her since her boss told her to not come into work? When my boss says, "don't come to work," I don't go to work.

Also, he says "probably we wouldn't be here..." to me that suggests that he actually thinks innocence. Because if she had gone to work, she would have had a solid alibi instead of one only proved by Raffaele. No evidence of her at the crime scene, but because they can't pinpoint her exact location at the Meredith's time of death she's guilty? The police ruined the laptops so they were unable to tell at what times they watched Amelie and were/weren't on the internet that night. Should't that be police fault and not Amanda and Raffaele's? I know a lot of these questions are one's you can't answer and me basically thinking out loud - but I'm hoping to give some food for thought and open people's minds - if they bother to read this.


Last night I went on several different news sites and read the comments about Amanda and Raffaele and to be honest, I was totally disgusted. One of the main comments with the most "up" votes was one that said something about how you could tell she was guilty by the smug look on her face. Well, if smug looks mean guilt, we're all guilty of a lot of shit, then.


I was also surprised at the amount of inaccurate information still floating out there. Even information the Italian justice system has since cleared up and not just pro Amanda/Raffaele sites. The bathroom picture still seems to vilify Amanda the most. Most people don't realize or educate themselves on the fact that that all red bathroom pic was taken after it was sprayed with a chemical by the police for other fluids. They think the entire bathroom was covered from top to bottom in blood. While I think Amanda was sincerely dumb to not think anything of a large bloody footprint on the bathmat, again, I can't convict solely on that. Especially, since it's been proven, by police to be Rudy's.


I agree with you about not understanding how she received a longer sentence this time around. It stinks that we have to wait three months to find out. Can they convict Amanda and Raffaele of rape even though it was Rudy's DNA that was found inside of her?

(BTW my brother lived in Italy for a little over 7 years, Bologna and will actually be moving back there shortly. His wife is an emergency room doctor and they want their daughter to be born and raised in Italy. But, both he and I studied abroad and I think that's why I became so interested in this case. I was in Germany and Belgium, though.)

[K9Grip]

Originally Posted by gatagato ↗

As your brother is fluent in Italian, here's a very interesting reading, (for when you've the time): it's the motivation of the sentence against Guede:
http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=15918

I share this link as there you'll find a very very detailed description of the events, with references to the original reports from the police and all the rest.

Awesome. Translated itself.


Do you think Rudy will be released this year? I really hope not. It might actually be too dangerous because of the new convictions and upcoming appeals.

[ices]

This slut invited a drifter from Africa into the place and he was the one who did it. However they cleaned it up whilst he legged it.

She should be locked up along with that schlub of an ex boyfriend for assisting her. Stupid white girl who thought she could hang with a scumbag who murdered this girl.

[K9Grip]

Originally Posted by ices ↗

This slut invited a drifter from Africa into the place and he was the one who did it. However they cleaned it up whilst he legged it.

She should be locked up along with that schlub of an ex boyfriend for assisting her. Stupid white girl who thought she could hang with a scumbag who murdered this girl.

Actually, it was Giacomo who introduced Amanda and Meredith to Rudy. Giacomo was the guy who lived downstairs that Meredith was sleeping with and they all hung out one time together and smoked a little pot. Raffaele knew of him, but didn't actually know Rudy.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills instead of hating women all the time.

[gatagato]

K9Grip, i was shocked to read about the interview: the magistrates' governing body strongly discourages such behavior. If a judge really (and i mean REALLY) needs to talk to the press, then he should make a press release and say whatever he wants to say. And anyway, he should NEVER open his mouth before the release of the motivation of the sentence (and at this point I lean to think that new surprises can't be ruled out, at all). But a Q&A with a journalist the day after you sentenced two people to 28 ½ and to 25 years??? That's pure madness (and most likely some disciplinary action will be taken, not just because of the interview by itself, but for some of its contents, and i'll try to help you to see the why).

When he said
"At the moment I can say that up until 8:15 of that evening, the kids had other plans, but they skipped them and an opportunity was created," and "If Amanda had gone to work, probably we wouldn't be here." he didn't mean that he believes she's innocent though: what he meant is that since the crime wasn't planned, until one minute before it happened she and Sollecito didn't have in mind to do what they did, and everything happened only because an "opportunity was created" for a series of coincidences. But this clashes with the sentence, for obvious reasons (the 3½ years that were added).

When asked if the verdict was unanimous he answered that "it was a shared decision", which is an edulcorated way of saying there was disagreement amongst the members of the jury.

But that's not the worst part.

He said that "the decision of Sollecito, not to testify may have worked against him" and "it's the defendant's right, but it certainly deprived the process of a voice," and "He limited himself to spontaneous declarations. He said only what he wanted to say without letting himself be cross-examined."

and THAT's the worst part: basically you can read between the lines that he meant that if Sollecito had decided to testify against Amanda, she could have been sentenced and he could have been acquitted. Seriously, the magistrates' governing body in my opinion should take some quick and strong action against his behavior, and anyway his statement cast shadows on his credibility: if he behaved this way after the trial, what could he have done during it, especially into the jury chamber? The members of the jury will be questioned for sure.

Seriously, i find shocking and outrageous what happened and of course i'm not going to even try to defend him. As unavoidable consequence, the motivation of the sentence will be scrutinized even more carefully than it was supposed to by the Supreme Court, during the third (and final) degree of the trial.

[gatagato]

I knew it

Italian Justice Ministry Investigating Knox Judge

Italy's justice minister on Monday announced an investigation into comments to the Italian media made by the judge who read the guilty verdicts against Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.

Annamaria Cancellieri said in a one-line statement that she has asked the inspector general to make a "preliminary assessment" of the remarks published by two Italian newspapers over the weekend.

The newspapers quoted Florence judge Alessandro Nencini as saying, among other things, that Sollecito's decision not to testify on the witness stand deprived the defendant of a voice. The judge also commented on the difficulty of reaching a verdict, due to the vast amount of evidence as well as the intense media attention, and acknowledged that assigning a motive for the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher was one of the most "controversial" aspects of the case.

A Sollecito attorney, Luca Maori, said earlier Monday that the comments on the defense strategy are "serious" and could form part of their appeal to Italy's highest court on last week's verdict. Maori said the defense team would seek an investigation into the judge's comments with the ministry, as well as the magistrates' oversight body and the high Court of Cassation.

"This is not a vendetta because a judge handed down a verdict other than what we expected," Maori said by telephone on Monday.

Knox defense lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said in an emailed statement that the interviews were "not appropriate," but he reserved comment on any action until the court's reasoning for the verdict is issued, expected within 90 days of the sentence.

Knox's defense also is planning to appeal the verdict. "She feels that it is a mistake and she will continue fighting for her innocence," Dalla Vedova said.

Members of the magistrate's governing body also said they will request an inquiry, saying Nencini had violated the secrecy of deliberations, anticipated arguments in the yet-published reasoning, and made comments on the defense trial strategy that suggest "partiality," the news agency ANSA reported.

Disciplinary measures could include a transfer or monetary penalties.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...riety-22344483

A transfer may sound like a weak punishment, but actually it would be a way like another to put an end to his career.

[K9Grip]

Originally Posted by gatagato ↗

I knew it

Italian Justice Ministry Investigating Knox Judge


A transfer may sound like a weak punishment, but actually it would be a way like another to put an end to his career.

I have this weird feeling that he did it on purpose. A senior judge definitely knows better and it just makes this case even more of a disaster. Is there anything else they can fuck up?

[K9Grip]

Just read that Rudy Guede now gets a day pass to study for a degree in history at a local university.
His lawyer's words make my stomach ill. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...killer-3132708