Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


Last visit was: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:05 am
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:05 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 - Dec 31, 09

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 11 of 14 [ 3464 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

beans wrote:
My first post re this case was on TJMK, and I, the usual ill-informed newbie, gave my idea of what went down in Perugia. I said I thought since Rudy was a drug dealer, he made some sort of deal with Amanda and Raffaele that in exchange for drugs, Amanda would arrange for him to have a go at Meredith. I was promptly corrected, by Peter as I recall, to the fact that before the break-in in Milan, Rudy had no criminal record at all and was, in fact, not a drug dealer. I think that a great deal of the negative picture that has been painted of Rudy Guede and his “nefarious past” has been the result of unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo by the media, the FOA, the Knox-Mellas clan and their lawyers. I have read that, “Rudy was known to the police.” Do we actually know this is true? This is not meant to be an in your face question, I am just curious to know if there is actual proof of that statement. Or is it just that someone, perhaps early on in the case, printed that along with other unsubstantiated facts.

I ran across the following article re Rudy the other day. It is an additional piece of information re his character, similar to the interview with Mrs. Marcella, from people who actually knew Rudy well.


From “Ironic Surrealism v3.0, Archive for November 20th, 2007, Fourth Suspect Arrested in Meredith Kercher Murder Case (//ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/10007/11/20)
The 1.79-metre Guede played guard for the ‘UISP Pallacanestro Perugia’ basketball team in Italy’s C1 third division until the 2004-05 season, police said.
Former team mates described him as ”a great lad with a great passion for the game, always on time for training, always ready to help others”.
His former club chairman, Roberto Segoloni, said Guede was ”more than perfect”.
He said he thought it was ”premature” to link him with such a serious crime.
Guede came to Italy as a five-year-old to join his father but moved out when a Perugia businessman’s family offered him a foster home when he was 17.
The businessman’s son made friends with the Ivorian at an open-air basketball court.
He left the affluent family when he turned 18 to join some of his other relatives in Lecco north of Milan.
Guede later returned to Perugia and worked as a gardener in a farm-tourism restaurant run by his foster family.
Earlier, he reportedly held down bar jobs to support himself while doing hotel and computer courses.
Guede broke off relations with the family in August.
The businessman’s daughter told ANSA Guede was a shy and introverted youth who never showed signs of violence.
”He was like an extra brother for us,” she said. Guede’s adoptive mother reportedly broke down in tears, repeating ”It’s not possible, it isn’t possible”.
Guede’s adoptive father ‘Paolo Caporali’ does not speak so highly or lovingly of him as did his adoptive sister and mother. Puzzling to be sure.
Guede is said to have lived in Perugia since he was five years old. In recent years, he was adopted by an Italian family.
The father, Paolo Caporali, 62, told the Italian national newspaper La Repubblica: “It is pointless to hide the fact that for me, Rudy was a disappointment. I hoped to help him build a future, I thought I had given him an opportunity. But as the months passed I understood I was mistaken, that my hopes were all met with delusion.
“He said he was at school, but he skipped class. He preferred to spend the day in front of the television or with video games. He had little wish to study, and even less to work.”

Mr. Caporali’s description doesn’t sound too different from the problem of a teenager gone astray that many other long-suffering families have had to deal with. I wonder if Rudy had actually been Mr. Caporali’s son, if there might not have been a different outcome. (I am not trying to imply that Caporali did anything wrong—but a person might deal differently with his own flesh an blood.)

Lest I be lambasted for defending Rudy, I believe he is at least guilty of complicity, obviously he was involved in the rape, and he left Meredith to die—he deserves to be punished. But I don’t think he has been treated fairly by the media and that a lot of people’s impressions of his character have been born of misinformation. I doubt that had RS and AK not met him and persuaded him to join in, that he would have hurt Meredith on his own. I think the other two set him up. He took the short form trial to avoid being tried with them because he felt they would try to pin the whole thing on him—in light of the defense lawyers actions in the trial of AK/RS, he seems to have had that right. I also think “black man found, black man guilty” has definitely had some relevance here, whether or not Raffaele said it. In short, I think it would be a travesty of justice if his sentence is for a longer period than AK and RS

Edited to add: If the figure 1.79 meters for Rudy's height is correct, that would make him approximately 5 feet 9 inches tall, not the super tall guy that some have implied.

Hi again Beans,

I think that of the three, Rudy is the only one deserving the mitigating circumstances, as on top of being young as well-actually younger than Sollecito-, and "incensurato" -no police records-he grew up as a disadvantaged child.

About the media coverage of Rudy's trial, he has been fingered as the only murderer from the very beginning by the FOA 's sponsored media with such a rage that bordered racism IMO. Now, I believe Rudy is a criminal and he should rot in jail for at least as long as the other two. But out of the trio he 's the only one I feel an ounce of pity for, as he seems to show some remorse for what he has done, and he has a crappy past. I think the other two, notwithstanding their young age and absence of police records, didn't deserve the compassion of the Italian judges at all.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Last edited by nicki on Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline anne


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:04 pm

Posts: 173

Location: Berlin Kreuzberg

Highscores: 3

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hallo!

Its my birthday today (a quarter of a century pure me - yay! ;))
so i havn't really got the time to read through the posts of the last days. Just wanna ask what happened today in court - a shortcut would do. Anything new?

Thanks a lot in advance and a happy day for all of you!!
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Hmmm, it looks like Rudy 'was' kept in the cage:



I have always seen murderers caged in Italian appeal trials. Now I expect to see Knox and Sollecito in a similar cage too when their times come.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skep wrote:
You are forgetting that the FOA has on numerous occasions proven beyond reasonable doubt that its members are absolutely impervious to facts. Their worldview is set in stone. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can alter it.

Incidentally, while looking for Rudy Guede's stats, I kept seeing references to Knox's defense attorney + jobless drifter. The fact that Guede lived in an apartment, just like Sollecito, and paid rent seems not to have penetrated either.


Well, just to put it into perspective...whenever you see the media interviewing Curt Knox you don't ever hear the presenter saying 'now let's hear from Amanda's jobless father Curt Knox' or similar introductions in the printed media ;)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Nicki wrote:
I have always seen murderers caged in Italian appeal trials. Now I expect to see Knox and Sollecito in a similar cage too when their times come.


Thanks Nicki. I hope so. Not because I want to see them in a cage you understand, but simply for fairness. Otherwise, it would mean Rudy is regarded differently by the Italian system to them and that wouldn't be fair at all. But if they are put in a cage too, I wonder how the FOA will spin that image ;)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

anne wrote:
Hallo!

Its my birthday today (a quarter of a century pure me - yay! ;))
so i havn't really got the time to read through the posts of the last days. Just wanna ask what happened today in court - a shortcut would do. Anything new?

Thanks a lot in advance and a happy day for all of you!!


Happy birthday Anne :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
nicki wrote:
beans wrote:
My first post re this case was on TJMK, and I, the usual ill-informed newbie, gave my idea of what went down in Perugia. I said I thought since Rudy was a drug dealer, he made some sort of deal with Amanda and Raffaele that in exchange for drugs, Amanda would arrange for him to have a go at Meredith. I was promptly corrected, by Peter as I recall, to the fact that before the break-in in Milan, Rudy had no criminal record at all and was, in fact, not a drug dealer. I think that a great deal of the negative picture that has been painted of Rudy Guede and his “nefarious past” has been the result of unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo by the media, the FOA, the Knox-Mellas clan and their lawyers. I have read that, “Rudy was known to the police.” Do we actually know this is true? This is not meant to be an in your face question, I am just curious to know if there is actual proof of that statement. Or is it just that someone, perhaps early on in the case, printed that along with other unsubstantiated facts.

I ran across the following article re Rudy the other day. It is an additional piece of information re his character, similar to the interview with Mrs. Marcella, from people who actually knew Rudy well.


From “Ironic Surrealism v3.0, Archive for November 20th, 2007, Fourth Suspect Arrested in Meredith Kercher Murder Case (//ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/10007/11/20)
The 1.79-metre Guede played guard for the ‘UISP Pallacanestro Perugia’ basketball team in Italy’s C1 third division until the 2004-05 season, police said.
Former team mates described him as ”a great lad with a great passion for the game, always on time for training, always ready to help others”.
His former club chairman, Roberto Segoloni, said Guede was ”more than perfect”.
He said he thought it was ”premature” to link him with such a serious crime.
Guede came to Italy as a five-year-old to join his father but moved out when a Perugia businessman’s family offered him a foster home when he was 17.
The businessman’s son made friends with the Ivorian at an open-air basketball court.
He left the affluent family when he turned 18 to join some of his other relatives in Lecco north of Milan.
Guede later returned to Perugia and worked as a gardener in a farm-tourism restaurant run by his foster family.
Earlier, he reportedly held down bar jobs to support himself while doing hotel and computer courses.
Guede broke off relations with the family in August.
The businessman’s daughter told ANSA Guede was a shy and introverted youth who never showed signs of violence.
”He was like an extra brother for us,” she said. Guede’s adoptive mother reportedly broke down in tears, repeating ”It’s not possible, it isn’t possible”.
Guede’s adoptive father ‘Paolo Caporali’ does not speak so highly or lovingly of him as did his adoptive sister and mother. Puzzling to be sure.
Guede is said to have lived in Perugia since he was five years old. In recent years, he was adopted by an Italian family.
The father, Paolo Caporali, 62, told the Italian national newspaper La Repubblica: “It is pointless to hide the fact that for me, Rudy was a disappointment. I hoped to help him build a future, I thought I had given him an opportunity. But as the months passed I understood I was mistaken, that my hopes were all met with delusion.
“He said he was at school, but he skipped class. He preferred to spend the day in front of the television or with video games. He had little wish to study, and even less to work.”

Mr. Caporali’s description doesn’t sound too different from the problem of a teenager gone astray that many other long-suffering families have had to deal with. I wonder if Rudy had actually been Mr. Caporali’s son, if there might not have been a different outcome. (I am not trying to imply that Caporali did anything wrong—but a person might deal differently with his own flesh an blood.)

Lest I be lambasted for defending Rudy, I believe he is at least guilty of complicity, obviously he was involved in the rape, and he left Meredith to die—he deserves to be punished. But I don’t think he has been treated fairly by the media and that a lot of people’s impressions of his character have been born of misinformation. I doubt that had RS and AK not met him and persuaded him to join in, that he would have hurt Meredith on his own. I think the other two set him up. He took the short form trial to avoid being tried with them because he felt they would try to pin the whole thing on him—in light of the defense lawyers actions in the trial of AK/RS, he seems to have had that right. I also think “black man found, black man guilty” has definitely had some relevance here, whether or not Raffaele said it. In short, I think it would be a travesty of justice if his sentence is for a longer period than AK and RS

Edited to add: If the figure 1.79 meters for Rudy's height is correct, that would make him approximately 5 feet 9 inches tall, not the super tall guy that some have implied.

HiBeans,
As a matter of fact, Rudy's attorney today have asked the court-in case they are going to confirm his conviction-, to apply mitigating circumstances due to his young age, his life history and absence of criminal records. Basically the same factors that the court considered when they sentenced Knox and Sollecito to 26 and 25 years. Incidentally,this should clear for good all the rumors spread by the FOA about Rudy's "criminal past".


You are forgetting that the FOA has on numerous occasions proven beyond reasonable doubt that its members are absolutely impervious to facts. Their worldview is set in stone. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can alter it.

Incidentally, while looking for Rudy Guede's stats, I kept seeing references to Knox's defense attorney + jobless drifter. The fact that Guede lived in an apartment, just like Sollecito, and paid rent seems not to have penetrated either.


He is however a rapist / sexual assailant and convicted murderer. Guede is a really very very unpleasant individual. Arguments about whether he was a petty dope dealer or the status of his social security appartment are really irrelevant now. He sexually assaulted Meredith while she was restrained by AK and RS. This guy is scum - fact. He is a serial liar, rapist and murderer. That's the truth.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline juliet


Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
juliet wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Guede did express what could be regarded as a form of remorse in his diary when he mentioned his guilt at not being able to save Merediths life when he was 'helping' her with towels while she was bleeding to death.
There was no phone to call for help he said, so he left her to die and then went to a disco.

(sorry)


Nobody answered my question recently as to whether people think he fought RS. The Koblenz police photographed what looked like knife defensive wounds on his hand.


Hi Ttrroonniicc. Yes I think RG must have got the defensive wound from RS or AK.

My difficulty in piecing the events together is how to fit together the periods where RG was participating fully as a 3rd member of group (evidenced by Kokomani), and where he was not participating (he was on the toilet, he got defensive wound, he was possibly the one heard by the neighbour arguing with AK?)

Could it have gone like this:

AK and RS leave his appartment, turning their phones off and taking knives with general scaring/hazing plan in mind (whether MK was specific target at this stage not sure). They bump into RG and go to the cottage for smoke and drink. He is not party to original plan, but perhaps they present it to him at some point.

Then either argument kicks off between MK and AK in her room and boys join to support AK, or they 'haze' MK when she has settled to study. Things escalate driven primarily by AK's jealousy and RS's liking for violence, and Guede particpates in some way in sexual violation, egged on by AK. They then lock up MK in cupboard or room and take her phones and leave the cottage.

Kokomani witnesses them outside, AK and RS manic and scary with knives. They are high on adrenalin as well as alcohol and hash probably. RG tries to get use of car for more hazing/kidnapping or other intent? Kokomani hears thuds and RG says it is just from the 'party' - more evidence that something was already started at this point.

They need to return to the flat to finish what they started. RG argues over what to do, heard by neighbour. They let MK out of cupboard and continue the violence. RG feels thing getting uglier and out of control, goes to bathroom has dump. (He perhaps already picks up towels at this point, MK having already been seriously wounded? He returns to find MK has been or being mortally wounded. RG gets defensive wound from RS or AK. They flee, while RG tries to stem blood with towels. He flees too.

Just one possible scenario, trying to fit together what we know. Interested to hear thoughts.

I do, as some others, feel that AK and RS's sentences are light compared to that of RG, especially since he seems to me to have possibly had the lesser parts in instigating the crime, driving it, the extreme violence of it and convering it up.



In your scenario, AK and RS just killed someone with horrendous violence and then they give RG the tiniest of cuts? I mean, if you look at the pictures of his hands, to me it looks entirely unconvincing that those are "defense wounds". I alway suspected these are self inflicted to try and corroborate some sort of story and are correspondingly shallow and insignificant. Someone swinging a knife with intent would have caused a totally different level of damage. They are practically paper cuts for heaven's sake.


Hi Somealibi. I correct what I said, RG could have got the cut in another way, we don't really know! sur-)

He could have scraped it on a railing when he was fleeing, or he could have fallen in the disco and cut himself etc. and certainly, he could have self-inflicted it. But I personally think this latter possibility is unlikely, because I feel RG was chaotic rather than calculated at the beginning and this cut was witnessed when he was caught, when he had no story about 'fighting' anyone. (Correct me if I am wrong but I thought this story about fighting RS was produced later).

I certainly do not think RG 'fought' RS, as you say he would have had many more wounds if really he had struggled on behalf of MK (even RG does not claim this). I did not mean to imply this, if this is what you understood, in my previous post. We know the evidence points to RG being a participant in much at least if not all of what went on. And it may be simply that RG accidentallygot cut either in the attack or when fleeing, or in another way.

But I do feel that the possibility is also open that he was cut by one of the knives with some purpose behind it, on that night, simply because knives were being used on a power trip by 2 people who had a different agenda and motives to him, imo. And because when people lie, they often tell half truths mixed in, it is much easier to lie that way and more convincing since the devil is in the detail. So I wonder, is this one of the half-truths in amongst RG's lies, that he was cut by RS (in a different context possibly to the story he told).

I do not know what RG's original explanation was about this cut when he was first caught by police (I doubt that would help us anyway), or what the prosecution's view on it was.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Google Translation:

Meredith murder: Guede in half an hour the verdict

Will be read in about half an hour the ruling of the appeals process to Rudy Guede sentenced to 30 years imprisonment for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The courts have in fact called parties. Journalists were allowed to enter the press room and in the classroom of the hearing.



L'UNIONE SARDA


(stand to)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi
I didn’t say Rudy was innocent. He is guilty and he should be punished. However, he is no more guilty than Amanda and Raffaele. The prosecution stated that they held her down for him to rape her—ie, they are also party to the rape. They also ran off and left Meredith to bleed to death. So they are just a guilty as he is. If their youth is a mitigating circumstance—Rudy is younger than both. If their lack of a criminal record or history of violence is a mitigating circumstance—Rudy also has no criminal record (except for the break-in in Milan where he stole a kitchen knife and “a few coins” (TJMK, June 27,2009, Trial: Defense Testimony Tody on Guede in Milan and Knox in Seattle) and no history of violence. RS and AK had top-notch lawyers provided by a wealthy, well connected family (Sollecito) and a very vocal family willing to sell their other kid’s education etc. downriver (Amanda), Rudy had “public defenders”. But just because Rudy is poor and black, doesn’t mean that his punishment for the same crime should be more severe.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Well, just to put it into perspective...whenever you see the media interviewing Curt Knox you don't ever hear the presenter saying 'now let's here from Amanda's jobless father Curt Knox' or similar introductions in the printed media ;)


Hi Michael,

The media generally neglect to mention that Edda Mellas took Curt Knox on a number of occasions to collect child support or Amanda Knox was fined $269 (£135) at the Municipal Court after hosting a party that got seriously out of hand - Crime No: 071830624.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
nicki wrote:
beans wrote:
My first post re this case was on TJMK, and I, the usual ill-informed newbie, gave my idea of what went down in Perugia. I said I thought since Rudy was a drug dealer, he made some sort of deal with Amanda and Raffaele that in exchange for drugs, Amanda would arrange for him to have a go at Meredith. I was promptly corrected, by Peter as I recall, to the fact that before the break-in in Milan, Rudy had no criminal record at all and was, in fact, not a drug dealer. I think that a great deal of the negative picture that has been painted of Rudy Guede and his “nefarious past” has been the result of unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo by the media, the FOA, the Knox-Mellas clan and their lawyers. I have read that, “Rudy was known to the police.” Do we actually know this is true? This is not meant to be an in your face question, I am just curious to know if there is actual proof of that statement. Or is it just that someone, perhaps early on in the case, printed that along with other unsubstantiated facts.

I ran across the following article re Rudy the other day. It is an additional piece of information re his character, similar to the interview with Mrs. Marcella, from people who actually knew Rudy well.


From “Ironic Surrealism v3.0, Archive for November 20th, 2007, Fourth Suspect Arrested in Meredith Kercher Murder Case (//ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/10007/11/20)
The 1.79-metre Guede played guard for the ‘UISP Pallacanestro Perugia’ basketball team in Italy’s C1 third division until the 2004-05 season, police said.
Former team mates described him as ”a great lad with a great passion for the game, always on time for training, always ready to help others”.
His former club chairman, Roberto Segoloni, said Guede was ”more than perfect”.
He said he thought it was ”premature” to link him with such a serious crime.
Guede came to Italy as a five-year-old to join his father but moved out when a Perugia businessman’s family offered him a foster home when he was 17.
The businessman’s son made friends with the Ivorian at an open-air basketball court.
He left the affluent family when he turned 18 to join some of his other relatives in Lecco north of Milan.
Guede later returned to Perugia and worked as a gardener in a farm-tourism restaurant run by his foster family.
Earlier, he reportedly held down bar jobs to support himself while doing hotel and computer courses.
Guede broke off relations with the family in August.
The businessman’s daughter told ANSA Guede was a shy and introverted youth who never showed signs of violence.
”He was like an extra brother for us,” she said. Guede’s adoptive mother reportedly broke down in tears, repeating ”It’s not possible, it isn’t possible”.
Guede’s adoptive father ‘Paolo Caporali’ does not speak so highly or lovingly of him as did his adoptive sister and mother. Puzzling to be sure.
Guede is said to have lived in Perugia since he was five years old. In recent years, he was adopted by an Italian family.
The father, Paolo Caporali, 62, told the Italian national newspaper La Repubblica: “It is pointless to hide the fact that for me, Rudy was a disappointment. I hoped to help him build a future, I thought I had given him an opportunity. But as the months passed I understood I was mistaken, that my hopes were all met with delusion.
“He said he was at school, but he skipped class. He preferred to spend the day in front of the television or with video games. He had little wish to study, and even less to work.”

Mr. Caporali’s description doesn’t sound too different from the problem of a teenager gone astray that many other long-suffering families have had to deal with. I wonder if Rudy had actually been Mr. Caporali’s son, if there might not have been a different outcome. (I am not trying to imply that Caporali did anything wrong—but a person might deal differently with his own flesh an blood.)

Lest I be lambasted for defending Rudy, I believe he is at least guilty of complicity, obviously he was involved in the rape, and he left Meredith to die—he deserves to be punished. But I don’t think he has been treated fairly by the media and that a lot of people’s impressions of his character have been born of misinformation. I doubt that had RS and AK not met him and persuaded him to join in, that he would have hurt Meredith on his own. I think the other two set him up. He took the short form trial to avoid being tried with them because he felt they would try to pin the whole thing on him—in light of the defense lawyers actions in the trial of AK/RS, he seems to have had that right. I also think “black man found, black man guilty” has definitely had some relevance here, whether or not Raffaele said it. In short, I think it would be a travesty of justice if his sentence is for a longer period than AK and RS

Edited to add: If the figure 1.79 meters for Rudy's height is correct, that would make him approximately 5 feet 9 inches tall, not the super tall guy that some have implied.

HiBeans,
As a matter of fact, Rudy's attorney today have asked the court-in case they are going to confirm his conviction-, to apply mitigating circumstances due to his young age, his life history and absence of criminal records. Basically the same factors that the court considered when they sentenced Knox and Sollecito to 26 and 25 years. Incidentally,this should clear for good all the rumors spread by the FOA about Rudy's "criminal past".


You are forgetting that the FOA has on numerous occasions proven beyond reasonable doubt that its members are absolutely impervious to facts. Their worldview is set in stone. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can alter it.

Incidentally, while looking for Rudy Guede's stats, I kept seeing references to Knox's defense attorney + jobless drifter. The fact that Guede lived in an apartment, just like Sollecito, and paid rent seems not to have penetrated either.


He is however a rapist / sexual assailant and convicted murderer. Guede is a really very very unpleasant individual. Arguments about whether he was a petty dope dealer or the status of his social security appartment are really irrelevant now. He sexually assaulted Meredith while she was restrained by AK and RS. This guy is scum - fact. He is a serial liar, rapist and murderer. That's the truth.


There is no logical incompatibility with being a convicted murderer/rapist and also not having a prior criminal record, renting an apartment as opposed to being a homeless drifter, etc. The aim of my post was not to defend Guede in any way. I was responding to Nicki's hope that people would henceforth stick to the facts about Guede. I disagree with you that these arguments and falsehoods have become irrelevant, since the FOA continues to insist on the Lone Wolf scenario, which contains false information about Guede.

Rudy Guede and his co-convicts surely are all of the horrible things you say they are. But facts are facts, and even scum are entitled to have the record set straight. I guess I just don't subscribe to the theory that once someone is convicted of a crime it's okay to circulate false information about them.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

But....but....he is of the "criminal class"

Some people do seem to think that criminal is something that you are; not something that you do.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

beans wrote:
SomeAlibi
I didn’t say Rudy was innocent. He is guilty and he should be punished. However, he is no more guilty than Amanda and Raffaele. The prosecution stated that they held her down for him to rape her—ie, they are also party to the rape. They also ran off and left Meredith to bleed to death. So they are just a guilty as he is. If their youth is a mitigating circumstance—Rudy is younger than both. If their lack of a criminal record or history of violence is a mitigating circumstance—Rudy also has no criminal record (except for the break-in in Milan where he stole a kitchen knife and “a few coins” (TJMK, June 27,2009, Trial: Defense Testimony Tody on Guede in Milan and Knox in Seattle) and no history of violence. RS and AK had top-notch lawyers provided by a wealthy, well connected family (Sollecito) and a very vocal family willing to sell their other kid’s education etc. downriver (Amanda), Rudy had “public defenders”. But just because Rudy is poor and black, doesn’t mean that his punishment for the same crime should be more severe.


I agree with you but I think it's just a function of the time's arrow (RG first, them second) and of course it is structurally that way because of the sentencing provisions that go with fast track trials as has been discussed here. We have half an hour to see if the court corrects the disparity in sentencing.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

16 years to Rudy

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The sentence was reduced to 16 years as general mitigating circumstances were granted. I wonder if this means that Knox and Sollecito will benefit from a similar reduction. I really hope not.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Mitigation was already granted for them, was it not?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Sixteen years for rape and murder???? For god's sake! Jesus, have they gone mad?

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

beans wrote:
SomeAlibi
I didn’t say Rudy was innocent. He is guilty and he should be punished. However, he is no more guilty than Amanda and Raffaele. The prosecution stated that they held her down for him to rape her—ie, they are also party to the rape. They also ran off and left Meredith to bleed to death. So they are just a guilty as he is. If their youth is a mitigating circumstance—Rudy is younger than both. If their lack of a criminal record or history of violence is a mitigating circumstance—Rudy also has no criminal record (except for the break-in in Milan where he stole a kitchen knife and “a few coins” (TJMK, June 27,2009, Trial: Defense Testimony Tody on Guede in Milan and Knox in Seattle) and no history of violence. RS and AK had top-notch lawyers provided by a wealthy, well connected family (Sollecito) and a very vocal family willing to sell their other kid’s education etc. downriver (Amanda), Rudy had “public defenders”. But just because Rudy is poor and black, doesn’t mean that his punishment for the same crime should be more severe.

Well it looks like these judges have taken all of this into consideration, as the sentenced was cut down to 16 years.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Sixteen years for rape and murder???? For god's sake! Jesus, have they gone mad?


Well, it wasn't rape, it was sexual assault.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Sixteen years for rape and murder???? For god's sake! Jesus, have they gone mad?

Mitigating circumstances and/or perhaps they believed Rudy didn't kill Meredith. We have to wait for the motivation.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Last edited by nicki on Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

anne wrote:
Hallo!

Its my birthday today (a quarter of a century pure me - yay! ;))
so i havn't really got the time to read through the posts of the last days. Just wanna ask what happened today in court - a shortcut would do. Anything new?

Thanks a lot in advance and a happy day for all of you!!

Anne,

mul-) Happy Birthday! mul-)

Musical Crysanthemums for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOdpHoXYV-E
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yes of course, sexual assault. I feel physically sick. I really think the court of appeals has lost it on this one. 16 years for being an integral part of the sexual murder of Meredith? This is sick.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
16 years to Rudy


Now wait for the screams from the Knox Camp. It now means officially, Amanda has the stiffest penalty of the three ;)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Sixteen years for rape and murder???? For god's sake! Jesus, have they gone mad?

Mitigating circumstances and/or perhaps they believed Rudy didn't kill Meredith. We have to wait for the motivation.


Either they overturned the murder conviction or they didn't. If it stands, he is a murderer. If he was acquitted of that then the sentence makes more sense. Any news on that?

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Yes of course, sexual assault. I feel physically sick. I really think the court of appeals has lost it on this one. 16 years for being an integral part of the sexual murder of Meredith? This is sick.

Before feeling sick perhaps you should wait to read the motivations. And however, the Italian justice system is very well known for its leniency, and it's rehab approach versus revenge etc etc.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, just to put it into perspective...whenever you see the media interviewing Curt Knox you don't ever hear the presenter saying 'now let's here from Amanda's jobless father Curt Knox' or similar introductions in the printed media ;)


Hi Michael,

The media generally neglect to mention that Edda Mellas took Curt Knox on a number of occasions to collect child support or Amanda Knox was fined $269 (£135) at the Municipal Court after hosting a party that got seriously out of hand - Crime No: 071830624.


Hi TM. Yes, it's amazing what the media fail to notice with those people.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Strange. Such a big jump from 30 to 16. It is like the first judge had it all wrong or something. And it is not like he is being so honest now either :(
Top Profile 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi, can someone more knowlegdable explain to me the Italian law. What are minimum and maximum prison time for murder? What counts as mitigating circumstances? His sentence was slashed in half! Is this indicative of what will happen to Knox? Will she get her sentence reduced to 10 years and then get out after 6?? I would really appreciate some clarity on this issues!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

This is, at this point, maybe not relevant, but I wonder sometimes if Rudy's reluctance to "come clean" with the whole story might not have been influenced by such things as Tramontino's "Rudy, the buglar with a knife story" which was found not credible by Micheli and the incident described here:

From : “Man convicted in slaying will say Knox was there on night of death, Andrea Vogt, SeattlePI.com, October 28, 2009

"In Viterbo on Tuesday, Guede spoke out publicly for the first time about the vicious beating he received in prison. He was called before the justice of the peace to declare whether he wanted to press charges.
According to Viterbo court records secured by seattlepi.com, Guede was beaten to the ground, then kicked and punched in the head, nose, face, back and genitals by two prisoners in a prison fight last March. Guede appeared Tuesday to say the Albanian and Romanian inmates had said they were sorry and that he had forgiven them for the prison pummeling.
"They have apologized for beating me and I believe their apology was sincere," Guede told Viterbo Justice of the Peace Mauro Faggioni."Because they said they were sorry, I am choosing not to press forward with charges."
After the hearing, Guede's lawyer Nicodemo Gentile said the fact that he did not fight back and has decided not to press charges against his aggressors shows he is a "mild-mannered and non-violent guy." That description is at odds with the depiction by prosecutors and the judge who sentenced him in to 30 years in prison for his role in Kercher's death."

I don't know the reason for the beating--but I do wonder if it might have had something to do with water flowing uphill. Perhaps Rudy was given a reason to keep his mouth shut.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Sixteen years for rape and murder???? For god's sake! Jesus, have they gone mad?

Mitigating circumstances and/or perhaps they believed Rudy didn't kill Meredith. We have to wait for the motivation.


I agree, it is best to wait and see how the court reasoned before jumping to any conclusions.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anne


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:04 pm

Posts: 173

Location: Berlin Kreuzberg

Highscores: 3

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Thanks a lot :D
Piktor, oh i just heard "I am a believer on the radio" and then you come along with Puccini ;) I wanna celebrate not cry!!
But i will listen to it again later!
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
The sentence was reduced to 16 years as general mitigating circumstances were granted. I wonder if this means that Knox and Sollecito will benefit from a similar reduction. I really hope not.

As I see it, this was manslaughter, not murder in the first degree.

There is no proof of a Guede ''plan'' or his intent to kill.

I think Guede was at the wrong place at the wrong time. I also believe he had something to do holding Meredith's arm.

As for the other two, this verdict should be very encouraging for their cause.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Sixteen years for rape and murder???? For god's sake! Jesus, have they gone mad?

Mitigating circumstances and/or perhaps they believed Rudy didn't kill Meredith. We have to wait for the motivation.


Either they overturned the murder conviction or they didn't. If it stands, he is a murderer. If he was acquitted of that then the sentence makes more sense. Any news on that?


No, the murder conviction wouldn't have been dropped. However, it's possible (actually very likely) the 'aggravated' element of the murder charge was dropped since it was dropped for Raffaele and Amanda. The 'aggravated' element makes for a much stiffer penalty...30 years to life. It's also possible the court reversed the decision not to deduct the ten years for the taking of the fast track route. Rudy actually should have been looking at 20 years instead 30 after the fast track trial. With a further reduction for mitigation and dropping of the aggravated element, 16 years sounds about right (mathematically and in Italian legal terms you understand...whether it is considered 'just' is in the eye of the beholder).

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I was expecting Guede's sentence to be reduced on a parity to that of Knox and Sollecito.
The Knox/Mellas and Sollecito camp will be pleased about this - they will probably think that their precious siblings should be at least afforded the same type of reduction if not aquittal.
I myself think it is a double edged sword as it could indicate a judgement of lesser involvement of Guede, but we'll have to wait for the motivations behind the judgement.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Last edited by DeathFish 2000 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

beans wrote:
This is, at this point, maybe not relevant, but I wonder sometimes if Rudy's reluctance to "come clean" with the whole story might not have been influenced by such things as Tramontino's "Rudy, the buglar with a knife story" which was found not credible by Micheli and the incident described here:

From : “Man convicted in slaying will say Knox was there on night of death, Andrea Vogt, SeattlePI.com, October 28, 2009

"In Viterbo on Tuesday, Guede spoke out publicly for the first time about the vicious beating he received in prison. He was called before the justice of the peace to declare whether he wanted to press charges.
According to Viterbo court records secured by seattlepi.com, Guede was beaten to the ground, then kicked and punched in the head, nose, face, back and genitals by two prisoners in a prison fight last March. Guede appeared Tuesday to say the Albanian and Romanian inmates had said they were sorry and that he had forgiven them for the prison pummeling.
"They have apologized for beating me and I believe their apology was sincere," Guede told Viterbo Justice of the Peace Mauro Faggioni."Because they said they were sorry, I am choosing not to press forward with charges."
After the hearing, Guede's lawyer Nicodemo Gentile said the fact that he did not fight back and has decided not to press charges against his aggressors shows he is a "mild-mannered and non-violent guy." That description is at odds with the depiction by prosecutors and the judge who sentenced him in to 30 years in prison for his role in Kercher's death."

I don't know the reason for the beating--but I do wonder if it might have had something to do with water flowing uphill. Perhaps Rudy was given a reason to keep his mouth shut.

This is what I've always thought, and I haven't changed my mind yet

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PointBlank wrote:
Hi, can someone more knowlegdable explain to me the Italian law. What are minimum and maximum prison time for murder? What counts as mitigating circumstances? His sentence was slashed in half! Is this indicative of what will happen to Knox? Will she get her sentence reduced to 10 years and then get out after 6?? I would really appreciate some clarity on this issues!


Hi Pointblank. No. While she indeed may get a 3 -4 year discount on appeal, she will not see the reduction Guede got for several reasons 1) mitigation was already taken into account for her sentence (which it wasn't in Guede's original trial) 2) she did not take the fast track trial and so is not eligible of the automatic 10 year discount (unlike Guede) 3) she was convicted of more offences then Rudy (the transportation of a knife, fabrication of a crime scene, criminal slander) 4) she was already shown extreme lenience in her first degree trial by the court.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
nicki wrote:
As for the other two, this verdict should be very encouraging for their cause.


I'm led to believe that the most likely scenario at Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's appeal is that their sentences will be confirmed.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

So he actually got 24 years minus his fast track reduction. So 24 years is pretty much even to the other ones. I understand now :)


Last edited by max on Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

How much of the 16 years will he serve before release?

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
I was expecting Guede's sentence to be reduced on a parity to that of Knox and Sollecito.
The Knox/Mellas and Sollecito camp will be pleased about this - they will probably think that their precious siblings should be at least afforded the same type of reduction if not aquittal.
I myself think it is a double edged sword as it could indicate a judgement of lesser involvement of Guede, but we'll have to wait for the motivations behind the judgement.


I don't think this is necessarily or even probably true. They went a different route and the judges and jurors have already factored in mitigating circumstances. I don't see them getting a 1/3 reduction based on their trial. But again, it is important to examine the reasoning. However, and though some seem to think otherwise, I don't think their fates are strictly tied.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
Hi, can someone more knowlegdable explain to me the Italian law. What are minimum and maximum prison time for murder? What counts as mitigating circumstances? His sentence was slashed in half! Is this indicative of what will happen to Knox? Will she get her sentence reduced to 10 years and then get out after 6?? I would really appreciate some clarity on this issues!


Hi Pointblank. No. While she indeed may get a 3 -4 year discount on appeal, she will not see the reduction Guede got for several reasons 1) mitigation was already taken into account for her sentence (which it wasn't in Guede's original trial) 2) she did not take the fast track trial and so is not eligible of the automatic 10 year discount (unlike Guede) 3) she was convicted of more offences then Rudy (the transportation of a knife, fabrication of a crime scene, criminal slander) 4) she was already shown extreme lenience in her first degree trial by the court.


So it's 26-10 = 16?

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

anne wrote:
Thanks a lot :D
Piktor, oh i just heard "I am a believer on the radio" and then you come along with Puccini ;) I wanna celebrate not cry!!
But i will listen to it again later!

Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time. r-((

Wish I had come up with this beauty, it is by Camus.


Last edited by piktor on Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
Hi, can someone more knowlegdable explain to me the Italian law. What are minimum and maximum prison time for murder? What counts as mitigating circumstances? His sentence was slashed in half! Is this indicative of what will happen to Knox? Will she get her sentence reduced to 10 years and then get out after 6?? I would really appreciate some clarity on this issues!


Hi Pointblank. No. While she indeed may get a 3 -4 year discount on appeal, she will not see the reduction Guede got for several reasons 1) mitigation was already taken into account for her sentence (which it wasn't in Guede's original trial) 2) she did not take the fast track trial and so is not eligible of the automatic 10 year discount (unlike Guede) 3) she was convicted of more offences then Rudy (the transportation of a knife, fabrication of a crime scene, criminal slander) 4) she was already shown extreme lenience in her first degree trial by the court.


Thanks for lucid answer! What about minimum time for murder in Italy, do you know what it is? Also, is it possible that the appellate courts convicts them for a lesser crime, say manslaughter? If so, what time horizons are we looking at?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline juliet


Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Sixteen years for rape and murder???? For god's sake! Jesus, have they gone mad?

Mitigating circumstances and/or perhaps they believed Rudy didn't kill Meredith. We have to wait for the motivation.


Either they overturned the murder conviction or they didn't. If it stands, he is a murderer. If he was acquitted of that then the sentence makes more sense. Any news on that?


No, the murder conviction wouldn't have been dropped. However, it's possible (actually very likely) the 'aggravated' element of the murder charge was dropped is it was dropped for Raffaele and Amanda. The 'aggravated' element makes for a much stiffer penalty...30 years to life. It's also possible the court reversed the decision not to deduct the ten years for the taking of the fast track route. Rudy actually shgould have been looking at 20 years instead 30 after the fast track trial. With a further reduction for mitigation and dropping of the aggravated element, 16 years sounds about right (mathematically and in Italian legal terms you understand...whether it os considered 'just' is in the eye of the beholder).


I was making the same calculations Michael. It does seem like a big drop, but when you consider the same mitigating circumstances (age etc) as the other 2, plus the fast track trial, plus a possible judgement of lesser involvement in some way... I think if he had not been given such a hefty sentence to start with it would not seem like such a big drop.

I for one feel relieved that the balance of sentencing between the 3 has been redressed in this way.

The fact that RG was given such a hefty sentence in a prior, separate trial imo has affected things too, I mean for example in the way it has enabled the Knox-Mellas PR to point to RG as a lone criminal brought to full justice with a long sentence fitting the murder. They are going to go mad, who are they going to pin it all on now?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
Hi, can someone more knowlegdable explain to me the Italian law. What are minimum and maximum prison time for murder? What counts as mitigating circumstances? His sentence was slashed in half! Is this indicative of what will happen to Knox? Will she get her sentence reduced to 10 years and then get out after 6?? I would really appreciate some clarity on this issues!


Hi Pointblank. No. While she indeed may get a 3 -4 year discount on appeal, she will not see the reduction Guede got for several reasons 1) mitigation was already taken into account for her sentence (which it wasn't in Guede's original trial) 2) she did not take the fast track trial and so is not eligible of the automatic 10 year discount (unlike Guede) 3) she was convicted of more offences then Rudy (the transportation of a knife, fabrication of a crime scene, criminal slander) 4) she was already shown extreme lenience in her first degree trial by the court.


So it's 26-10 = 16?


No, it's 30 - 10 - 4 = 16

10 = fast track

4 = mitigation (and possibly dropping of the 'aggravated' aspect of the murder)

He may have seen a greater reduction, were it not for the sexual element.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8427250.stm

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I wonder if Rudy's lawyer has cut some sort of deal. Could the reduction be based around him appearing as a prosecution witness at Amanda and Raff's appeal.
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
I was expecting Guede's sentence to be reduced on a parity to that of Knox and Sollecito.
The Knox/Mellas and Sollecito camp will be pleased about this - they will probably think that their precious siblings should be at least afforded the same type of reduction if not aquittal.
I myself think it is a double edged sword as it could indicate a judgement of lesser involvement of Guede, but we'll have to wait for the motivations behind the judgement.


I don't think this is necessarily or even probably true. They went a different route and the judges and jurors have already factored in mitigating circumstances. I don't see them getting a 1/3 reduction based on their trial. But again, it is important to examine the reasoning. However, and though some seem to think otherwise, I don't think their fates are strictly tied.


Agreed,
I feel better now. I was forgetting mitigating circumstances had already been taken into account in Knox and Sollecito's sentencing.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
piktor wrote:
nicki wrote:
As for the other two, this verdict should be very encouraging for their cause.


I'm led to believe that the most likely scenario at Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's appeal is that their sentences will be confirmed.

I'm no lawyer, but I sense that they are the ''main culprits'' and the Court won't be as generous with them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PointBlank wrote:
Michael wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
Hi, can someone more knowlegdable explain to me the Italian law. What are minimum and maximum prison time for murder? What counts as mitigating circumstances? His sentence was slashed in half! Is this indicative of what will happen to Knox? Will she get her sentence reduced to 10 years and then get out after 6?? I would really appreciate some clarity on this issues!


Hi Pointblank. No. While she indeed may get a 3 -4 year discount on appeal, she will not see the reduction Guede got for several reasons 1) mitigation was already taken into account for her sentence (which it wasn't in Guede's original trial) 2) she did not take the fast track trial and so is not eligible of the automatic 10 year discount (unlike Guede) 3) she was convicted of more offences then Rudy (the transportation of a knife, fabrication of a crime scene, criminal slander) 4) she was already shown extreme lenience in her first degree trial by the court.


Thanks for lucid answer! What about minimum time for murder in Italy, do you know what it is? Also, is it possible that the appellate courts convicts them for a lesser crime, say manslaughter? If so, what time horizons are we looking at?



I honestly don't know the minimum sentence. I would guess it would be around 12 - 14 years, but that's just a guess. Yummi's the best one to answer that question. He should be along later.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PointBlank wrote:
Michael wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
Hi, can someone more knowlegdable explain to me the Italian law. What are minimum and maximum prison time for murder? What counts as mitigating circumstances? His sentence was slashed in half! Is this indicative of what will happen to Knox? Will she get her sentence reduced to 10 years and then get out after 6?? I would really appreciate some clarity on this issues!


Hi Pointblank. No. While she indeed may get a 3 -4 year discount on appeal, she will not see the reduction Guede got for several reasons 1) mitigation was already taken into account for her sentence (which it wasn't in Guede's original trial) 2) she did not take the fast track trial and so is not eligible of the automatic 10 year discount (unlike Guede) 3) she was convicted of more offences then Rudy (the transportation of a knife, fabrication of a crime scene, criminal slander) 4) she was already shown extreme lenience in her first degree trial by the court.


Thanks for lucid answer! What about minimum time for murder in Italy, do you know what it is? Also, is it possible that the appellate courts convicts them for a lesser crime, say manslaughter? If so, what time horizons are we looking at?

Minimum sentence for murder is 21 years. Real time served depends primarly on repentance and good conduct.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
Hi, can someone more knowlegdable explain to me the Italian law. What are minimum and maximum prison time for murder? What counts as mitigating circumstances? His sentence was slashed in half! Is this indicative of what will happen to Knox? Will she get her sentence reduced to 10 years and then get out after 6?? I would really appreciate some clarity on this issues!


Hi Pointblank. No. While she indeed may get a 3 -4 year discount on appeal, she will not see the reduction Guede got for several reasons 1) mitigation was already taken into account for her sentence (which it wasn't in Guede's original trial) 2) she did not take the fast track trial and so is not eligible of the automatic 10 year discount (unlike Guede) 3) she was convicted of more offences then Rudy (the transportation of a knife, fabrication of a crime scene, criminal slander) 4) she was already shown extreme lenience in her first degree trial by the court.


So it's 26-10 = 16?


No, it's 30 - 10 - 4 = 16

10 = fast track

4 = mitigation (and possibly dropping of the 'aggravated' aspect of the murder)

He may have seen a greater reduction, were it not for the sexual element.



Yeah, that's the calculation I did in my head, just didn't enunciate it. They even out the inconsistencies in the appeal - 25 in the base for the murder per RS, AK gets +1 for libel, RG gets +1 for the DNA then he gets -10 for fast track. I can't argue with an established principle such as fast track reduces by 10 - that's a matter that a sovereign state has decided. It just goes once again to the compassion of the Italian system. However, I still feel pretty ill. I'm thinking of what the Kercher family must be feeling right now that a man who sexually assaulted and murdered their daughter may be out in what 12(?)-16 years?

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Brogan wrote:
I wonder if Rudy's lawyer has cut some sort of deal. Could the reduction be based around him appearing as a prosecution witness at Amanda and Raff's appeal.


I think I read somewhere this is not allowed in Italian law? Can someone confirm this?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

juliet wrote:
Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Sixteen years for rape and murder???? For god's sake! Jesus, have they gone mad?

Mitigating circumstances and/or perhaps they believed Rudy didn't kill Meredith. We have to wait for the motivation.


Either they overturned the murder conviction or they didn't. If it stands, he is a murderer. If he was acquitted of that then the sentence makes more sense. Any news on that?


No, the murder conviction wouldn't have been dropped. However, it's possible (actually very likely) the 'aggravated' element of the murder charge was dropped is it was dropped for Raffaele and Amanda. The 'aggravated' element makes for a much stiffer penalty...30 years to life. It's also possible the court reversed the decision not to deduct the ten years for the taking of the fast track route. Rudy actually shgould have been looking at 20 years instead 30 after the fast track trial. With a further reduction for mitigation and dropping of the aggravated element, 16 years sounds about right (mathematically and in Italian legal terms you understand...whether it os considered 'just' is in the eye of the beholder).


I was making the same calculations Michael. It does seem like a big drop, but when you consider the same mitigating circumstances (age etc) as the other 2, plus the fast track trial, plus a possible judgement of lesser involvement in some way... I think if he had not been given such a hefty sentence to start with it would not seem like such a big drop.

I for one feel relieved that the balance of sentencing between the 3 has been redressed in this way.

The fact that RG was given such a hefty sentence in a prior, separate trial imo has affected things too, I mean for example in the way it has enabled the Knox-Mellas PR to point to RG as a lone criminal brought to full justice with a long sentence fitting the murder. They are going to go mad, who are they going to pin it all on now?


Hi Juliet. Well, we have to consider that Amanda and Raffaele also got a massive drop. For the murder and the other crimes, they were looking at not even 30 years but LIFE. They didn't get life, they didn't even get 30 years. 25 and 26 years is a huge slash on what they 'should' have got mathematically speaking. But in a way, I think this vindicates the Italian legal system. It shows it has an extreme degree of flexibility and can very much be tailored to the individual to reflect the individual circumstances.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
Michael wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
Hi, can someone more knowlegdable explain to me the Italian law. What are minimum and maximum prison time for murder? What counts as mitigating circumstances? His sentence was slashed in half! Is this indicative of what will happen to Knox? Will she get her sentence reduced to 10 years and then get out after 6?? I would really appreciate some clarity on this issues!


Hi Pointblank. No. While she indeed may get a 3 -4 year discount on appeal, she will not see the reduction Guede got for several reasons 1) mitigation was already taken into account for her sentence (which it wasn't in Guede's original trial) 2) she did not take the fast track trial and so is not eligible of the automatic 10 year discount (unlike Guede) 3) she was convicted of more offences then Rudy (the transportation of a knife, fabrication of a crime scene, criminal slander) 4) she was already shown extreme lenience in her first degree trial by the court.


Thanks for lucid answer! What about minimum time for murder in Italy, do you know what it is? Also, is it possible that the appellate courts convicts them for a lesser crime, say manslaughter? If so, what time horizons are we looking at?

Minimum sentence for murder is 21 years. Real time served depends primarly on repentance and good conduct.


Ok, thanks. Well, as many have said, the Knox'es are lucky to be in the mess in Italy and not at home.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

"Conviction. In consequence of the granting of extenuating circumstances (which had been denied in the first degree), equivalent to the aggravating circumstances of rape and petty reasons, the appeal judges agreed the sentence in 24 years' imprisonment, which was then reduced by one third (eight years) for the abbreviated rite: the sentence was so determined in 16 years' imprisonment."

Il Messaggero
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Another possible significant disappointment in the dramatic reduction in the time this guilty person must serve for his crimes is that in my opinion, this reduction may in fact reduce the possibility that we will ever learn what actually happened from any of them deciding to 'spill the beans'.

With the probability of getting sentences dramatically reduced anyway, why would any of them now think confessing the truth is a necessary first step in a shorter sentence/earlier parole.

My heart goes out to the noble Kercher Family on this sad day.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PointBlank wrote:
Brogan wrote:
I wonder if Rudy's lawyer has cut some sort of deal. Could the reduction be based around him appearing as a prosecution witness at Amanda and Raff's appeal.


I think I read somewhere this is not allowed in Italian law? Can someone confirm this?


You are correct. No deals in Italian law.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Tiziano and I have translated Rudy's attorneys motivations for mitigating circumstances request-the full translation should already be posted on TJMK . However, Rudy's defense motivated the request due to:
-young age
-no police records
-no relation to the murder weapon
- not the one who physically committed the murder
-Rudy's disadvantaged past

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

max wrote:
"Conviction. In consequence of the granting of extenuating circumstances (which had been denied in the first degree), equivalent to the aggravating circumstances of rape and petty reasons, the appeal judges agreed the sentence in 24 years' imprisonment, which was then reduced by one third (eight years) for the abbreviated rite: the sentence was so determined in 16 years' imprisonment."

Il Messaggero


Thanks Max. So we have:

30 - 6 (Mitigation) =

24

- 8 (fast track entitlement)

= 16

So, in gross, they each got 24, 25 and 26 years respectively. That brings their sentences in line and is fair. Although, Rudy's Net sentence is 16 years due to the 8 year discount for his fast track entitlement.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

max wrote:
"Conviction. In consequence of the granting of extenuating circumstances (which had been denied in the first degree), equivalent to the aggravating circumstances of rape and petty reasons, the appeal judges agreed the sentence in 24 years' imprisonment, which was then reduced by one third (eight years) for the abbreviated rite: the sentence was so determined in 16 years' imprisonment."

Il Messaggero



Well done Max, thanks...

The only possible consolation to this is the nasty, unpleasant and unbecoming thought that AK will be smacking her head against a wall thinking about the 8+ years she could have got off going fast track :evil:

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Guede was SENTENCED TO 24 YEARS.

this is in line with the 26, 25 years for the other two.

1/3 reduced BECAUSE OF FAST TRACK TRIAL = 16 years
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
max wrote:
"Conviction. In consequence of the granting of extenuating circumstances (which had been denied in the first degree), equivalent to the aggravating circumstances of rape and petty reasons, the appeal judges agreed the sentence in 24 years' imprisonment, which was then reduced by one third (eight years) for the abbreviated rite: the sentence was so determined in 16 years' imprisonment."

Il Messaggero


Thanks Max. So we have:

30 - 6 (Mitigation) =

24

- 8 (fast track entitlement)

= 16

So, in gross, they each got 24, 25 and 26 years respectively. That brings their sentences in line and is fair. Although, Rudy's Net sentence is 16 years due to the 8 year discount for his fast track entitlement.

So, if Sollecito and Knox sentences are confirmed, Biscotti and Gentile made the right choice with the fast track trial- the closest thing to a plea-bargain- Rudy got out of a sexual assault and murder sentence only having to serve 16 years.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Last edited by nicki on Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
Tiziano and I have translated Rudy's attorneys motivations for mitigating circumstances request-the full translation should already be posted on TJMK . However, Rudy's defense motivated the request due to:
-young age
-no police records
-no relation to the murder weapon
- not the one who physically committed the murder
-Rudy's disadvantaged past


Thanks Nicki. But there's still a mystery as the maths is wrong. I wonder why Rudy only got an 8 year discount per his fast track entitlement instead of the 10. His sentence therefore should be 14. Therefore, I can only think that in small part the judge upheld Micheli's reasons for not deducting his fast track entitlement...ergo, Rudy got an extra 2 year penalty, in effect, that the other two didn't get. We'll find out why no doubt when the Sentencing Report is published.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
Michael wrote:
max wrote:
"Conviction. In consequence of the granting of extenuating circumstances (which had been denied in the first degree), equivalent to the aggravating circumstances of rape and petty reasons, the appeal judges agreed the sentence in 24 years' imprisonment, which was then reduced by one third (eight years) for the abbreviated rite: the sentence was so determined in 16 years' imprisonment."

Il Messaggero


Thanks Max. So we have:

30 - 6 (Mitigation) =

24

- 8 (fast track entitlement)

= 16

So, in gross, they each got 24, 25 and 26 years respectively. That brings their sentences in line and is fair. Although, Rudy's Net sentence is 16 years due to the 8 year discount for his fast track entitlement.

So, if Sollecito and Knox sentences are confirmed, Biscotti and Gentile made the right choice with the fast track trial- the closest thing to a plea-bargain- Rudy got out of a sexual assault and murder sentence only having to serve 16 years.


Yes indeed...exactly.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
max wrote:
"Conviction. In consequence of the granting of extenuating circumstances (which had been denied in the first degree), equivalent to the aggravating circumstances of rape and petty reasons, the appeal judges agreed the sentence in 24 years' imprisonment, which was then reduced by one third (eight years) for the abbreviated rite: the sentence was so determined in 16 years' imprisonment."

Il Messaggero


Thanks Max. So we have:

30 - 6 (Mitigation) =

24

- 8 (fast track entitlement)

= 16

So, in gross, they each got 24, 25 and 26 years respectively. That brings their sentences in line and is fair. Although, Rudy's Net sentence is 16 years due to the 8 year discount for his fast track entitlement.

ok :)


Last edited by max on Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
max wrote:
"Conviction. In consequence of the granting of extenuating circumstances (which had been denied in the first degree), equivalent to the aggravating circumstances of rape and petty reasons, the appeal judges agreed the sentence in 24 years' imprisonment, which was then reduced by one third (eight years) for the abbreviated rite: the sentence was so determined in 16 years' imprisonment."

Il Messaggero


Thanks Max. So we have:

30 - 6 (Mitigation) =

24

- 8 (fast track entitlement)

= 16

So, in gross, they each got 24, 25 and 26 years respectively. That brings their sentences in line and is fair. Although, Rudy's Net sentence is 16 years due to the 8 year discount for his fast track entitlement.


Aware that I have not taken part in the proceedings and all the details, that seems pretty reasonable to me. That order seems reflective of their respective age, evidence, cooperation with officials, psychological profiles etc. But how come they knock off the fast track entitlement first on appeal? Why didn't he get it right away?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Wow! sentence reduced to 16 years!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Max wrote:
Not exactly. The 30 years he got at first already includes the fast track reduction. So you have to add that first to compare to the 24 years and see his reduction for Mitigation.


No, it didn't. In his first degree, Rudy got his sentence reduced from life to 30 because he was acquitted of the theft charge. He wasn't given his fast track discount. Hence why he's getting it now...or at least most of it, 8 years instead of 10.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
nicki wrote:
Tiziano and I have translated Rudy's attorneys motivations for mitigating circumstances request-the full translation should already be posted on TJMK . However, Rudy's defense motivated the request due to:
-young age
-no police records
-no relation to the murder weapon
- not the one who physically committed the murder
-Rudy's disadvantaged past


Thanks Nicki. But there's still a mystery as the maths is wrong. I wonder why Rudy only got an 8 year discount per his fast track entitlement instead of the 10. His sentence therefore should be 14. Therefore, I can only think that in small part the judge upheld Micheli's reasons for not deducting his fast track entitlement...ergo, Rudy got an extra 2 year penalty, in effect, that the other two didn't get. We'll find out why no doubt when the Sentencing Report is published.

Hi Michael,
The math is correct: Rudy was granted 6 years off (mitigating circumstances) = 24 years- 1/3 = 16 years.
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/ar ... 9334.shtml

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Max wrote:
Not exactly. The 30 years he got at first already includes the fast track reduction. So you have to add that first to compare to the 24 years and see his reduction for Mitigation.


No, it didn't. In his first degree, Rudy got his sentence reduced from life to 30 because he was acquitted of the theft charge. He wasn't given his fast track discount. Hence why he's getting it now...or at least most of it, 8 years instead of 10.

Ok, forget my difficult formula then :( So he chose fast track but didn't get the discount? Ok, seems all fair now then.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
Michael wrote:
nicki wrote:
Tiziano and I have translated Rudy's attorneys motivations for mitigating circumstances request-the full translation should already be posted on TJMK . However, Rudy's defense motivated the request due to:
-young age
-no police records
-no relation to the murder weapon
- not the one who physically committed the murder
-Rudy's disadvantaged past


Thanks Nicki. But there's still a mystery as the maths is wrong. I wonder why Rudy only got an 8 year discount per his fast track entitlement instead of the 10. His sentence therefore should be 14. Therefore, I can only think that in small part the judge upheld Micheli's reasons for not deducting his fast track entitlement...ergo, Rudy got an extra 2 year penalty, in effect, that the other two didn't get. We'll find out why no doubt when the Sentencing Report is published.

Hi Michael,
The math is correct: Rudy was granted 6 years off (mitigating circumstances) = 24 years- 1/3 = 16 years.
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/ar ... 9334.shtml


Thanks Nicki...excellent...it's a 'fraction' that should be deducted, not a fixed number...that solves it :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Of course, this sort of amendment of sentencing is extremely common worldwide by appeals courts over courts of the first instance. However, now prepare for an assault by the FOA that essentially halving the sentence shows how "extremely seriously flawed the judgement and understanding of process was of the court of first instance". I'm doing bulk orders of barf bags. PM me if you want one :(

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Yes of course, sexual assault. I feel physically sick. I really think the court of appeals has lost it on this one. 16 years for being an integral part of the sexual murder of Meredith? This is sick.

Before feeling sick perhaps you should wait to read the motivations. And however, the Italian justice system is very well known for its leniency, and it's rehab approach versus revenge etc etc.


I mostly feel very, very sad for the Kercher family. Through their lawyer, they wanted the 30 years upheld.

What I am sick about is all the media crap about how unfair and horrible the Italian justice system is. The Italian justice system has got to be one of the most tolerant and forgiving systems in the world, with a preponderance for hopeful rehabilitation. I for one do not share this hope.

And you are right. We'll have to wait for the motivation behind the reduction. As Brogan has asked, could this be a deal making move between RGs lawyer and AK/RSs prosecutors? Or perhaps RGs involvement was found to be less so?

Quesiton for you nicki being a person with forensic expertise. I apologize if this has been discussed over the past two years and I apologize for the crudeness of this topic. From what I have read on this site, no semen from RG was found, but DNA was. Blood DNA or tissue DNA I don't know. Could it be possible, with all the staging that went on, that when RG was trying to "help" Meredith with the towels, etc., could AK and RS (with gloves on) frame RG to make it look like sexual assault?
Top Profile 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

"I'm not happy because I am innocent," Guede said as he left the courtroom.

From Telegraph. So spill the beans already?! Guede was there at the time of the murder. If he did not actively partake in the murder he would have come clean a long time ago. Is he protecting someone, is he afraid, is he stupid, or is he, simply, guilty as convicted?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

hikergirl99 wrote:
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Yes of course, sexual assault. I feel physically sick. I really think the court of appeals has lost it on this one. 16 years for being an integral part of the sexual murder of Meredith? This is sick.

Before feeling sick perhaps you should wait to read the motivations. And however, the Italian justice system is very well known for its leniency, and it's rehab approach versus revenge etc etc.


I mostly feel very, very sad for the Kercher family. Through their lawyer, they wanted the 30 years upheld.

What I am sick about is all the media crap about how unfair and horrible the Italian justice system is. The Italian justice system has got to be one of the most tolerant and forgiving systems in the world, with a preponderance for hopeful rehabilitation. I for one do not share this hope.

And you are right. We'll have to wait for the motivation behind the reduction. As Brogan has asked, could this be a deal making move between RGs lawyer and AK/RSs prosecutors? Or perhaps RGs involvement was found to be less so?

Quesiton for you nicki being a person with forensic expertise. I apologize if this has been discussed over the past two years and I apologize for the crudeness of this topic. From what I have read on this site, no semen from RG was found, but DNA was. Blood DNA or tissue DNA I don't know. Could it be possible, with all the staging that went on, that when RG was trying to "help" Meredith with the towels, etc., could AK and RS (with gloves on) frame RG to make it look like sexual assault?


That seems far-fetched imo. If I am allowed to speculate, I think AK and RS simply prioritized cleaning their own traces. Had they had time, I am sure they would have tried to clean up after RG as well. They would have nothing to win by having him identified. It would only establish a connection between them and the crime. Also, if they were out to frame him AK could have fingered him instead of Lumumba.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PointBlank wrote:
"I'm not happy because I am innocent," Guede said as he left the courtroom.

From Telegraph. So spill the beans already?! Guede was there at the time of the murder. If he did not actively partake in the murder he would have come clean a long time ago. Is he protecting someone, is he afraid, is he stupid, or is he, simply, guilty as convicted?


None of the above... he's just a bloke with one final appeal left...

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PointBlank wrote:
Michael wrote:
max wrote:
"Conviction. In consequence of the granting of extenuating circumstances (which had been denied in the first degree), equivalent to the aggravating circumstances of rape and petty reasons, the appeal judges agreed the sentence in 24 years' imprisonment, which was then reduced by one third (eight years) for the abbreviated rite: the sentence was so determined in 16 years' imprisonment."

Il Messaggero


Thanks Max. So we have:

30 - 6 (Mitigation) =

24

- 8 (fast track entitlement)

= 16

So, in gross, they each got 24, 25 and 26 years respectively. That brings their sentences in line and is fair. Although, Rudy's Net sentence is 16 years due to the 8 year discount for his fast track entitlement.


Aware that I have not taken part in the proceedings and all the details, that seems pretty reasonable to me. That order seems reflective of their respective age, evidence, cooperation with officials, psychological profiles etc. But how come they knock off the fast track entitlement first on appeal? Why didn't he get it right away?


Judge Micheli didn't give it in the first degree (he was merciless actually) because he felt Guede was willfully lying and hindering advancement to the truth. Hence, he didn't deduct it as a a penalty. My guess is, he probably knew fully well that it would get deducted on appeal, but applied it in order to make Rudy stew a bit and reconsider his level of co-operation up to and during his second degree.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PointBlank wrote:
"I'm not happy because I am innocent," Guede said as he left the courtroom.

From Telegraph. So spill the beans already?! Guede was there at the time of the murder. If he did not actively partake in the murder he would have come clean a long time ago. Is he protecting someone, is he afraid, is he stupid, or is he, simply, guilty as convicted?

Does any crime make sense?

The three accused are in jail with similar sentences. This fact does make sense.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Of course, this sort of amendment of sentencing is extremely common worldwide by appeals courts over courts of the first instance. However, now prepare for an assault by the FOA that essentially halving the sentence shows how "extremely seriously flawed the judgement and understanding of process was of the court of first instance". I'm doing bulk orders of barf bags. PM me if you want one :(


Oh, don't worry, they will certainly attempt to spin and warp this to their advantage. It will (you won't often hear me say this) be interesting to read Frank's and Candace's tonight.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
"I'm not happy because I am innocent," Guede said as he left the courtroom.

From Telegraph. So spill the beans already?! Guede was there at the time of the murder. If he did not actively partake in the murder he would have come clean a long time ago. Is he protecting someone, is he afraid, is he stupid, or is he, simply, guilty as convicted?


None of the above... he's just a bloke with one final appeal left...


Mmm, well, I hope that when we got three blokes with one final appeal left, we have a change in individual payoff dynamics, so that the truth comes out. For many reasons, for one, if AK is guilty, the Kercher family might finally get some peace from the load pro-AK crowd and, recently, nasty insinuations from AK's family (in one way I respect them for fighting for their daughter and I do grant them the benefit of the doubt of being in complete denial, but I cannot accept any blame shifted to the Kerchers...).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

hikergirl99 wrote:
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Yes of course, sexual assault. I feel physically sick. I really think the court of appeals has lost it on this one. 16 years for being an integral part of the sexual murder of Meredith? This is sick.

Before feeling sick perhaps you should wait to read the motivations. And however, the Italian justice system is very well known for its leniency, and it's rehab approach versus revenge etc etc.


I mostly feel very, very sad for the Kercher family. Through their lawyer, they wanted the 30 years upheld.

What I am sick about is all the media crap about how unfair and horrible the Italian justice system is. The Italian justice system has got to be one of the most tolerant and forgiving systems in the world, with a preponderance for hopeful rehabilitation. I for one do not share this hope.

And you are right. We'll have to wait for the motivation behind the reduction. As Brogan has asked, could this be a deal making move between RGs lawyer and AK/RSs prosecutors? Or perhaps RGs involvement was found to be less so?

Quesiton for you nicki being a person with forensic expertise. I apologize if this has been discussed over the past two years and I apologize for the crudeness of this topic. From what I have read on this site, no semen from RG was found, but DNA was. Blood DNA or tissue DNA I don't know. Could it be possible, with all the staging that went on, that when RG was trying to "help" Meredith with the towels, etc., could AK and RS (with gloves on) frame RG to make it look like sexual assault?

Hi Hikergirl, wellcome back :)

I don't have forensic expertise, I am a molecular biologist with PCR analysis background but I can still answer your question.What you say is theoretically possible, RS and AK wearing gloves could have obtained Rudy's cells by rubbing Rudy's hand or arm and later manipulating Meredith's private parts, but I think it is extremely unlikely. Rudy's DNA from epithelial cells was found inside Meredith because he attempted intercourse /manipulated her intimate parts, while she was being restrained by the other two. It's the only logical explanation.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
Michael wrote:
max wrote:
"Conviction. In consequence of the granting of extenuating circumstances (which had been denied in the first degree), equivalent to the aggravating circumstances of rape and petty reasons, the appeal judges agreed the sentence in 24 years' imprisonment, which was then reduced by one third (eight years) for the abbreviated rite: the sentence was so determined in 16 years' imprisonment."

Il Messaggero


Thanks Max. So we have:

30 - 6 (Mitigation) =

24

- 8 (fast track entitlement)

= 16

So, in gross, they each got 24, 25 and 26 years respectively. That brings their sentences in line and is fair. Although, Rudy's Net sentence is 16 years due to the 8 year discount for his fast track entitlement.


Aware that I have not taken part in the proceedings and all the details, that seems pretty reasonable to me. That order seems reflective of their respective age, evidence, cooperation with officials, psychological profiles etc. But how come they knock off the fast track entitlement first on appeal? Why didn't he get it right away?


Judge Micheli didn't give it in the first degree (he was merciless actually) because he felt Guede was willfully lying and hindering advancement to the truth. Hence, he didn't deduct it as a a penalty. My guess is, he probably knew fully well that it would get deducted on appeal, but applied it in order to make Rudy stew a bit and reconsider his level of co-operation up to and during his second degree.


I see. They should have kept him on the rack a bit longer...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Much as I can see why you say that I have to disgree: you do not use people as tools not matter what the temptation
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

hijergirl99 wrote:
Quesiton for you nicki being a person with forensic expertise. I apologize if this has been discussed over the past two years and I apologize for the crudeness of this topic. From what I have read on this site, no semen from RG was found, but DNA was. Blood DNA or tissue DNA I don't know. Could it be possible, with all the staging that went on, that when RG was trying to "help" Meredith with the towels, etc., could AK and RS (with gloves on) frame RG to make it look like sexual assault?


(warning: explicit)

Not really. Where would they have got Rudy's DNA to 'put it in places'? It's not like they could see it and pick it up. The exceptions would be fluids...blood, semen or saliva, but none of Rudy's blood or semen was at the scene and neither was saliva detected in Meredith (instead skin cells). In addition, Rudy's DNA was found in the victim in BOTH her 'private areas'. I really can't imagine them trying to put stuff 'there'. I would imagine it would have been tough enough for them undressing her after her death without even going there.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
hikergirl99 wrote:
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Yes of course, sexual assault. I feel physically sick. I really think the court of appeals has lost it on this one. 16 years for being an integral part of the sexual murder of Meredith? This is sick.

Before feeling sick perhaps you should wait to read the motivations. And however, the Italian justice system is very well known for its leniency, and it's rehab approach versus revenge etc etc.


I mostly feel very, very sad for the Kercher family. Through their lawyer, they wanted the 30 years upheld.

What I am sick about is all the media crap about how unfair and horrible the Italian justice system is. The Italian justice system has got to be one of the most tolerant and forgiving systems in the world, with a preponderance for hopeful rehabilitation. I for one do not share this hope.

And you are right. We'll have to wait for the motivation behind the reduction. As Brogan has asked, could this be a deal making move between RGs lawyer and AK/RSs prosecutors? Or perhaps RGs involvement was found to be less so?

Quesiton for you nicki being a person with forensic expertise. I apologize if this has been discussed over the past two years and I apologize for the crudeness of this topic. From what I have read on this site, no semen from RG was found, but DNA was. Blood DNA or tissue DNA I don't know. Could it be possible, with all the staging that went on, that when RG was trying to "help" Meredith with the towels, etc., could AK and RS (with gloves on) frame RG to make it look like sexual assault?

Hi Hikergirl, wellcome back :)

I don't have forensic expertise, I am a molecular biologist with PCR analysis background but I can still answer your question.What you say is theoretically possible, RS and AK wearing gloves could have obtained Rudy's cells by rubbing Rudy's hand or arm and later manipulating Meredith's private parts, but I think it is extremely unlikely. Rudy's DNA from epithelial cells was found inside Meredith because he attempted intercourse /manipulated her intimate parts, while she was being restrained by the other two. It's the only logical explanation.

And of course he has admitted it himself. He just said it was consensual :roll:


Last edited by max on Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Pointblank asked about Rudy:
If he did not actively partake in the murder he would have come clean a long time ago.Is he protecting someone, is he afraid, is he stupid, or is he, simply, guilty as convicted?.

Some Alibi replied:
None of the above... he's just a bloke with one final appeal left...

My thoughts are that Rudy is *all* of the above:
1)He is afraid (understandably so after getting severely beaten in prison, possibly by Sollecito employed inmates/guard)
2)He is stupid ( Saying he was "Defecating while someone is being stabbed to death", and "tried to save victim before leaving for dancing".
3) He is guilty as convicted (His own statements place him present at time of murder)


Last edited by stint7 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fiona wrote:
Much as I can see why you say that I have to disgree: you do not use people as tools not matter what the temptation


You are absolutely right (it was voiced contempt, not really a serious proposition).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stint7 wrote:
Pointblank asked about Rudy:
If he did not actively partake in the murder he would have come clean a long time ago.Is he protecting someone, is he afraid, is he stupid, or is he, simply, guilty as convicted?.

Some Alibi replied:
None of the above... he's just a bloke with one final appeal left...

My thoughts are that Rudy is 'all of the above':
1)He is afraid (understandably so after getting severely beaten in prison, possibly by Sollecito employed inmates/guard)
2)He is stupid ( Saying he was "Defecating while someone is being stabbed to death", and "tried to save victim before leaving for dancing".
3) He is guilty as convicted (His own statements place him present was at time of murder)

Afraid,stupid and guilty. That's the way I also see it.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Seattle oracle's utterance on Guede:

"Breaking News. Rudy Guede got a reduced sentence on appeal, the court apparently buying his "I was just a spectator" excuse.''

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/index.asp
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stint7 wrote:
Pointblank asked about Rudy:
If he did not actively partake in the murder he would have come clean a long time ago.Is he protecting someone, is he afraid, is he stupid, or is he, simply, guilty as convicted?.

Some Alibi replied:
None of the above... he's just a bloke with one final appeal left...

My thoughts are that Rudy is 'all of the above':
1)He is afraid (understandably so after getting severely beaten in prison, possibly by Sollecito employed inmates/guard)
2)He is stupid ( Saying he was "Defecating while someone is being stabbed to death", and "tried to save victim before leaving for dancing".
3) He is guilty as convicted (His own statements place him present was at time of murder)


Oh heh, I agree that he is all of those things, I was just responding to the question "why hasn't he come clean?". He may be all of those things but the core answer is, he still has one shot left.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
Seattle oracle's utterance on Guede:

"Breaking News. Rudy Guede got a reduced sentence on appeal, the court apparently buying his "I was just a spectator" excuse.''

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/index.asp


Well again, the Cook demonstrates that she's completely clueless...as well as dishonest.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
He may be all of those things but the core answer is, he still has one shot left.

The three accused have multiple lawyers plus the Kercher and Lumumba lawyers still actively involved. Plus the Knox-Mellas defamation brouhaha.

Assume without doubt everyone involved is ''lawyered up'' to the hilt.


Last edited by piktor on Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
piktor wrote:
Seattle oracle's utterance on Guede:

"Breaking News. Rudy Guede got a reduced sentence on appeal, the court apparently buying his "I was just a spectator" excuse.''

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/index.asp


Well again, the Cook demonstrates that she's completely clueless...as well as dishonest.


Just one more dumb judge, in a long line, who doesn't reason to Candace's liking. Perhaps he'll change his mind when he reads the google-generated Italian translation of Candace's forthcoming book. Expect a statement from Clueless in Seattle to the effect that she still likes and respects Italy and Italians. Remember, she feels the same way about Big Ben and Arline Kercher.

I believe Candace Dempsey has done more than anyone to use this case as a way of promoting outmoded cultural stereotypes and narrow thinking. And I'm not sure "thinking" is even the right word.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
piktor wrote:
Seattle oracle's utterance on Guede:

"Breaking News. Rudy Guede got a reduced sentence on appeal, the court apparently buying his "I was just a spectator" excuse.''

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/index.asp


Well again, the Cook demonstrates that she's completely clueless...as well as dishonest.

I think the cook should at least try to get her facts straight before posting on her FOA blog. For example, in Italy defendants are placed in a cage when appealing a sentence for which they are already serving time, not only when they are deemed to be violent/dangerous.

If Knox and Sollecito will be caged during their appeal-as it should be- I expect to hear the usual ignorant, xenophobic and malicious FOA crap. And wannabe-Italian-but-I am-not-Dempsey will be the first one to let out her loud shrieks.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Someone said that RG has one more shot. I thought he had his 3 chances. Fast-track trial, appeal in Nov., appeal yesterday.

If one more shot, can the prosecutor push for higher sentencing, or is it a done deal in the way Michael and nicki were describing the math above?
Top Profile 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Pointblank asked about Rudy:
If he did not actively partake in the murder he would have come clean a long time ago.Is he protecting someone, is he afraid, is he stupid, or is he, simply, guilty as convicted?.

Some Alibi replied:
None of the above... he's just a bloke with one final appeal left...

My thoughts are that Rudy is 'all of the above':
1)He is afraid (understandably so after getting severely beaten in prison, possibly by Sollecito employed inmates/guard)
2)He is stupid ( Saying he was "Defecating while someone is being stabbed to death", and "tried to save victim before leaving for dancing".
3) He is guilty as convicted (His own statements place him present was at time of murder)


Oh heh, I agree that he is all of those things, I was just responding to the question "why hasn't he come clean?". He may be all of those things but the core answer is, he still has one shot left.


Well, ok, but the options were not meant to be factual estimates but rather hypotheticals in a prisoner's dilemma type problem. I am trying to understand what their respective strategies are and who has more of an incentive to break the silence. If he is guilty 3), then he has no incentive to come clean so 1) and 2) would be redundant incentives.

In particular, I am trying to understand how the appeals process and possible sentence reductions influences those incentives...


Last edited by PointBlank on Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

hikergirl99 wrote:
Someone said that RG has one more shot. I thought he had his 3 chances. Fast-track trial, appeal in Nov., appeal yesterday.

If one more shot, can the prosecutor push for higher sentencing, or is it a done deal in the way Michael and nicki were describing the math above?


This was the conclusion of the first appeal that started in November I believe?

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
piktor wrote:
Seattle oracle's utterance on Guede:

"Breaking News. Rudy Guede got a reduced sentence on appeal, the court apparently buying his "I was just a spectator" excuse.''

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/index.asp


Well again, the Cook demonstrates that she's completely clueless...as well as dishonest.


Just one more dumb judge, in a long line, who doesn't reason to Candace's liking. Perhaps he'll change his mind when he reads the google-generated Italian translation of Candace's forthcoming book. Expect a statement from Clueless in Seattle to the effect that she still likes and respects Italy and Italians. Remember, she feels the same way about Big Ben and Arline Kercher.

I believe Candace Dempsey has done more than anyone to use this case as a way of promoting outmoded cultural stereotypes and narrow thinking. And I'm not sure "thinking" is even the right word.




'Clueless in Seattle' :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

hikergirl99 wrote:
Someone said that RG has one more shot. I thought he had his 3 chances. Fast-track trial, appeal in Nov., appeal yesterday.

If one more shot, can the prosecutor push for higher sentencing, or is it a done deal in the way Michael and nicki were describing the math above?



No, not really. He does have a third degree to come (in the High Court) but that doesn't judge the evidence. It simply reviews the trial to ensure it was all 'legally' performed correctly...that there are no 'legal' mistakes. There have been no legal grounds in either degree for the High Court to take issue with.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

AP has a report on Guede:

''Appeals court upholds conviction in Kercher murder''

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD9COG7VG0
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
Michael wrote:
piktor wrote:
Seattle oracle's utterance on Guede:

"Breaking News. Rudy Guede got a reduced sentence on appeal, the court apparently buying his "I was just a spectator" excuse.''

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/index.asp


Well again, the Cook demonstrates that she's completely clueless...as well as dishonest.

I think the cook should at least try to get her facts straight before posting on her FOA blog. For example, in Italy defendants are placed in a cage when appealing a sentence for which they are already serving time, not only when they are deemed to be violent/dangerous.

If Knox and Sollecito will be caged during their appeal-as it should be- I expect to hear the usual ignorant, xenophobic and malicious FOA crap. And wannabe-Italian-but-I am-not-Dempsey will be the first one to let out her loud shrieks.


Clueless in Seattle will never get her facts straight, because her only trusted sources are Google translations, Frank Sfarzo and The Family.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hope For Amanda: Rudy Gets Sentence Reduced
December 22, 2009 - 12:39 PM | by: Greg Burke

FOX NEWS


(The US media is 'already' starting to interpret this sentencing as 'hope' for Amanda! Oh well, at least Clueless in Seattle has company in her 'cluelessness')

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
piktor wrote:
Seattle oracle's utterance on Guede:

"Breaking News. Rudy Guede got a reduced sentence on appeal, the court apparently buying his "I was just a spectator" excuse.''

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/index.asp


Well again, the Cook demonstrates that she's completely clueless...as well as dishonest.


COOK ALERT (look away now Skep)

La Dempsey states:

"Now we hear that she should be grateful because her new two-person eight-by-eight foot cell, where she is locked in for 23 hours a day, has a separate bathroom with, gasp, a bidet."

I thought Amanda was in a dormitory type arrangement - or maybe she was moved after sentencing so she's just sharing with the other American woman. They have a tv I think, too. Eight by eight is very very small for two people. Surely this is wrong?

Really shocked at this sentence reduction. I agree that it must be a kick in the teeth for the Kerchers, just a few days before Christmas when Meredith's absence will be felt so keenly. I do wonder whether he might testify for the prosecution at Raffanda's appeal, but have no idea if this is possible or likely. It would mean he'd have to admit more than he wants to.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Bloomberg bungles n-(( its numbers:

''reduced his sentence by almost half to 15 years''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... NwxQ&pos=9
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
piktor wrote:
Seattle oracle's utterance on Guede:

"Breaking News. Rudy Guede got a reduced sentence on appeal, the court apparently buying his "I was just a spectator" excuse.''

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/index.asp


Well again, the Cook demonstrates that she's completely clueless...as well as dishonest.


COOK ALERT (look away now Skep)

La Dempsey states:

"Now we hear that she should be grateful because her new two-person eight-by-eight foot cell, where she is locked in for 23 hours a day, has a separate bathroom with, gasp, a bidet."

I thought Amanda was in a dormitory type arrangement - or maybe she was moved after sentencing so she's just sharing with the other American woman. They have a tv I think, too. Eight by eight is very very small for two people. Surely this is wrong?

Really shocked at this sentence reduction. I agree that it must be a kick in the teeth for the Kerchers, just a few days before Christmas when Meredith's absence will be felt so keenly. I do wonder whether he might testify for the prosecution at Raffanda's appeal, but have no idea if this is possible or likely. It would mean he'd have to admit more than he wants to.


She was, but she's been moved to a two person cell. It has an en suite bathroom (with toilet, bidet and shower), a little kichenette and TV if she want it. She can wear her own clothes, go to the haidressers once a week and join in a whole range of prisoner activities, including dancing and drama. She has music, books, letters, study...she can even do some work to earn a little money and extra privs. She's allowed visits and phone calls and gets to go outside. It isn't so bad. Sour grapes from the Cook. I really hate her tone...she uses 'derision', no wit required...and that's not very professional for a supposed 'professional journalist'. She's simply an opinionator, the sort of bore you walk away from down the pub and at parties and every so often find driving your taxi.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:

Really shocked at this sentence reduction.

As I see it, the court has determined it was manslaughter: reckless behavior that led to homicide.

Prison penalties for manslaughter are much lower than for murder with premeditation (murder first degree).

As manslaughter penalties go, the three got the highest, manslaughter in the first degree.

16 years for manslaughter is steep.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PointBlank wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Pointblank asked about Rudy:
If he did not actively partake in the murder he would have come clean a long time ago.Is he protecting someone, is he afraid, is he stupid, or is he, simply, guilty as convicted?.

Some Alibi replied:
None of the above... he's just a bloke with one final appeal left...

My thoughts are that Rudy is 'all of the above':
1)He is afraid (understandably so after getting severely beaten in prison, possibly by Sollecito employed inmates/guard)
2)He is stupid ( Saying he was "Defecating while someone is being stabbed to death", and "tried to save victim before leaving for dancing".
3) He is guilty as convicted (His own statements place him present was at time of murder)


Oh heh, I agree that he is all of those things, I was just responding to the question "why hasn't he come clean?". He may be all of those things but the core answer is, he still has one shot left.


Well, ok, but the options were not meant to be factual estimates but rather hypotheticals in a prisoner's dilemma type problem. I am trying to understand what their respective strategies are and who has more of an incentive to break the silence. If he is guilty 3), then he has no incentive to come clean so 1) and 2) would be redundant incentives.

In particular, I am trying to understand how the appeals process and possible sentence reductions influences those incentives...



A couple of thoughts; Since neither AK nor RS have the 1/3 off credit option from fast track, today (24yrs - 8) has underlined to them that their current sentence has been reconfirmed as the right length give or take a couple of years. Therefore they think they'll either get acquitted or they will be where they will be in sentencing terms. We know there's no plea bargain type arrangement but we need Yummi to tell us if there is the possibility of a major sentencing credit for a complete confession. I personally don't see the psychology of these two working for that to happen at all - they have two throws of the dice left and I don't see them giving those chances up. Both of them have major family / friends / media-payoff-if-acquitted credibility issues with a confession so it's not going to happen.

On RG's attack in prison: I've seen people get beaten up in prison and silenced on cases - it definitely happens. However given the profile of the case it would be an ENORMOUS gamble for the family of RS to take to arrange for that to happen (AK's don't have the contacts - really it isn't them). If you hypothesise an upper middle class family like RS's, it's generally extremely unlikely. The fact that the sister is an ex-cop would obviously mean that they have the understanding and contacts as to how to make it happen however. But that would be quite a claim in public and I don't fancy getting sued so lets say "I don't believe that happened".

Beating up sex offenders in prison is an ultra-standard status / retribution thing. You've got several hundred men doing long stretches, many with gf's and wives on the outside and they are thinking of those women being exposed to people like RG on the outside. It's an explosive mix and it's every hardcore lags dream to do over a sex offender. Jeffrey Dahmer got murdered in jail for it (boo-hoo) and the Yorkshire Ripper has had several attacks against him including one eye being blinded and a recent attempt to do the other eye. As to the 'apology' and RG's decision not to prosecute. Yeah, right. You rat out a prisoner for that sort of thing and you are going to wind up stabbed in the shower / work place / corridor with a prison shank. You take the beating, you keep quiet and you hope to **** it doesn't happen again too many times.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
Bloomberg bungles n-(( its numbers:

''reduced his sentence by almost half to 15 years''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... NwxQ&pos=9


What bit of 16 is nearly half of 30 do you disagree with? :)

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
piktor wrote:
Seattle oracle's utterance on Guede:

"Breaking News. Rudy Guede got a reduced sentence on appeal, the court apparently buying his "I was just a spectator" excuse.''

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/index.asp


Well again, the Cook demonstrates that she's completely clueless...as well as dishonest.


COOK ALERT (look away now Skep)

La Dempsey states:

"Now we hear that she should be grateful because her new two-person eight-by-eight foot cell, where she is locked in for 23 hours a day, has a separate bathroom with, gasp, a bidet."

I thought Amanda was in a dormitory type arrangement - or maybe she was moved after sentencing so she's just sharing with the other American woman. They have a tv I think, too. Eight by eight is very very small for two people. Surely this is wrong?

Really shocked at this sentence reduction. I agree that it must be a kick in the teeth for the Kerchers, just a few days before Christmas when Meredith's absence will be felt so keenly. I do wonder whether he might testify for the prosecution at Raffanda's appeal, but have no idea if this is possible or likely. It would mean he'd have to admit more than he wants to.


She was, but she's been moved to a two person cell. It has an en suite bathroom (with toilet, bidet and shower), a little kichenette and TV if she want it. She can wear her own clothes, go to the haidressers once a week and join in a whole range of prisoner activities, including dancing and drama. She has music, books, letters, study...she can even do some work to earn a little money and extra privs. She's allowed visits and phone calls and gets to go outside. It isn't so bad. Sour grapes from the Cook. I really hate her tone...she uses 'derision', no wit required...and that's not very professional for a supposed 'professional journalist'. She's simply an opinionator, the sort of bore you walk away from down the pub and at parties and every so often find driving your taxi.


But at least the taxi driver has driving skills. You hope. :D
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
On RG's attack in prison: I've seen people get beaten up in prison and silenced on cases - it definitely happens. However given the profile of the case it would be an ENORMOUS gamble for the family of RS to take to arrange for that to happen (AK's don't have the contacts - really it isn't them). If you hypothesise an upper middle class family like RS's, it's generally extremely unlikely. The fact that the sister is an ex-cop would obviously mean that they have the understanding and contacts as to how to make it happen however. But that would be quite a claim in public and I don't fancy getting sued so lets say "I don't believe that happened".


Umm, don't be so sure. They have engaged in various activities throughout this case that is either criminality or borders on it. Raffaele's father is 'connected' and I mean that in the Sicilian sense. Also, the ILE have heavily hinted that they suspect the Sollecito's for the break-in at the cottage and the planting of the knife at the crime scene. They illegally leaked data to Telenorba, they tried to use their contacts in government to have leading investigators removed and then, there is Kokomani's claim that agents representing the Sollecitos offered him a 100,000 euros to leave the country. These people are not adverse to taking risks or breaking the law.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Shirley wrote:
But at least the taxi driver has driving skills. You hope. :D


Instead of trying to drive from the back seat you mean? :)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
piktor wrote:
Bloomberg bungles n-(( its numbers:

''reduced his sentence by almost half to 15 years''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... NwxQ&pos=9


What bit of 16 is nearly half of 30 do you disagree with? :)


And of course, in reality it's 14 now, since he's served 2 already.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
On RG's attack in prison: I've seen people get beaten up in prison and silenced on cases - it definitely happens. However given the profile of the case it would be an ENORMOUS gamble for the family of RS to take to arrange for that to happen (AK's don't have the contacts - really it isn't them). If you hypothesise an upper middle class family like RS's, it's generally extremely unlikely. The fact that the sister is an ex-cop would obviously mean that they have the understanding and contacts as to how to make it happen however. But that would be quite a claim in public and I don't fancy getting sued so lets say "I don't believe that happened".


Umm, don't be so sure. They have engaged in various activities throughout this case that is either criminality or borders on it. Raffaele's father is 'connected' and I mean that in the Sicilian sense. Also, the ILE have heavily hinted that they suspect the Sollecito's for the break-in at the cottage and the planting of the knife at the crime scene. They illegally leaked data to Telenorba, they tried to use their contacts in government to have leading investigators removed and then, there is Kokomani's claim that agents representing the Sollecitos offered him a 100,000 euros to leave the country. These people are not adverse to taking risks or breaking the law.



Allegedly, allegedly, allegedly :) . Let me introduce you to my inverted commas here Michael :D - "I don't believe that happened". *cough*

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

If I stand this correctly since Rudy got a discount for not having his DNA on the murder weapon this focuses attention back onto AK and RS as the murderers and wrecks the lone wolf theory. In turn this also focuses further attention on the double DNA knife, since if the defence can bang a hole in the DNA testing procedures AK also has a shorter sentence, or am I wrong ?

As regards Clueless in Seattle surely by describing RG's sentence reduction as good news, surely she moves into very dangerous waters here. She can spin as she wishes and ignore Rudy's fast-track reduction but if she does and AK's sentence is confirmed then Candace has an almighty howler against her (even in Seattle's eyes) and she could unwittingly confirm AK as the murderer too.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
On RG's attack in prison: I've seen people get beaten up in prison and silenced on cases - it definitely happens. However given the profile of the case it would be an ENORMOUS gamble for the family of RS to take to arrange for that to happen (AK's don't have the contacts - really it isn't them). If you hypothesise an upper middle class family like RS's, it's generally extremely unlikely. The fact that the sister is an ex-cop would obviously mean that they have the understanding and contacts as to how to make it happen however. But that would be quite a claim in public and I don't fancy getting sued so lets say "I don't believe that happened".


Umm, don't be so sure. They have engaged in various activities throughout this case that is either criminality or borders on it. Raffaele's father is 'connected' and I mean that in the Sicilian sense. Also, the ILE have heavily hinted that they suspect the Sollecito's for the break-in at the cottage and the planting of the knife at the crime scene. They illegally leaked data to Telenorba, they tried to use their contacts in government to have leading investigators removed and then, there is Kokomani's claim that agents representing the Sollecitos offered him a 100,000 euros to leave the country. These people are not adverse to taking risks or breaking the law.



Allegedly, allegedly, allegedly :) . Let me introduce you to my inverted commas here Michael :D - "I don't believe that happened". *cough*


I didn't write it just for your benefit :) I covered the 'alleged' requirement with 'the ILE have heavily hinted that they suspect' and 'Kokomani's claim'.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
piktor wrote:
Bloomberg bungles n-(( its numbers:

''reduced his sentence by almost half to 15 years''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... NwxQ&pos=9


What bit of 16 is nearly half of 30 do you disagree with? :)

stup-) 14 is not 15 rul-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

macca writes:

If I stand this correctly since Rudy got a discount for not having his DNA on the murder weapon this focuses attention back onto AK and RS as the murderers and wrecks the lone wolf theory.


''Guede's lawyer, Nicodemo Gentile, had asked for a reduction in his 30-year sentence because of his young age, lack of a previous criminal record and difficult family history.

He also told the court that Guede "certainly did not carry out the murder" even though Guede's DNA was found on Kercher's body and he has admitted he was in the house at the time of the killing and had sexual relations with the victim.''- Reuters

If this sticks, Knox/Sollecito will not have a fun appeal sentence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BL3RA20091222


Last edited by piktor on Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
On RG's attack in prison: I've seen people get beaten up in prison and silenced on cases - it definitely happens. However given the profile of the case it would be an ENORMOUS gamble for the family of RS to take to arrange for that to happen (AK's don't have the contacts - really it isn't them). If you hypothesise an upper middle class family like RS's, it's generally extremely unlikely. The fact that the sister is an ex-cop would obviously mean that they have the understanding and contacts as to how to make it happen however. But that would be quite a claim in public and I don't fancy getting sued so lets say "I don't believe that happened".


Umm, don't be so sure. They have engaged in various activities throughout this case that is either criminality or borders on it. Raffaele's father is 'connected' and I mean that in the Sicilian sense. Also, the ILE have heavily hinted that they suspect the Sollecito's for the break-in at the cottage and the planting of the knife at the crime scene. They illegally leaked data to Telenorba, they tried to use their contacts in government to have leading investigators removed and then, there is Kokomani's claim that agents representing the Sollecitos offered him a 100,000 euros to leave the country. These people are not adverse to taking risks or breaking the law.



Allegedly, allegedly, allegedly :) . Let me introduce you to my inverted commas here Michael :D - "I don't believe that happened". *cough*


I didn't write it just for your benefit :) I covered the 'alleged' requirement with 'the ILE have heavily hinted that they suspect' and 'Kokomani's claim'.

Michael, the Sollecito's have been put under investigation, it's much more than "allegations"

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Nicki wrote:
Michael, the Sollecito's have been put under investigation, it's much more than "allegations"


Yes indeed. Although, only for 'some' of the things I listed. For example, they aren't being investigated for planting the knife.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
As I see it, the court has determined it was manslaughter: reckless behavior that led to homicide.

Prison penalties for manslaughter are much lower than for murder with premeditation (murder first degree).

As manslaughter penalties go, the three got the highest, manslaughter in the first degree.


Hi everybody,
no it was not manslaughter. Please do not apply "American" categories like first - second degree murder or manslaughter.
Rudy was convicted for voluntary murder. The reason for this low sentence are different. Some are related to the inadequacy of the Italian code system when it comes to the evidence of aspects that go beyond the general prove of guilt. Unfortunately because of some tricks in the code, guilty people are sometimes advantaged if they lie.
Anyway, it must be noticed that Rudy had exactly the same mandatory sentence than the other to, 24 years being the basis minimum penalty for murder+aggravation, but he also got the prize of the 1/3 cut off for having chosen the gamble of the short trial (no new evidence/experts, no jury, few witnesses, money saved for the state).
Bare in mind anyway that many things can still happen.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Actually Guede's redution sounds to me as very bad news for the other two defendants.
It sugests neither the appeal judges couldn't be sure he was the mastermind.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
piktor wrote:
Bloomberg bungles n-(( its numbers:

''reduced his sentence by almost half to 15 years''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... NwxQ&pos=9


What bit of 16 is nearly half of 30 do you disagree with? :)

stup-) 14 is not 15 rul-)


Jeez.... "almost" ain't what it used to be huh?

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Actually Guede's redution sounds to me as very bad news for the other two defendants.
It sugests neither the appeal judges couldn't be sure he was the mastermind.


Thanks Yummi. So with a sentence of 16 years (2 served already) in how many years from now can Rudy expect to be released?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Nasty crap from Ruede's defence team today (disclaimer: adjusted for sense google translate version so may have minor errors):

Gentileha disproved the hypothesis of sexual violence against Meredith, concerning which he wanted to draw a "different" profile: "Some claim that Meredith would never have approached a guy like Rudy, but the facts speak for Meredith as one of many foreign girls that experience studying abroad and love to have fun. "

"Meredith, like many other young people liked to drink, like partying, she also smoked some dope, and she herself published some pictures on the internet; in one evening she embraced about forty people. I do not understand why she would not had a brief affair with Rudy. "

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Actually Guede's reduction sounds to me as very bad news for the other two defendants.
It sugests neither the appeal judges couldn't be sure he was the mastermind.

Yes, very bad news for Knox/Sollecito because it affirms, with a few modifications favoring Guede, the state's investigation a second time.

Guede's case is entwined with the other two accused. The investigation that was used for Guede is the same used for the Knox/Sollecito trial.

The modified jail time for Guede makes sense.

The state's case wins again for Meredith.

Very bad news for the other two, indeed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline juliet


Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi all, still digesting the implications of RG's sentence reduction.

Assuming all 3 sentences remained as now, 26, 25 and 16, how many years are the 3 likely to actually serve? I seem to remember reading that AK and RS could serve as little as half the number of years of their sentences. Is this the same for RG or is there a basic minimum number of years that he must do?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dittany1


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:29 am

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Nasty crap from Ruede's defence team today (disclaimer: adjusted for sense google translate version so may have minor errors):

Gentileha disproved the hypothesis of sexual violence against Meredith, concerning which he wanted to draw a "different" profile: "Some claim that Meredith would never have approached a guy like Rudy, but the facts speak for Meredith as one of many foreign girls that experience studying abroad and love to have fun. "

"Meredith, like many other young people liked to drink, like partying, she also smoked some dope, and she herself published some pictures on the internet; in one evening she embraced about forty people. I do not understand why she would not had a brief affair with Rudy. "


This stuff is making me sick.

How dare these people slander his victim. I actually saw someone on a pro-Meredith blog saying that everybody gives in to temptation and comparing Meredith to Bill Clinton. What is going on in these people's minds?

In what world is Rudy Guede "temptation"? Have people seen him? He looks dead in the eyes and half alive. From the stories about him he was mentally unstable or disconnected at the very least - breaking into buildings, being in possession of stolen property. Yet they are prepared to believe that that is some kind of attractive prospect to Meredith even though the evidence says she was assaulted and then murdered. He's been found guilty - he's a rapist, even if he didn't manage to complete the act.

Sorry, had to rant. I hate that guy for trying to drag her name through the mud. He should have been given extra time for lying about her. He has no shame and no respect and neither do his disgusting lawyers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I have to say I'm not shell-shocked by RG sentence reduction.
Neither Mignini nor Micheli thought he struck the fatal blow. Mignini even said in his summing-up that he did not believe RG was in the room when the attack started. A crime scene reveals a narrative to the expert eye - and they have seen a lot more of it than we have.
Certainly RG is guilty of sexual assault (nobody believes he arranged a rendez-vous with Meredith the night before; neither does anyone believe she is the kind of girl who would halt her studies late at night to indulge in casual sex with a near stranger - she despised two-timers). He is certainly also guilty by his own admission of failing to provide proper aid to a severely injured person or calling for help. This makes him a pretty despicable person even if he were stoned.
However I do believe there can be doubt about his level of participation in this assault. If he entered late in the proceedings (as Mignini believes) it might have appeared there was some kind of rough-house sex game under way. Being pre-occupied with his sexual assault he may not even have seen the knives until there was blood.
I suspect that the sentence reduction reflects doubt about his role - it may well reflect the court's opinion that AK and RS bear a greater share of the responsibility.
As for why he doesn't come clean about this - perhaps he simply took a gamble and hoped the court would believe him an absolute innocent. After all he has made an abundance of certifiably bad decisions - this would be just another one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I happen to agree with you, dittany1.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Pointblank asked about Rudy:
If he did not actively partake in the murder he would have come clean a long time ago.Is he protecting someone, is he afraid, is he stupid, or is he, simply, guilty as convicted?.

Some Alibi replied:
None of the above... he's just a bloke with one final appeal left...

My thoughts are that Rudy is 'all of the above':
1)He is afraid (understandably so after getting severely beaten in prison, possibly by Sollecito employed inmates/guard)
2)He is stupid ( Saying he was "Defecating while someone is being stabbed to death", and "tried to save victim before leaving for dancing".
3) He is guilty as convicted (His own statements place him present was at time of murder)


Oh heh, I agree that he is all of those things, I was just responding to the question "why hasn't he come clean?". He may be all of those things but the core answer is, he still has one shot left.


Well, ok, but the options were not meant to be factual estimates but rather hypotheticals in a prisoner's dilemma type problem. I am trying to understand what their respective strategies are and who has more of an incentive to break the silence. If he is guilty 3), then he has no incentive to come clean so 1) and 2) would be redundant incentives.

In particular, I am trying to understand how the appeals process and possible sentence reductions influences those incentives...



A couple of thoughts; Since neither AK nor RS have the 1/3 off credit option from fast track, today (24yrs - 8) has underlined to them that their current sentence has been reconfirmed as the right length give or take a couple of years. Therefore they think they'll either get acquitted or they will be where they will be in sentencing terms. We know there's no plea bargain type arrangement but we need Yummi to tell us if there is the possibility of a major sentencing credit for a complete confession. I personally don't see the psychology of these two working for that to happen at all - they have two throws of the dice left and I don't see them giving those chances up. Both of them have major family / friends / media-payoff-if-acquitted credibility issues with a confession so it's not going to happen.

On RG's attack in prison: I've seen people get beaten up in prison and silenced on cases - it definitely happens. However given the profile of the case it would be an ENORMOUS gamble for the family of RS to take to arrange for that to happen (AK's don't have the contacts - really it isn't them). If you hypothesise an upper middle class family like RS's, it's generally extremely unlikely. The fact that the sister is an ex-cop would obviously mean that they have the understanding and contacts as to how to make it happen however. But that would be quite a claim in public and I don't fancy getting sued so lets say "I don't believe that happened".

Beating up sex offenders in prison is an ultra-standard status / retribution thing. You've got several hundred men doing long stretches, many with gf's and wives on the outside and they are thinking of those women being exposed to people like RG on the outside. It's an explosive mix and it's every hardcore lags dream to do over a sex offender. Jeffrey Dahmer got murdered in jail for it (boo-hoo) and the Yorkshire Ripper has had several attacks against him including one eye being blinded and a recent attempt to do the other eye. As to the 'apology' and RG's decision not to prosecute. Yeah, right. You rat out a prisoner for that sort of thing and you are going to wind up stabbed in the shower / work place / corridor with a prison shank. You take the beating, you keep quiet and you hope to **** it doesn't happen again too many times.


I generally believe you are correct. Especially about Knox. I cannot see her confessing, if not for acquittal payoff, then for being straightjacketed by her family's and friends' public involvement and financial investments. Although, nothing is impossible; if she has some kind of sociopathic personality disorder it might happen. And for the Knox family to arrange a beating of Guede seems very wild, to say the least. Especially as I think they are in denial and do not consider Guede a threat.

As for Sollecito I am not so sure. The fact is I have not read much about either him or his family. My gut feeling is contradictory. On one hand, I perceive RS as the most fragile character most likely to break the silence when the pressure to betray AK gets overwhelming. On the other hand, I also have a suspicion he is a wolf in sheep clothing, with his knife passion being particularly unsettling, and that he might have had a much more leading role than generally assumed.

As for the prison attack, the simplest answer is most often correct. So I buy your sex offender beating prison cred theory.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi everyone,

I have been away and only just found out about Guede's sentence, I'm shocked while at the same time not really surprised that he is got such a short sentence, it happens here in Spain all the time as well. If RG behaves in prison and shows true rehabilitation he will be out in no time.

From AGI. (sorry if it has been posted, I haven't caught up with all posts)

Maresca: The sentence confirms the work done by the Public Prosecutors Office.

Lawyer for the family of Meredith Kercher, Francesco Maresca: The ruling made today by the Perugia Court of Assizes of Appeal against Rudy Guede "confirms the work done by the Public Prosecutor’s Office" and "the entire reconstruction has not suffered any changes of the assessments made by different judges."

Commenting on the reduction of the sentence from 30 to 16 years imprisonment Maresca explained, " a mathematical calculation was made of an automatic penalty reduction that could only be done in this way, after the granting of extenuating circumstances." "We'll see what the reasons for this concession were --continued the lawyer--. I imagine they are connected to Guede’s young age and predictions that at the end the penalty will allow a rehabilitation and reeducation of the subject." "We are absolutely satisfied - said Maresca- because it is given confirmation that Rudy Guede was present in the scene of the crime together with the other two accused, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and it has confirmed the act of murder and sexual violence committed by all three defendants. We're a bit less satisfied obviously, with this drastic reduction in the sentence which, however, I repeat, is automatic and could only be done this way once granting the extenuating circumstances because of the sentence reduction for the fast-track trial.”
Maresca on RG's sentence
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tigerfish wrote:
Being pre-occupied with his sexual assault he may not even have seen the knives until there was blood.


Think about the number of injuries on MK's body. Think about the positions that all four people were in throughout. I'm sorry but I think you are too nice a person to have thought through the harsh realities of the brutality that happened and what those doing it would have seen. Of course he saw the knives and the holding of the victim which then allowed him to be able to carry out that sexual assault. Meredith had done Karate and was a ballsy young lady from Croydon / Coulsdon who would have fought with all her life per her father. The only way they got her under control was through the production of knives and RG saw and participated in it all. Count to 30 out aloud and imagine everything that could happen in 30 seconds. You'll find it's a very long time. Then multiply that by several to many times. That's what Rudy Guede was part of that night. He's scum and a convicted sexual assailant and murderer. Lets call him for what he is.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
As I see it, the court has determined it was manslaughter: reckless behavior that led to homicide.

Prison penalties for manslaughter are much lower than for murder with premeditation (murder first degree).

As manslaughter penalties go, the three got the highest, manslaughter in the first degree.


Hi everybody,
no it was not manslaughter. Please do not apply "American" categories like first - second degree murder or manslaughter.
Rudy was convicted for voluntary murder. The reason for this low sentence are different. Some are related to the inadequacy of the Italian code system when it comes to the evidence of aspects that go beyond the general prove of guilt. Unfortunately because of some tricks in the code, guilty people are sometimes advantaged if they lie.
Anyway, it must be noticed that Rudy had exactly the same mandatory sentence than the other to, 24 years being the basis minimum penalty for murder+aggravation, but he also got the prize of the 1/3 cut off for having chosen the gamble of the short trial (no new evidence/experts, no jury, few witnesses, money saved for the state).
Bare in mind anyway that many things can still happen.


Hi Yummi, could you clarify what you mean with there being no manslaughter? Surely there are degrees of culpability in a person's death? What are these different offences in Italian lae and which ones are relevant to the case in question? Thanks.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
No, it didn't. In his first degree, Rudy got his sentence reduced from life to 30 because he was acquitted of the theft charge. He wasn't given his fast track discount. Hence why he's getting it now...or at least most of it, 8 years instead of 10.


No Michael, you are mistaking, and Max point was correct. The 30 years included the fast track reduction, but the thecnicality says it is 1/3 of the term only if the mandatory time is below 30. If the mandatory is life or life+solitary confinment, all calculations for the reduction are changing. This is a big problem in the consistency of the system, as I already mentioned, due to the two codes being out-of-phase.
The reaon for the current rduction is the 'generic mitigation', which pulls the sentence below 30 and thus produces the effect of a huge disount, given that 1/3 of 24 is a big chunk. Micheli refused the mitigation in order to avoid this too big reduction considering he was a repentless lier. But the appeal judges is another story.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Actually Guede's redution sounds to me as very bad news for the other two defendants.
It sugests neither the appeal judges couldn't be sure he was the mastermind.

Hi Yummi,

What happens with the money that the 3 killers now owe, i.e. paying the court expenses plus the amounts granted by the judges to the owner of the cottage. Does it mean if they can't afford to pay back will they have to serve 'X' additional days in prison?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
No, it didn't. In his first degree, Rudy got his sentence reduced from life to 30 because he was acquitted of the theft charge. He wasn't given his fast track discount. Hence why he's getting it now...or at least most of it, 8 years instead of 10.


No Michael, you are mistaking, and Max point was correct. The 30 years included the fast track reduction, but the thecnicality says it is 1/3 of the term only if the mandatory time is below 30. If the mandatory is life or life+solitary confinment, all calculations for the reduction are changing. This is a big problem in the consistency of the system, as I already mentioned, due to the two codes being out-of-phase.
The reaon for the current rduction is the 'generic mitigation', which pulls the sentence below 30 and thus produces the effect of a huge disount, given that 1/3 of 24 is a big chunk. Micheli refused the mitigation in order to avoid this too big reduction considering he was a repentless lier. But the appeal judges is another story.


Oh, okay. So the 1/3 is always applied to the end total and the mitigation is always deducted from the prior total before the the 1/3 is applied and only comes into play for a sentence below 30 years. That's simple...but as you say, the rest is rather complicated. So, simply, Micheli was activating a mechanism in order to counter another mechanism that would have given Rudy an unduly, in his view, lenient sentence.

Therefore, the circumstance that must have forced the appeal judges to counter Micheli's mechanism must have been the fact that Raffaele and Amanda were afforded such generous mitigation (25 and 26 years as opposed to life). They could not then justly deny Rudy mitigation thereby forcing the sentence below thirty years and by default, activating the 1/3 reduction mechanism. Therefore, Guede's fast track gamble only paid off because of Raffaele and Amanda getting such a good deal in their trial and would have failed had they been given a sentence above thirty years, for then Guede's final sentence of 30 years would have been in line with theirs!

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jools wrote:
Hi everyone,

I have been away and only just found out about Guede's sentence, I'm shocked while at the same time not really surprised that he is got such a short sentence, it happens here in Spain all the time as well. If RG behaves in prison and shows true rehabilitation he will be out in no time.

From AGI. (sorry if it has been posted, I haven't caught up with all posts)

Maresca: The sentence confirms the work done by the Public Prosecutors Office.

Lawyer for the family of Meredith Kercher, Francesco Maresca: The ruling made today by the Perugia Court of Assizes of Appeal against Rudy Guede "confirms the work done by the Public Prosecutor’s Office" and "the entire reconstruction has not suffered any changes of the assessments made by different judges."

Commenting on the reduction of the sentence from 30 to 16 years imprisonment Maresca explained, " a mathematical calculation was made of an automatic penalty reduction that could only be done in this way, after the granting of extenuating circumstances." "We'll see what the reasons for this concession were --continued the lawyer--. I imagine they are connected to Guede’s young age and predictions that at the end the penalty will allow a rehabilitation and reeducation of the subject." "We are absolutely satisfied - said Maresca- because it is given confirmation that Rudy Guede was present in the scene of the crime together with the other two accused, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and it has confirmed the act of murder and sexual violence committed by all three defendants. We're a bit less satisfied obviously, with this drastic reduction in the sentence which, however, I repeat, is automatic and could only be done this way once granting the extenuating circumstances because of the sentence reduction for the fast-track trial.”
Maresca on RG's sentence

Thanks for the Maresca news, Jools.

This is bad news for Knox/Sollecito because Maresca confirms that the investigation of the case by the prosecution was upheld by the court. Again.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Somealibi wrote:

Think about the number of injuries on MK's body. Think about the positions that all four people were in throughout. I'm sorry but I think you are too nice a person to have thought through the harsh realities of the brutality that happened and what those doing it would have seen. Of course he saw the knives and the holding of the victim which then allowed him to be able to carry out that sexual assault. Meredith had done Karate and was a ballsy young lady from Croydon / Coulsdon who would have fought with all her life per her father. The only way they got her under control was through the production of knives and RG saw and participated in it all. Count to 30 out aloud and imagine everything that could happen in 30 seconds. You'll find it's a very long time. Then multiply that by several to many times. That's what Rudy Guede was part of that night. He's scum and a convicted sexual assailant and murderer. Lets call him for what he is.


Believe me I am trying to use my imagination. If I had a knife (or two) close to my face, prudent instincts of self-preservation would certainly inhibit my efforts to struggle. If I was outraged, being held against my will and being molested, I would have a lot of adrenaline in my blood, and that would diminish the pain from any injuries I might sustain. I know this just from personal experience of accidents and sport.
None of us know exactly how it happened. Most likely it was a chaotic scene. Now I am merely struggling to comprehend the court's thinking. This is my interpretation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
Surely there are degrees of culpability in a person's death? What are these different offences in Italian law and which ones are relevant to the case in question? Thanks.


But the questionis a bit too long to answer for a discusion forum. I can address maybe a few coordinates. In the Italian penal code every crime is indicated by a code number - a bit like a dialling list - and a fact is a crime only if it has a provision in the list. Those numbers are part of an order. There is a general division betwen two kind of crimes: colposi - 'due to guilt' - and dolosi - 'due to will'. The charge of voluntary murder and manslaughter thus are two kind of offences which fall in two different sets. The charge of voluntary murder can have several degrees of culpability but those are given by a balance of 'circumstances' (mitigation and agravation) and the gravity of culpability itself falls on a continuum, it is not divided in gaps. An assessmnt on 'degree' of culpability cannot turn a voluntary murder in a manslaughter, even if the sentence might be in fact lower. It is the kind of culpability that is different. On the other hand a judge might even decide to change the charge - like in case of road accident decide that it is a manslaughter instead of a voluntary murder - but only in those cases where there is a provision for this: the 'criminal will' (dolo) can be specific, generic, or eventual. The alleged 'eventual' for example can be subject to separate assessment, but a specific dolo as it is connaturated in some charges and circumstances cannot be cancelled.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
Therefore, the circumstance that must have forced the appeal judges to counter Micheli's mechanism must have been the fact that Raffaele and Amanda were afforded such generous mitigation (25 and 26 years as opposed to life). They could not then justly deny Rudy mitigation thereby forcing the sentence below thirty years and by default, activating the 1/3 reduction mechanism.


I have a suspect there can be an element of truth in this - although I cannot know for sure. Appeals courts are knowingly more lenient - 'like your grandpa' - some judge was kidding. The fact is that Micheli's strict line would have been difficult to be kept before the Supreme Court, where he would have complained that the others had more mitigation for the same case while he was denied the same without motivations, and thus a further denial of mitigation would lead to a probable intervention of the higher court against the Appeal sentence. It would have been difficult for the Prosecutor General to give good reasons for the refusal, they simply did the same thing that was done with Amanda and Raff.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tigerfish wrote:
Somealibi wrote:

Think about the number of injuries on MK's body. Think about the positions that all four people were in throughout. I'm sorry but I think you are too nice a person to have thought through the harsh realities of the brutality that happened and what those doing it would have seen. Of course he saw the knives and the holding of the victim which then allowed him to be able to carry out that sexual assault. Meredith had done Karate and was a ballsy young lady from Croydon / Coulsdon who would have fought with all her life per her father. The only way they got her under control was through the production of knives and RG saw and participated in it all. Count to 30 out aloud and imagine everything that could happen in 30 seconds. You'll find it's a very long time. Then multiply that by several to many times. That's what Rudy Guede was part of that night. He's scum and a convicted sexual assailant and murderer. Lets call him for what he is.


Believe me I am trying to use my imagination. If I had a knife (or two) close to my face, prudent instincts of self-preservation would certainly inhibit my efforts to struggle. If I was outraged, being held against my will and being molested, I would have a lot of adrenaline in my blood, and that would diminish the pain from any injuries I might sustain. I know this just from personal experience of accidents and sport.
None of us know exactly how it happened. Most likely it was a chaotic scene. Now I am merely struggling to comprehend the court's thinking. This is my interpretation.



Guys I am going to take a break from posting for a while. I am just finding this so depressing and upsetting. Today I kept thinking about the poor Kerchers. They're so gentle. Such kind people. And yet all around them swirls this filth, and the knowledge (above) of what must have happened to their lovely daughter. How they retain their calm in these circumstances I have no idea. But I am sure that away from the camera there have been many dark, angry days for them. I can no longer bear to witness the disgusting circus surrounding this case from the Knox family. Seeing Edda this morning and reading the BBC story full of her lies was the last straw for me, and now the sentence reduction. Whilst I understand that it is 'fair', I still feel low about it, as I can only imagine what it must have felt like for Meredith's family to hear the news. I could weep for them. The emotional roller-coaster goes on and on. No closure. No end to it. Even when the thing is done (another year?) and final sentences pronounced we're going to have to put up with the Edda and Curt Show ad nauseam. It makes me sick that they can lie with impunity. It makes me sick that they are happy for Rudy to take the rap for this, that they think the forensics are good enough to convict him, but not to convict their daughter. The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy and prejudice.

Just lost faith today. I have no heart to read any more. Need fresh air for a while.

Rest in peace Meredith.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

You can see the courtroom cage in this Guede short video:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... t_In_Half_[picturethis=][/picturethis]
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Surely there are degrees of culpability in a person's death? What are these different offences in Italian law and which ones are relevant to the case in question? Thanks.


But the questionis a bit too long to answer for a discusion forum. I can address maybe a few coordinates. In the Italian penal code every crime is indicated by a code number - a bit like a dialling list - and a fact is a crime only if it has a provision in the list. Those numbers are part of an order. There is a general division betwen two kind of crimes: colposi - 'due to guilt' - and dolosi - 'due to will'. The charge of voluntary murder and manslaughter thus are two kind of offences which fall in two different sets. The charge of voluntary murder can have several degrees of culpability but those are given by a balance of 'circumstances' (mitigation and agravation) and the gravity of culpability itself falls on a continuum, it is not divided in gaps. An assessmnt on 'degree' of culpability cannot turn a voluntary murder in a manslaughter, even if the sentence might be in fact lower. It is the kind of culpability that is different. On the other hand a judge might even decide to change the charge - like in case of road accident decide that it is a manslaughter instead of a voluntary murder - but only in those cases where there is a provision for this: the 'criminal will' (dolo) can be specific, generic, or eventual. The alleged 'eventual' for example can be subject to separate assessment, but a specific dolo as it is connaturated in some charges and circumstances cannot be cancelled.


Very interesting. A stupid question perhaps, but how is colposi/dolosi determined and how have they been applied in the case of the Kercher murder? Could the appellate court overturn the charge in this case? I appreciate your patience.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

" What happens with the money that the 3 killers now owe, i.e. paying the court expenses plus the amounts granted by the judges to the owner of the cottage. Does it mean if they can't afford to pay back will they have to serve 'X' additional days in prison? "

No I'm afraid not. They cannot be kept in prison for longer than their terms. Anyway they will not obtain the benefits if they don't make true efforts to pay their debts.
For example if Amanda wrtes a book and gets some money she will have to give it to the Kerchers, or she will spent 20 years in prison. Actually all the belongings of the three (in Itay) could be confiscated by the Kercher's lawyers still for decades.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

"A stupid question perhaps, but how is colposi/dolosi determined and how have they been applied in the case of the Kercher murder? Could the appellate court overturn the charge in this case? I appreciate your patience."

No. Absolutely out of question. The colposi/dolosi choice does not belong to this case. Forgt the manslaughter.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
tigerfish wrote:
Somealibi wrote:

Think about the number of injuries on MK's body. Think about the positions that all four people were in throughout. I'm sorry but I think you are too nice a person to have thought through the harsh realities of the brutality that happened and what those doing it would have seen. Of course he saw the knives and the holding of the victim which then allowed him to be able to carry out that sexual assault. Meredith had done Karate and was a ballsy young lady from Croydon / Coulsdon who would have fought with all her life per her father. The only way they got her under control was through the production of knives and RG saw and participated in it all. Count to 30 out aloud and imagine everything that could happen in 30 seconds. You'll find it's a very long time. Then multiply that by several to many times. That's what Rudy Guede was part of that night. He's scum and a convicted sexual assailant and murderer. Lets call him for what he is.


Believe me I am trying to use my imagination. If I had a knife (or two) close to my face, prudent instincts of self-preservation would certainly inhibit my efforts to struggle. If I was outraged, being held against my will and being molested, I would have a lot of adrenaline in my blood, and that would diminish the pain from any injuries I might sustain. I know this just from personal experience of accidents and sport.
None of us know exactly how it happened. Most likely it was a chaotic scene. Now I am merely struggling to comprehend the court's thinking. This is my interpretation.



Guys I am going to take a break from posting for a while. I am just finding this so depressing and upsetting. Today I kept thinking about the poor Kerchers. They're so gentle. Such kind people. And yet all around them swirls this filth, and the knowledge (above) of what must have happened to their lovely daughter. How they retain their calm in these circumstances I have no idea. But I am sure that away from the camera there have been many dark, angry days for them. I can no longer bear to witness the disgusting circus surrounding this case from the Knox family. Seeing Edda this morning and reading the BBC story full of her lies was the last straw for me, and now the sentence reduction. Whilst I understand that it is 'fair', I still feel low about it, as I can only imagine what it must have felt like for Meredith's family to hear the news. I could weep for them. The emotional roller-coaster goes on and on. No closure. No end to it. Even when the thing is done (another year?) and final sentences pronounced we're going to have to put up with the Edda and Curt Show ad nauseam. It makes me sick that they can lie with impunity. It makes me sick that they are happy for Rudy to take the rap for this, that they think the forensics are good enough to convict him, but not to convict their daughter. The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy and prejudice.

Just lost faith today. I have no heart to read any more. Need fresh air for a while.

Rest in peace Meredith.



Understandable Bard. Just remember, Guede was sentenced to 24 years today. The 16 is a mechanical credit that is part of the Italian sentencing regime. It's hard to face the reality of that and we're still not sure what that means in years he will actually serve (Yummi?), but it's 24 years as a sentence which I can deal with a little more even if there's some very lenient credit against it.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
"A stupid question perhaps, but how is colposi/dolosi determined and how have they been applied in the case of the Kercher murder? Could the appellate court overturn the charge in this case? I appreciate your patience."

No. Absolutely out of question. The colposi/dolosi choice does not belong to this case. Forgt the manslaughter.


Ok, so what is the criteria for a case being dolosi/due to will? Let say, hypothetically, Guede helped Knox and Sollecito restrain Kercher, thereby facilitating the murder, but did not expect them to stab her while he did so. That would lessen his culpability along the dolosi continuum, but it would not shift it to the colposi category, correct? So, yes, what is the criteria for separating the two?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael stated:
...... They have engaged in various activities throughout this case that is either criminality or borders on it. Raffaele's father is 'connected' and I mean that in the Sicilian sense. Also, the ILE have heavily hinted that they suspect the Sollecito's for the break-in at the cottage and the planting of the knife at the crime scene. They illegally leaked data to Telenorba, they tried to use their contacts in government to have leading investigators removed and then, there is Kokomani's claim that agents representing the Sollecitos offered him a 100,000 euros to leave the country. These people are not adverse to taking risks or breaking the law.

SomeAlibi apparently demurs :
Allegedly, allegedly, allegedly :) . Let me introduce you to my inverted commas here Michael :D - "I don't believe that happened". *cough*
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry I do not have reference at hand, but I believe Raffie's sister, Ms (Lieutenant) Vanessa Sollecito was recently publicly whining about having been fired "because of her name".
In fact, she lost her (politically correct) managerial police position because her Father was publicly pulling political strings with Italian People of Power to get Raffie out of the jam.
Ms Vanessa's superiors agreed that was sufficient grounds for her dismissal.
Correct me if I am incorrect, but highly placed (token?) Females are rarely dismissed on (cough, cough) reverse comma "allegations"; particularly offspring of locally powerful people who make fluids defy gravity.

So, *cough,cough*, when a Father says in effect he has enough money to make water run uphill, and a Sister is terminated because of Father's actions....
please allow me to *unequivocally and emphatically* concur with Michael's "allegations".

Just my opinion politely proffered. Best Regards
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
The Bard wrote:
tigerfish wrote:
Somealibi wrote:

Think about the number of injuries on MK's body. Think about the positions that all four people were in throughout. I'm sorry but I think you are too nice a person to have thought through the harsh realities of the brutality that happened and what those doing it would have seen. Of course he saw the knives and the holding of the victim which then allowed him to be able to carry out that sexual assault. Meredith had done Karate and was a ballsy young lady from Croydon / Coulsdon who would have fought with all her life per her father. The only way they got her under control was through the production of knives and RG saw and participated in it all. Count to 30 out aloud and imagine everything that could happen in 30 seconds. You'll find it's a very long time. Then multiply that by several to many times. That's what Rudy Guede was part of that night. He's scum and a convicted sexual assailant and murderer. Lets call him for what he is.


Believe me I am trying to use my imagination. If I had a knife (or two) close to my face, prudent instincts of self-preservation would certainly inhibit my efforts to struggle. If I was outraged, being held against my will and being molested, I would have a lot of adrenaline in my blood, and that would diminish the pain from any injuries I might sustain. I know this just from personal experience of accidents and sport.
None of us know exactly how it happened. Most likely it was a chaotic scene. Now I am merely struggling to comprehend the court's thinking. This is my interpretation.



Guys I am going to take a break from posting for a while. I am just finding this so depressing and upsetting. Today I kept thinking about the poor Kerchers. They're so gentle. Such kind people. And yet all around them swirls this filth, and the knowledge (above) of what must have happened to their lovely daughter. How they retain their calm in these circumstances I have no idea. But I am sure that away from the camera there have been many dark, angry days for them. I can no longer bear to witness the disgusting circus surrounding this case from the Knox family. Seeing Edda this morning and reading the BBC story full of her lies was the last straw for me, and now the sentence reduction. Whilst I understand that it is 'fair', I still feel low about it, as I can only imagine what it must have felt like for Meredith's family to hear the news. I could weep for them. The emotional roller-coaster goes on and on. No closure. No end to it. Even when the thing is done (another year?) and final sentences pronounced we're going to have to put up with the Edda and Curt Show ad nauseam. It makes me sick that they can lie with impunity. It makes me sick that they are happy for Rudy to take the rap for this, that they think the forensics are good enough to convict him, but not to convict their daughter. The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy and prejudice.

Just lost faith today. I have no heart to read any more. Need fresh air for a while.

Rest in peace Meredith.



Understandable Bard. Just remember, Guede was sentenced to 24 years today. The 16 is a mechanical credit that is part of the Italian sentencing regime. It's hard to face the reality of that and we're still not sure what that means in years he will actually serve (Yummi?), but it's 24 years as a sentence which I can deal with a little more even if there's some very lenient credit against it.


I think this is right. One of the first headlines emphasized that the guilty verdict had been upheld. Guede's lawyer opted for the fast track and, if the prosecution made the right case, then there is no reason Guede's sentence should be heavier than that of the other two. He did not have a prior record either.

I keep thinking of how compassionate the Kerchers were during the press conference they gave after the verdict against Knox and Sollecito was announced. They referred to the two people just convicted of murdering their daughter as "young people" and to Guede as "the gentleman" already serving his sentence. They reiterated their faith in the Italian justice system, which to me extends beyond the trial and the verdict to the rights of convicted criminals and the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption of sorts.

Perhaps they will speak publicly about this latest development. But seen for what it is -- i.e., an automatic 1/3 reduction because of a prior choice (the fast track, which is looking better and better as an option) -- it shouldn't come as a total surprise to us.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

anne wrote:
Hallo!

Its my birthday today (a quarter of a century pure me - yay! ;))
so i havn't really got the time to read through the posts of the last days. Just wanna ask what happened today in court - a shortcut would do. Anything new?

Thanks a lot in advance and a happy day for all of you!!



mul-)


hugz-)
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stint7 wrote:
Michael stated:
...... They have engaged in various activities throughout this case that is either criminality or borders on it. Raffaele's father is 'connected' and I mean that in the Sicilian sense. Also, the ILE have heavily hinted that they suspect the Sollecito's for the break-in at the cottage and the planting of the knife at the crime scene. They illegally leaked data to Telenorba, they tried to use their contacts in government to have leading investigators removed and then, there is Kokomani's claim that agents representing the Sollecitos offered him a 100,000 euros to leave the country. These people are not adverse to taking risks or breaking the law.

SomeAlibi apparently demurs :
Allegedly, allegedly, allegedly :) . Let me introduce you to my inverted commas here Michael :D - "I don't believe that happened". *cough*
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry I do not have reference at hand, but I believe Raffie's sister, Ms (Lieutenant) Vanessa Sollecito was recently publicly whining about having been fired "because of her name".
In fact, she lost her (politically correct) managerial police position because her Father was publicly pulling political strings with Italian People of Power to get Raffie out of the jam.
Ms Vanessa's superiors agreed that was sufficient grounds for her dismissal.
Correct me if I am incorrect, but highly placed (token?) Females are rarely dismissed on (cough, cough) reverse comma "allegations"; particularly offspring of locally powerful people who make fluids defy gravity.

So, *cough,cough*, when a Father says in effect he has enough money to make water run uphill, and a Sister is terminated because of Father's actions....
please allow me to *unequivocally and emphatically* concur with Michael's "allegations".

Just my opinion politely proffered. Best Regards


Stint - who knows what happened. I think that ironic comments definitely don't translate terribly well on the internet but my spontaneous coughing fit *might* be considered to be the sign of someone who is also having a terrible hard time believing that there isn't smoke without fire here. Of course, if it were the case that hypothetically cough cough cough a family paid for an accused to be beaten up in jail, then what would that say about that family's view of their own son. Or daughter. Scuse me while I go and cough my lungs up.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi Yummi,
why has RG been handcuffed and put in the cage during the trial and the other two not?
Is RG believed to be more dangerous?
Am I correct that his sentence was reduced to 24 years minus the 1/3 reduction for the fast track trial option? Excuse me if these questions have already been answered but I am very busy now and had no time to read all the comments.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi opines
Quote:
Stint - who knows what happened. I think that ironic comments definitely don't translate terribly well on the internet but my spontaneous coughing fit *might* be considered to be the sign of someone who is also having a terrible hard time believing that there isn't smoke without fire here. Of course, if it were the case that hypothetically cough cough cough a family paid for an accused to be beaten up in jail, then what would that say about that family's view of their own son. Or daughter. Scuse me while I go and cough my lungs up.


^^^^^^^^
SomeAlibi, I like your style. Reading your posts is always refreshing.

You are correct that from certain facts, we draw conclusions.
Facts are inviolate, conclusions, often very vulnerable.

Your conclusion that the prison attack on Rudy was not Soleccito solicited, but customary convict custom for sexual offenders may be additionally supported by the fact that reports of the beating specifically mentioned that in addition to punches, several stout kicks to Rudy's genitalia were administered. ....( for reasons other than inmate soccer team practice?)
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
Guede was SENTENCED TO 24 YEARS.

this is in line with the 26, 25 years for the other two.

1/3 reduced BECAUSE OF FAST TRACK TRIAL = 16 years

Martin, this was posted by me at 11:45 approx, Chicago time, -6 Greenwich.


Last edited by piktor on Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
tigerfish wrote:
Somealibi wrote:

Think about the number of injuries on MK's body. Think about the positions that all four people were in throughout. I'm sorry but I think you are too nice a person to have thought through the harsh realities of the brutality that happened and what those doing it would have seen. Of course he saw the knives and the holding of the victim which then allowed him to be able to carry out that sexual assault. Meredith had done Karate and was a ballsy young lady from Croydon / Coulsdon who would have fought with all her life per her father. The only way they got her under control was through the production of knives and RG saw and participated in it all. Count to 30 out aloud and imagine everything that could happen in 30 seconds. You'll find it's a very long time. Then multiply that by several to many times. That's what Rudy Guede was part of that night. He's scum and a convicted sexual assailant and murderer. Lets call him for what he is.


Believe me I am trying to use my imagination. If I had a knife (or two) close to my face, prudent instincts of self-preservation would certainly inhibit my efforts to struggle. If I was outraged, being held against my will and being molested, I would have a lot of adrenaline in my blood, and that would diminish the pain from any injuries I might sustain. I know this just from personal experience of accidents and sport.
None of us know exactly how it happened. Most likely it was a chaotic scene. Now I am merely struggling to comprehend the court's thinking. This is my interpretation.



Guys I am going to take a break from posting for a while. I am just finding this so depressing and upsetting. Today I kept thinking about the poor Kerchers. They're so gentle. Such kind people. And yet all around them swirls this filth, and the knowledge (above) of what must have happened to their lovely daughter. How they retain their calm in these circumstances I have no idea. But I am sure that away from the camera there have been many dark, angry days for them. I can no longer bear to witness the disgusting circus surrounding this case from the Knox family. Seeing Edda this morning and reading the BBC story full of her lies was the last straw for me, and now the sentence reduction. Whilst I understand that it is 'fair', I still feel low about it, as I can only imagine what it must have felt like for Meredith's family to hear the news. I could weep for them. The emotional roller-coaster goes on and on. No closure. No end to it. Even when the thing is done (another year?) and final sentences pronounced we're going to have to put up with the Edda and Curt Show ad nauseam. It makes me sick that they can lie with impunity. It makes me sick that they are happy for Rudy to take the rap for this, that they think the forensics are good enough to convict him, but not to convict their daughter. The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy and prejudice.

Just lost faith today. I have no heart to read any more. Need fresh air for a while.

Rest in peace Meredith.


For you, Bard:

Guardian Angel by Rolf Jacobsen

I am the bird that flutters against your window in the morning,
and your closest friend, whom you can never know,
blossoms that light up for the blind.

I am the glacier shining over the woods, so pale,
and heavy voices from the cathedral tower.
The thought that suddenly hits you in the middle of the day
and makes you feel so fantastically happy.

I am the one you have loved for many years.
I walk beside you all day and look intently at you
and put my mouth against your heart
though you're not aware of it.

I am your third arm, and your second
shadow, the white one,
whom you cannot accept,
and who can never forget you.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

A question for clueless public voices:


Will today's light treatment of Guede on appeal satisfy Cantwell concerns about Knox verdict?

"The fact that Guede chose a fast track trial, but was able to have an appeal before a jury which lightened his sentence would suggest the Italian system is not quite the mockery portrayed by Cantwell. Of course, Knox's appeal must be judged on its own circumstances.

This reporter has learned from a trusted confidential source with personal information that the American Embassy was monitoring Knox's trial from day one, so one would think if there had been some overt maltreatment of Ms. Knox, that it would have been brought up with the Italian authorities much earlier, not after the fact."- examiner. com

http://www.examiner.com/x-32288-Spokane ... ox-verdict
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12 ... index.html

"Our lives have been on hold really. You can't really carry on as normal. You have to take each day as it comes. It's not ever going to be the same without Mez," she [Stephanie Kercher] said, using her sister's nickname.


cu-))
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
Ok, so what is the criteria for a case being dolosi/due to will? Let say, hypothetically, Guede helped Knox and Sollecito restrain Kercher, thereby facilitating the murder, but did not expect them to stab her while he did so. That would lessen his culpability along the dolosi continuum, but it would not shift it to the colposi category, correct? So, yes, what is the criteria for separating the two?


Yes the category of the 'colposi' crimes is separate, different code article numbers. Sorry, but, yes there is a criterium but this is just a legal topic and has no relation to the case, we would opena a different, long and unrelated frame of discussion. A doloso crime is anyway a crime having the quality of a willful braking of a sphere of rights. The crime of murder is a number in the chapter crimes against the persona (which is divided into different sub-chapters), if an action is a willfull attack against the rights protected by the code chapter - in this case any willful action expressing the will to go against the physical integrity a human person as subject in itself, or to some other basical human rights referred to the same chapter - in that case the resulting crime will fall into the code numbers which always define it in a wider sense as doloso. If I punch somebody in the face, without any will to kill, and the person dies as a consequence, the crime is quualified as omicidio preterintenzionale, which means 'beyond intention', but this belongs to the dolosi crimes because hitting a person is a willful attack to a person, and even if the resulting sentence can be lesser than a 'colposo' crime, the crime anyway can never fall into the category of the 'colposi' crimes because the nature is different.
That some prosecutor pursue sometimes lesser charges including colposi instead of dolosi, just to spend less time and win and go on more quickly with the work, this is a different matter.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:06 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Thanks Yummi.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I have been thinking about this.

I can understand that people think that 16 years is not very long for the crime committed. It is not a life for a life nor anything like it. But nothing can bring Meredith back. I have not seen any sign that her family are vengeful people: their loss is appalling, but I do not think they are under any delusion that revenge will change their situation; and I do not think it will make them feel better. We do not often see or hear about people who take that view: but they do exist. I am reminded of Gordon Wilson, a man who lost his daughter, Marie, to a terrorist attack in Enniskillen in 1987. It is not the same: loss in a conflict gives the option of working to resolve that conflict so that others will not suffer similarly: this death does not allow of that. But those who truly grieve and who do not seek vengeance seem to me to do better for themselves and their future than those who cannot do it. I do not criticise those who cannot do it: but I watched those who lost children to Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. I suppose it can be argued they were given a power to influence what happened when parole was considered, and perhaps it gave them some satisfaction: to me they were locked in to the horror and they did not seem to celebrate and love the lives they had lost: there seemed to be no movement; no resolution. Each time they were interviewed they were in the same place and I saw it as very, very sad indeed. I do not think it did them any good and, indeed, it looked like exploitation to me. We as a society validated their wish for vengeance: and in doing so we did not help them, though the intentions and the empathy were well intended

16 years sounds short when compared to 30: but it is not a short time. If we are thinking about what we want to achieve we need to think about other aspects of the role of imprisonment. What is it for? It is for punishment, certainly: and that is closely tied to revenge. In this country there is a sentence; and there is what is called a tariff. That is the minimum which must be served to satisfy those needs. Not just the personal need for revenge from those who knew and loved the victim; but also the rest of society which is also vengeful and also horrified and which must also have its due.

Thereafter there is a question of parole before the full sentence is served and that is determined on other grounds.

After punishment we must look to keeping people safe from the predators in our midst, if predators they be. Not everyone who murders is like that. Murder is not simple and those who commit murder are not all the same. Very few are serial killers; most kill someone they know and often in domestic circumstances. We are not very good at making the judgement about future propensity to kill: indeed assessing that while a person is in prison is probably a daft idea: it is too strange an environment to allow any certainty really. Yet most killers are eventually released. The gradual relaxation and time out of prison before release makes sense in those terms and it is my belief that the Italian approach (if I understand it properly) is quite pragmatic in this respect: not soft headed nor soft hearted: but recognising the truth of eventual release and trying to make that work for the whole society and for the prisoner

So the concept of public safety and of rehabilitation are tied together, just as punishment and vengeance are. And they are not at odds with what we owe the victim or her family.

We can argue about what the proper tariff should be: and perhaps you would set it higher than me or I would set it higher than you. It must reflect the seriousness of the crime and it must validate the loss. But not even death can undo that loss, or change it in any way at all. And that is a problem for us all: anger and frustration in face of those facts is natural: but we cannot change that. If we give way to those feelings then we can express it as we did in relation to the horrific crimes of Hindley and Brady: we can splash any familiy's grief all over the papers when parole is mooted, and pretend we are showing them care and solidarity. But what do we do for them between times? I did not see we did anything at all for those people.

For me, we must embrace the loss and live with it;we have no choice: and we must show that we care about what happened to Meredith and to her family in ways that are helpful to them. Beyond that, we must also recognise that however much revulsion we feel, Guede and Knox and Sollecito are people too. They are not murderers, though they have committed murder: or at least they are not certainly so. That will emerge over years. Perhaps they are irreparably broken people, who are in fact serial killers: but probably not. I think that for most there is hope.

And you will say there is no hope for Meredith and you will be right. But if we can change those who are alive then we should what we can to achieve that. We have here three young people who have not even begun to face what they have done. I think there is reason to believe that over the years, when the circus moves on and there is only them and their prison and their reality, they may be able to grasp what they have done; to feel the remorse we look for; and to change.

I think if that cannot be achieved in 16 years it cannot be done at all. Perhaps it cannot be done. But if it can then what are we really seeking in demanding that longer sentence? What will it do for Meredith and her family?

All of us want justice: what I have said here is my understanding of it, and yours may very well differ profoundly: but while I see why there is disappointment at the reduction in the sentence I do not share it, for these reasons
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:25 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
Understandable Bard. Just remember, Guede was sentenced to 24 years today. The 16 is a mechanical credit that is part of the Italian sentencing regime. It's hard to face the reality of that and we're still not sure what that means in years he will actually serve (Yummi?), but it's 24 years as a sentence which I can deal with a little more even if there's some very lenient credit against it.


The impossibility to predict exactly the real lenght of the penalty is maybe the biggest disadvantage, and advantage at the same time, of the Italian system. In addition to the fact that the 'lenght' of a sentence has a fuzzy edge because of the verious degrees of permits and semi-freedom benefits at a certain stage. For what we know, it is even possible Rudy spends *more* time in jail than the other two, although I think that Amanda will have a lot of problems because of her 'friends' and also because of her narcissistic personality.

The main point is that in fact in this system the time depends more on what the convict does *after* the crime rather than from the nature of the crime itself. And generally delivered sentences tend anyway to 'fit' the person they are targeted to, the criminal profile they are meant to address, rather than be proportional to the gravity of the crime. So there are people who actually did serve 30 years, without being guilty of killing anybody, and without having received any life sentence. There are people who are given 10 years and remain in prison ten years because they are still deemd dangerous troughout this time. Some people remain in jail because they don't pay damages to the victims or don't comply to prison's rules or requirements, like not having a stabile job and so on.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:37 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

From Il Messaggero-Perugia.

Via Meredith Kercher instead of Via della Pergola? The city is divided.

Here are the answers.

The debate is open for Via della Pergola to be name after Meredith Kercher, the young English girl killed the night of All Saints two years ago.

The debate is open, meanwhile the question has been put forward by Il Messaggero to some people who frequently attend the courtroom where the two trials took place and saw the defendants, whom the court then considered were the killers, they’re, Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede.

And the question was this: What do you think of the idea of registering Via della Pergola in the name of Meredith Kercher?

"One thing that I had not thought at all - says Mario Emilio Ansalone, an engineering student - honestly the naming of a street is always of someone who has done something, but, having said that, I think the city would not be thrilled that you remember forever such a painful act which happened within its walls."

Cores Vincenzina a teacher has a different view, which says, "I don’t see it as bad, because like this it could be to remember a girl who, as told by her parents, said was very fond of Perugia and that she was in love with the place where she could enjoy the beautiful landscape different from scenarios she was use to in England. But, I wouldn’t want this to condition the other sets of proceedings.”

Even Giulia Alagna, another teacher, sees it this way: "I had not thought of it, obviously, but I think it might be a good idea to remember, as should have been, for the poor girl who came with many hopes and instead there she lost her life. I also believe that Via della Pergola, in any case, it is now linked to her and the ugly event, so I imagine a broad consensus."

"It could be a kind of recognition for a victim and to honor her memory -- says Francesco Gamuzza, MD-- Via della Pergola, unfortunately, is still linked to her sad story, so the change of names for the place would be almost natural, but considering the discretion of the Perugia people, I believe that the hypothesis would not be very welcome because it would give emphasis to a tragic event that they would like to forget."

"It might be an idea to remember a girl who was tragically killed, and as the stories told by her parents seemed to very much loved Perugia and its surroundings -- concludes Antonio Ansalone an Army Reserve colonel-- I would see it, as well as the intention to remember the girl, also as a warning to students who’re attending and who will attend University for also to suggest a more in line and correct behavior.
By: Luigi Foglietti. Il Messaggero.
Renaming the road to Meredith Kercher
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:41 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fiona wrote:
They are not murderers, though they have committed murder..


Hi Fiona,

You've completely lost me with this comment. How would you define murderer?

I'm not sure you are fully aware of the details of what Knox, Sollecito and Guede did to Meredith. It's harrowing and sickening reading. Meredith's last hour was beyond hell on earth.

The punishment has to fit the crime. I believe that Knox and Sollecito should spend the rest of their lives in prison. Life in prison is nothing compared to what they did to Meredith. The Kerchers will live in their own private hell for the rest of their lives.

I seriously doubt whether there is any treatment for people like Knox and Sollecito. They have done their best to get away with Meredith's cruel and sadistic murder. It seems that they were excited and thrilled by what they did.

There is not the slightest flicker of remorse or regret. They are still lying through their teeth over two years later. They are monsters. They forfeited any right to parole or early release by what they did to Meredith on 1 November 2007.

Knox, Sollecito and Guede still have the gift of life behind bars. They can still socialise, read books, watch television, play games, eat, drink, exercise and speak to their families. They stole Meredith's life from her. There has to be a price to pay.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

RUDY GUEDE APPEAL :
http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSez ... girata.asp

While the sentence was being read Rudy Guede remained emotionless. He spoke to his lawyers and after a few minutes he was taken away by the penitentiary police. While he was walking out, he glanced at a group of his friends among the public, and answered a few questions by the press: Happy? " Not happy, I'm innocent" Guede said. His sentence has been reduced today from 30 years down to 16 by the Court of Appeal.

Wearing jeans, red sneakers, a white sweater and a black jacket, Rudy appeared serene and relaxed while he waited for the court entrance, the same unperturbed attitude he held throughout the trial. He also exchanged a few words with his friends from a distance, two girls and a few boys, who seemed clearly moved and hugged each other when the sentence was read. Some had tears in their eyes. Three older people were also rejoicing-two women and one man-who said they do not know Rudy personally. These people and a a few others were present today in the public area, whereas as usual, many jounalists were present. No relative of Guede was attending the trial, not even his father who works in Perugia as a mason.

The young Ivorian-who this morning had been placed for a few minutes in the cages reserved to convicted defendants, before arrival of his attorneys-heard the sentence next to his two attorneys Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile. Right after, he sat down and asked for a few clarifications. "He asked us what this sentence meant"-says Biscotti-"and we told him. But he was ready for it. He knew, as he had been told since the beginning of this trial that this sentence, whatever it would have been, wouldn't change things. We must continue to fight till Cassazione. He knows he had to deal with this."

"Technically"-Biscotti added- "he realizes that in this way he has been sentenced. But we do not disregard the fact that -for a matter of judicial arithmetics - the penalty has been cut in half." Guede's defense have stated that next Thursday on Christmas Eve, they will visit him in the Viterbo jail where he is detained.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fiona,

I think the ''numbers game'' is an illusion. More years in jail equals more justice?

Mignini asked for life imprisonment. How ''just'' is that sentence.

You cannot unring a bell, yet justice is asked for a death.

The courts oblige and give out a number.

How we understand life and how we understand death is at the core of the events that led to this trial. We are on this Earth for some years and will be dead for a much longer time. Meredith's time here was stupidly cut short by three reckless youngsters her age.

What we have witnessed in Perugia courts is Italian authority sorting out the debacle.

I have all confidence that Italian authorities and its society as a whole are doing their best to come to a fair closure for all. I do not think the final sentence for the accused will be just but it will be the closest semblance of justice the Italian state can deliver.

This is perhaps the only comfort Meredith's family can truthfully gain from the loss and the horror.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:55 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Latest from FRANK

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:05 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
What we have witnessed in Perugia courts is Italian authority sorting out the debacle.

I have all confidence that Italian authorities and its society as a whole are doing their best to come to a fair closure for all. I do not think the final sentence for the accused will be just but it will be the closest semblance of justice the Italian state can deliver.


Yes i think it is one of the sum up arguments. There is not much to say beyond this point. The fact is that legal 'justice' after all is the result of an automatism, it is quite like an industrial product. It is like that just because it cannot be different, it cannot be expected to be new or better in quality from something else. Resulting from concepts inspired to some principles or others - like the 'tariff' in the UK, the public expectance vengeance, security, Constitution, etc. - it is just a pre-designed management of this pre-chosen mechanisms and principles which are just the ones deemed functional to that society, its political history and simbolic belief. All those mechanisms and legal architectures have flaws and limits depending from the viewpoint, they require manutention and reforms being nothing more than a machine, a social asset. A state cannot 'solve' or 'deal' with the human experience and questions, as the murder of a girl like Meredith.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:14 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
What we have witnessed in Perugia courts is Italian authority sorting out the debacle.

I have all confidence that Italian authorities and its society as a whole are doing their best to come to a fair closure for all. I do not think the final sentence for the accused will be just but it will be the closest semblance of justice the Italian state can deliver.


Yes i think it is one of the sum up arguments. There is not much to say beyond this point. The fact is that legal 'justice' after all is the result of an automatism, it is quite like an industrial product. It is like that just because it cannot be different, it cannot be expected to be new or better in quality from something else. Resulting from concepts inspired to some principles or others - like the 'tariff' in the UK, the public expectance vengeance, security, Constitution, etc. - it is just a pre-designed management of this pre-chosen mechanisms and principles which are just the ones deemed functional to that society, its political history and simbolic belief. All those mechanisms and legal architectures have flaws and limits depending from the viewpoint, they require manutention and reforms being nothing more than a machine, a social asset. A state cannot 'solve' or 'deal' with the human experience and questions, as the murder of a girl like Meredith.

Resulting from concepts inspired to some principles or others - like the 'tariff' in the UK, the public expectance vengeance, security, Constitution, etc. - it is just a pre-designed management of this pre-chosen mechanisms and principles which are just the ones deemed functional to that society, its political history and simbolic belief.

It sounds awful and cold but ''justice'' is nothing more than an exercise in management of the abuse people cause to the state and on one another.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:27 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Ok, so what is the criteria for a case being dolosi/due to will? Let say, hypothetically, Guede helped Knox and Sollecito restrain Kercher, thereby facilitating the murder, but did not expect them to stab her while he did so. That would lessen his culpability along the dolosi continuum, but it would not shift it to the colposi category, correct? So, yes, what is the criteria for separating the two?


Yes the category of the 'colposi' crimes is separate, different code article numbers. Sorry, but, yes there is a criterium but this is just a legal topic and has no relation to the case, we would opena a different, long and unrelated frame of discussion. A doloso crime is anyway a crime having the quality of a willful braking of a sphere of rights. The crime of murder is a number in the chapter crimes against the persona (which is divided into different sub-chapters), if an action is a willfull attack against the rights protected by the code chapter - in this case any willful action expressing the will to go against the physical integrity a human person as subject in itself, or to some other basical human rights referred to the same chapter - in that case the resulting crime will fall into the code numbers which always define it in a wider sense as doloso. If I punch somebody in the face, without any will to kill, and the person dies as a consequence, the crime is quualified as omicidio preterintenzionale, which means 'beyond intention', but this belongs to the dolosi crimes because hitting a person is a willful attack to a person, and even if the resulting sentence can be lesser than a 'colposo' crime, the crime anyway can never fall into the category of the 'colposi' crimes because the nature is different.
That some prosecutor pursue sometimes lesser charges including colposi instead of dolosi, just to spend less time and win and go on more quickly with the work, this is a different matter.


It seems to me, then, that the in Anglo-Saxon legal terms, the line between colposi and dolosi, in terms of somebody's death, goes somewhere between constructive and negligent manslaughter.

The reason I am interested is because I am trying to get a grip of what the defendants' prospects are in different scenarios and from there make an assessment of their likelihood to tell the truth, given different culpability scenarios.

Let us assume that the only incentive to tell the truth is to minimize expected prison time. That is, they will only confess (assuming they are guilty) if the expected prison time of telling the truth is less than the expected prison time of shutting it. If one maintains one's innocence there is some probability of being acquitted (in the defendant's calculus), some probability of being convicted of voluntary murder of low culpability and some probability of being convicted of voluntary murder of high culpability (to simplify). If they tell the truth and confess (assuming they are guilty), the probability of being acquitted goes down to zero. So the only reason that they would do so, is if they are guilty of a voluntary murder of low culpability and consider the risk and consequence of being convicted for a crime of higher culpability too high. The probabilities they assign to the outcomes is speculative but the consequences are not.

In your estimation, if let say Guede is less culpable than Knox and Sollecito, has he anything to gain, given the Italian penal code and legal practice, to tell the truth? Is he more likely to reduce his own prison time? When time comes for all three for final appeal in the supreme court, what type of scenario would compel anyone to speak? Sorry, I feel like I am rambling here but I know I am getting at something :D

I need to get some sleep, I feel like I am not very concise here. In short, in a simple scenario, let say you have one individual guilty of manslaughter and two individuals guilty of murder. The first individual would only tell the truth if he belived the risk and consequence of being convicted for murder outweighs the chance and benefit of being acquitted. I am trying to get a grip of what such a scenario would look like in this case, given the Italian penal code.


Last edited by PointBlank on Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Now I'm having fun!

I have built a virtual (CAD) tour of the crime scene, but the length of the tour was 20 seconds for the entire house (way too fast), so that's still a work in progress. In the mean time, I imported the file into 3D Max software, and added a character.

This would be Amanda's first story ... standing in the kitchen with her fingers in her ears. I don't think I'll do a complete re-enactment with three characters as I don't think that has a place anywhere except in the courtroom, but I will add the characters to the scene when I have more time.



Here is a view to Meredith's room on the left, small bathroom on the right.



View into French doors off deck ... Amanda's room left, Meredith's room right



If anyone wants to add any of these pictures to the gallery, that's fine with me. I'm not able to upload, for some reason. If not, that's fine too.


Last edited by Jester on Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:42 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Couple of floor plans



Top Profile 

Offline Del


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:27 pm

Posts: 21

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:49 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

16 years is a joke. He's already served 2 years so he will be paroled when he is 30ish? Ridiculous! I guess sexual assault is equivalent to false accusation and only worth an extra year of jail time after the 25 year base was set by AK and RS trial. If Rudy came clean and told what really happened that night it would be easier to stomach this reduction but seriously, how do you rehabilitate when you don't admit what you've done? Won't Guede still be a threat in ten years? I don't believe Guede just happened to be at Meredith's house, why would he go if his friends weren't around? He was involved with the plotting as much as anyone.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:56 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

BBC Radio5 interview with Edda Mellas:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

(will be available for six more days)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
Fiona wrote:
They are not murderers, though they have committed murder..


Hi Fiona,

You've completely lost me with this comment. How would you define murderer?


Hello, The Machine

I suppose it is idiosyncratic but I did think I had tried to make my thought clear in my post. It is the same sort of thought as Gore Vidal's when he said "there are no homosexual people; there are only homosexual acts". But that needs unpacking too, because it is true and not true in different ways. What I was trying to get at was that there are (in my opinion, just) people for whom murder is an essential part of their being. These are the serial killers who seem to be driven from within and who will kill again and again because for whatever reason that is the way they are made. Not everyone who commits murder is like that: there is a spectrum almost, and some are easier to understand than others. I do not honestly know if it will turn out that any or all of these people are murderers in the sense I am using the word: but it is rare and I doubt that all three of them can be like that. They have all committed murder, however. Not sure if that is any clearer?

Quote:
I'm not sure you are fully aware of the details of what Knox, Sollecito and Guede did to Meredith. It's harrowing and sickening reading. Meredith's last hour was beyond hell on earth.


I probably do not know it as well as you do: but that it was hell and beyond is not in doubt

Quote:
The punishment has to fit the crime.


I am not sure what you mean by that: I do not really see how the punishment can fit the crime. So now it is my turn to be lost

Quote:
I believe that Knox and Sollecito should spend the rest of their lives in prison.


Many would agree with you: no doubt about that. I am not one of them: though if any or all of them turn out to be murderers in the sense I outlined above then I think you are right, because in that case they will pose a permanent danger. Or at least I am not confident that kind of broken can be fixed.

May I ask if you believe that should apply to everyone who kills; or to everyone who kills in particularly horrific ways? Do you believe that Mary Bell should never have been released? (I am not sure if you are familiar with that case but she killed two very young children when she was 10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bell)

Quote:
Life in prison is nothing compared to what they did to Meredith.


That is true. But again it is not obviously relevant to me, for the reasons I have given. I am not sure why it is relevant in yours. There are a couple of possible positions I can think of. Some may really want an eye for an eye and then they would feel that prison is not an adequate response: but rather that all three should be executed with or without prior torture; others would take the view that we should not, as a society, behave as they have behaved, but we should nonetheless exclude them wholly from society forever, in harsh or comfortable conditions. Still others would say that they should spend a long time in prison, but not their whole lives, and that the whole time they are there it should be as punishment, and there should be no other purpose. Or perhaps you have another view altogether. I do not know.

Quote:
The Kerchers will live in their own private hell for the rest of their lives.


I hope you are wrong. They will never forget Meredith and the manner of her death will always be there: there is no doubt that it has changed their lives forever and their pain will be with them. But I honestly hope and believe it can fade at least a little, for human beings are resilient. And this is what I would wish for them. It may be you think this is unrealistic, or even callous: I can only say that even if you are right there are still circles of hell; and I trust these people will find a way to make sure it is not the deepest one. They seem to me to be very impressive through all of this, and they have reserves of strength and dignity which will help them in the future. I do not think they will bury themselves in this grief for all of their lives to the exclusion of all else: I hope they will not.

Quote:
I seriously doubt whether there is any treatment for people like Knox and Sollecito. They have done their best to get away with Meredith's cruel and sadistic murder. It seems that they were excited and thrilled by what they did.


Well you may be right. They have tried to get away with a sadistic murder, that is true. I do not know if they were thrilled and excited by it though there is some evidence that they may have been: or oblivious of what they have done at the very least. But I do not know them. I cannot know what can be achieved over the years ahead. I think there are no grounds yet for abandoning all hope. I notice you have not included Guede in this part of your post. Do you see him differently in some way? or is the omission an oversight?

Quote:
There is not the slightest flicker of remorse or regret. They are still lying through their teeth over two years later.


They have shown no remorse: they cannot. They are caught up in a web of lies, and in their different ways they are trapped, so far as I can tell. The ways they are trapped have been discussed: from what they have been taught to expect as privileged people and morally; to the pressure of money and fame; to the denial and promises of their families: many things which have been discussed here are still in play and will be until all the appeals are over. And then they will be alone with what they have done. They may never face it. But if they ever do it will not be while all this hoopla is going on. That is my view anyway

Quote:
They are monsters.


Perhaps they are monsters. I do not know

Quote:
They forfeited any right to parole or early release by what they did to Meredith on 1 November 2007.


There is no "right" to parole or early release: it has to be earned. The Italian justice system, which seems to me to have done a great job so far, will also deal with that issue: as it should

You are angry on behalf of Meredith and her family and that is very much to your credit, The Machine. I cannot fault you for that. I do ask you to think about what that anger will do for them in the long run. It has fuelled your campaign here and you have done great work. It is evident on this board, and I cannot overemphasise how much I appreciate all that you and the others have done. But do not rely on "Anger's Freeing Power" as a long term strategy for dealing with grief: it is very useful in the short term; but it does not live side by side with peace. And this grief is not yours: Meredith's family must make their own path. As I said, I am not sure that this approach did others in similar situations any good. I might be wrong but that is what I seem to have seen

Quote:
Knox, Sollecito and Guede still have the gift of life behind bars. They can still socialise, read books, watch television, play games, eat, drink, exercise and speak to their families. They stole Meredith's life from her. There has to be a price to pay.


And there is a price to pay. We disagree about how high that price should be and there is nothing wrong with that

But there is this, The Machine. Whatever your feelings about this, they will be released at some point. If we are not to look to that future; if we are not to at least try to change them or help them to change;if we make pariahs of them until that day; then what are we going to release when the time comes?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:00 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I’m just trying to keep these numbers straight in my mind. Amanda and Raffaele got 24 yrs each. Not counting the extra 1 yr for staging and 1 yr more for slander. So Rudy being convicted of the same crime gets 24 yrs also , and then with the 1/3 in reduction for abbreviated trial gets 16 yrs. Seems fair comparing apples to apples. So hypothetically, whatever discounts Amanda & Raffaele get in their bid in the appeals court, then Rudy could also qualify for further reduction in his second appeal . In order to keep the ratio of 3 to 2. Just looking ahead.

You do nice work Jester.

Happy holidays all!
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:09 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
I was expecting Guede's sentence to be reduced on a parity to that of Knox and Sollecito.
The Knox/Mellas and Sollecito camp will be pleased about this - they will probably think that their precious siblings should be at least afforded the same type of reduction if not aquittal.
I myself think it is a double edged sword as it could indicate a judgement of lesser involvement of Guede, but we'll have to wait for the motivations behind the judgement.


Yes, I agree.. i think the knox/mellas and FOA camp will have a field day with this.. the person who has all of the DNA evidence at the scene only got 16 years, yet Knox got 26! hardly fair!

In my research on italian law yesterday, specifically article 110 which is interpreted variously as "criminal participation" (rather then complicity; "concorso"), I've seen comments that italian law doesn't really define/ has a broad interpretation of "participation.". According to the articles following 110, those who 'participate' in a crime are subject to the same penalties. There is no provision under italian penal code for our categories "accomplice to", as is found in the derivations of english law. ("Under Italian law, Article 110 of the Penal Code effectively considers all participants in an offence, regardless of the degree of involvement, as principals, subject to certain exceptions for aggravating or mitigating circumstances. ")

I'm curious then if the jury didn't believe the Prosecution's theory of sex gone wrong, then I think they could conceivably still give the full penalty for muder since they believe there was "participation" in the act. Even if Knox was outside the bedroom, instead of holding the knife (as is the Prosecution's theory), she (and sollecito) still in the eyes of the jury was shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have "participated", and thus subject to the full penalty for muder.

I think this is why the firm reliance from FOA et. al. about attacking the DNA evidence in an american PR campaign. Under american law there are different distinctions between those who actually commit the crime and those who are accomplice to the crime. It plays well to an american audience that "knox wasn't in the room" with the common american distinction between those who assist in a crime and those who commit the actual act.

But I think they've realized under italian penal code it is highly unlikely that any appeal process will ever believe that there wasn't "participation" in the crime, given the evidence interpreted as signs of a clean-up and a staged break-in. Therefore, I think the chances for an appeal releasing Knox and Sollecito are slim, however the sentences may be significantly reduced.

Part of my conclusion is from reading the decision in Guede's case from earlier this year. The judge actually spends very little on the DNA on the knife, and instead goes into all the reasons why Knox and Sollecito were considered as "participants" in the crime.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:13 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Del wrote:
16 years is a joke. He's already served 2 years so he will be paroled when he is 30ish? Ridiculous! I guess sexual assault is equivalent to false accusation and only worth an extra year of jail time after the 25 year base was set by AK and RS trial. If Rudy came clean and told what really happened that night it would be easier to stomach this reduction but seriously, how do you rehabilitate when you don't admit what you've done? Won't Guede still be a threat in ten years? I don't believe Guede just happened to be at Meredith's house, why would he go if his friends weren't around? He was involved with the plotting as much as anyone.


I would say...it's not up to 'us' to decide whether it is just or not, although I'm not saying we shouldn't have an opinion. Ultimately, the only ones who can decide that are the courts and the victims. What is most important to 'me' is that the Kerchers are satisfied that when all is said and done, Meredith and they have received justice. It's not only right that be the case, but it's the only way it 'can' be. We are all well schooled in this case, everyone here is intelligent and most of us have thought very hard about what we each consider to be just. But there will be no consensus on that among us here. Some will think it unduly lenient, others about right, others undecided and there may even be one or two that think it too harsh. That's because our view of what is just, no matter how informed and intelligent we may or may not be, can only ever be subjective and therefore arbitrary. As such, there is no absolute. The barometer of that is and can only ever be, the Kerchers. Do they feel they can finally bury their daughter (beyond the physical) and move on to the proper grieving process? If so, then that's the best justice we can hope for. But only they can be the judge of that.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:18 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fiona writes:

They have shown no remorse: they cannot. They are caught up in a web of lies, and in their different ways they are trapped, so far as I can tell. The ways they are trapped have been discussed: from what they have been taught to expect as privileged people and morally; to the pressure of money and fame; to the denial and promises of their families: many things which have been discussed here are still in play and will be until all the appeals are over. And then they will be alone with what they have done. They may never face it. But if they ever do it will not be while all this hoopla is going on. That is my view anyway


Listen to Edda Mellas interview on Dec. 22 to BBC radio:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

Mella's blithe disregard for the investigation and passing remarks on Meredith's family is interesting to hear.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:22 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:

Well, just to put it into perspective...whenever you see the media interviewing Curt Knox you don't ever hear the presenter saying 'now let's hear from Amanda's jobless father Curt Knox' or similar introductions in the printed media ;)


Even if he were identified as an unemployed drifter from the US that is lying to the public to squeeze travel money out of anyone that will listen to his sad story, someone will claim he's nothing more than a casualty of the economy. One does have to wonder how he managed to get himself canned when he needs a job now more than anything ... unless he prematurely jumped the gun and was counting on all that interview and book tour money.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:23 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
Michael wrote:
Hmmm, it looks like Rudy 'was' kept in the cage:



I have always seen murderers caged in Italian appeal trials. Now I expect to see Knox and Sollecito in a similar cage too when their times come.


Cuffed and caged, per protocol. I can already hear the media complaints when that happens!
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:23 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
BBC Radio5 interview with Edda Mellas:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

(will be available for six more days)


Very interesting. the longer Edda Mellas speaks the loonier she sounds. The interviewer told EM the phone calls and e-mails received during the interview were overwhelmingly negative about allowing the Mother of the murder so much air time. EM assured the interviewer the sites set up by people insupport of the Family were only receiving positive replies. Duh!
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:28 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, just to put it into perspective...whenever you see the media interviewing Curt Knox you don't ever hear the presenter saying 'now let's here from Amanda's jobless father Curt Knox' or similar introductions in the printed media ;)


Hi Michael,

The media generally neglect to mention that Edda Mellas took Curt Knox on a number of occasions to collect child support or Amanda Knox was fined $269 (£135) at the Municipal Court after hosting a party that got seriously out of hand - Crime No: 071830624.


That party is now completely downplayed as some school girl misstep. I've had parties, but I've never had the police show up. I did have the firemen show up once, but that's because we put the Christmas tree in the firepit and it created a fireball ... guess someone thought the house was burning down. For the police to show up a party in issue a fine, it has to be very serious.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
The sentence was reduced to 16 years as general mitigating circumstances were granted. I wonder if this means that Knox and Sollecito will benefit from a similar reduction. I really hope not.


Seriously? That's not right.

It looks like the media pressure is influencing decisions. Will Knox and Sollicito have their sentences reduced to less?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
piktor wrote:
BBC Radio5 interview with Edda Mellas:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

(will be available for six more days)


Very interesting. the longer Edda Mellas speaks the loonier she sounds. The interviewer told EM the phone calls and e-mails received during the interview were overwhelmingly negative about allowing the Mother of the murder so much air time. EM assured the interviewer the sites set up by people insupport of the Family were only receiving positive replies. Duh!


That's because only those who are sympathetic to Knox are 'allowed' to reply to those sites. If you doubt me, just 'try' posting in the kitchen for example (which is now closed to comments most of the time anyway, since Candace is terrified someone may post a fact or two while she's not around). Having said that, she can only be referring to the Smog, since the only other permanent site where people can post that is recognised as being sympathetic to Knox is Frank's . And the comments on Frank's can hardly be described as primarily sympathetic to Knox. That's 'no-man's land'. So 'what' sites is Edda talking about? That leaves private contact via the FOA sites. Well, since it's private Edda can say what she likes, since we can never know can we?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester -

Nicely done on the virtual reality. I'll see what I can do about getting them loaded up to the albums (I suspect you've had issues because they're too large...there's a size limit on pics).

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:39 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
piktor wrote:
BBC Radio5 interview with Edda Mellas:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

(will be available for six more days)


Very interesting. the longer Edda Mellas speaks the loonier she sounds. The interviewer told EM the phone calls and e-mails received during the interview were overwhelmingly negative about allowing the Mother of the murder so much air time. EM assured the interviewer the sites set up by people insupport of the Family were only receiving positive replies. Duh!

Edda Mellas' position is simple: deny, deny, deny and all will be fine. In this, Amanda mirrors her mother faithfully.

When it gets really creepy is when the interviewer at the end asks about the Kercher family. Her replies left me cold.


Last edited by piktor on Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:41 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
No, it didn't. In his first degree, Rudy got his sentence reduced from life to 30 because he was acquitted of the theft charge. He wasn't given his fast track discount. Hence why he's getting it now...or at least most of it, 8 years instead of 10.


No Michael, you are mistaking, and Max point was correct. The 30 years included the fast track reduction, but the thecnicality says it is 1/3 of the term only if the mandatory time is below 30. If the mandatory is life or life+solitary confinment, all calculations for the reduction are changing. This is a big problem in the consistency of the system, as I already mentioned, due to the two codes being out-of-phase.
The reaon for the current rduction is the 'generic mitigation', which pulls the sentence below 30 and thus produces the effect of a huge disount, given that 1/3 of 24 is a big chunk. Micheli refused the mitigation in order to avoid this too big reduction considering he was a repentless lier. But the appeal judges is another story.

So we don't really know the discount for mitigation then? Maybe the judges will explain. When can we expect a report?
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:59 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:

No, it's 30 - 10 - 4 = 16

10 = fast track

4 = mitigation (and possibly dropping of the 'aggravated' aspect of the murder)

He may have seen a greater reduction, were it not for the sexual element.


Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense within the parameters of the law.
And I'm assuming that this will not happen with Knox and Sollicito, as they either do not have, or have already had, the same considerations.
Top Profile 

Offline Reader31


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:05 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:03 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

In this latest interview with the BBC, Edda Mellas is quoted as blaming the Kercher family for putting Amanda in jail: "putting a girl in jail for a crime she didn't commit is not going to make them feel better."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8426201.stm

I haven't been able to listen to the radio version yet (don't have 'phones & in a public place). But I'm assuming that in the radio interview the subject of the "putting a girl in jail" is the Kercher family, as it reads here.

If so, Mellas has just assigned responsibility for her daughter's incarceration to the family of the victim.

I am not a mental health expert. But doesn't this sound like paranoia? First it was the Italian people who imprisoned her daughter, basically because "they don't like Americans." (the Italian Sollecito was completely overlooked).

And now it's the victim's family who has imprisoned her daughter.

Am I missing something? Is this woman seriously unhinged? Put responsibility any where except where it belongs.... I know there have been discussions about Edda Mellas here before (and I've read them). I guess I'm interested in how people are responding to this; what people are thinking with this clear assignment of blame to the Kerchers; and whether anyone in the Knox/ Mellas PR campaign knows the damage that Edda Mellas is doing to her daughter's cause. is she heavily medicated in order to cope, as I've seen some speculate? Or is she getting wilder by the day? There's a note of hysteria in these statements. Yet she seems to believe what she's saying.

Sorry if this is too subjective a response. I'm mostly speechless. This is a new "low," which I had not imagined possible. The narcissism in this is beyond expression; unless it's supposed to be some sort of publicity stunt, to continue to hook the public into some sort of response. (On the theory that even bad publicity is good publicity). Surely the PR firm has to regard her as a loose cannon by now, though, and doing far more damage than good?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dittany1


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:29 am

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:06 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi Fiona, would you be happy to have Guede, Knox or Sollecito as your neighbours when they get out? Would you be happy for them to babysit your children or date one of your family?

I used to have rather similar sanctimonious views to you about the Moors murderers, until I read a transcript of the tape recording they had made of them murdering a little girl. If the families of the victims of Brady and Hindley stayed angry forever (and remember part of that anger was because of Hindley's repeated attempts to be set free by the authorities) that was because they were put in hell by the evil pair, not because some particular moral failing of theirs. Lesley Ann Downey's mother, Ann West, certainly kept her daughters memory alive whilst sanctimonious fools like Lord Longford were pressing for Hindley's release. It's arrogant in the extreme to think you can dictate how someone should respond emotionally to that kind of horror. Unless you've been there, you just don't know what you'd do.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:08 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Family prepares to spend Christmas without Amanda Knox

KING5

(My only question is...is there any chance 'we' can spend Christmas without the Knox family? Why don't the media just give them their own column and have done with?!)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

dittany1 wrote:
Hi Fiona, would you be happy to have Guede, Knox or Sollecito as your neighbours when they get out? Would you be happy for them to babysit your children or date one of your family?

I used to have rather similar sanctimonious views to you about the Moors murderers, until I read a transcript of the tape recording they had made of them murdering a little girl. If the families of the victims of Brady and Hindley stayed angry forever (and remember part of that anger was because of Hindley's repeated attempts to be set free by the authorities) that was because they were put in hell by the evil pair, not because some particular moral failing of theirs. Lesley Ann Downey's mother, Ann West, certainly kept her daughters memory alive whilst sanctimonious fools like Lord Longford were pressing for Hindley's release. It's arrogant in the extreme to think you can dictate how someone should respond emotionally to that kind of horror. Unless you've been there, you just don't know what you'd do.


Sorry dittany1. I don't accept that characterisation of my position. If that is how you read it then I have not expressed my thought well but since I have now had two goes I will leave it there :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:17 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
Edda Mellas' position is simple: deny, deny, deny and all will be fine. In this, Amanda mirrors her mother faithfully.

When it gets really creepy is when the interviewer at the end asks about the Kercher family. Her replies left me cold.


Edda Mellas completely ignored what the interviewer was telling her. OVERWHELMINGLY the public believes the verdict was correct.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:19 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

dittany1 wrote:
Hi Fiona, would you be happy to have Guede, Knox or Sollecito as your neighbours when they get out? Would you be happy for them to babysit your children or date one of your family?

I used to have rather similar sanctimonious views to you about the Moors murderers, until I read a transcript of the tape recording they had made of them murdering a little girl. If the families of the victims of Brady and Hindley stayed angry forever (and remember part of that anger was because of Hindley's repeated attempts to be set free by the authorities) that was because they were put in hell by the evil pair, not because some particular moral failing of theirs. Lesley Ann Downey's mother, Ann West, certainly kept her daughters memory alive whilst sanctimonious fools like Lord Longford were pressing for Hindley's release. It's arrogant in the extreme to think you can dictate how someone should respond emotionally to that kind of horror. Unless you've been there, you just don't know what you'd do.


I don't think Fiona is being sanctimonious. I can sympathise with her viewpoint. I go back to my post a little earlier where I make the point that on this board there can never be a consensus about exactly what sentence is 'just'. It's subjective and arbitrary and that makes no perspective inherently right or wrong. Do the Kerchers feel they have got justice? That's the only important question.

In the case of the Moors Murders, it is different. Many of the victims families never got their childrens' bodies back so they couldn't begin to grieve, even with the convictions of those responsible.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
Listen to Edda Mellas interview on Dec. 22 to BBC radio:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

Mella's blithe disregard for the investigation and passing remarks on Meredith's family is interesting to hear.


No surprise here.
Mellas is totally delusional and living in total denial.
She also lied through her teeth, I must have missed all the 'lovely' things about Amanda Knox that people testified in court.
Perhaps she was referring to Madison Paxton or Amanda's auntie or someone.

I thought it quite telling regarding what Mellas thinks of the Kerchers when asked by the interviewer - "I don't want to judge people" Mellas says.
She obviously looks down on the Kercher family with disdain because they too believe her perfect daughter is guilty of their daughters murder and they don't buy into the PR spin or defence argument - they believe the prosecution - "What did they tell them?"
A thoroughly odious woman.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:33 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Reader31 wrote:
In this latest interview with the BBC, Edda Mellas is quoted as blaming the Kercher family for putting Amanda in jail: "putting a girl in jail for a crime she didn't commit is not going to make them feel better."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8426201.stm

I haven't been able to listen to the radio version yet (don't have 'phones & in a public place). But I'm assuming that in the radio interview the subject of the "putting a girl in jail" is the Kercher family, as it reads here.

If so, Mellas has just assigned responsibility for her daughter's incarceration to the family of the victim.

I am not a mental health expert. But doesn't this sound like paranoia? First it was the Italian people who imprisoned her daughter, basically because "they don't like Americans." (the Italian Sollecito was completely overlooked).

And now it's the victim's family who has imprisoned her daughter.

Am I missing something? Is this woman seriously unhinged? Put responsibility any where except where it belongs.... I know there have been discussions about Edda Mellas here before (and I've read them). I guess I'm interested in how people are responding to this; what people are thinking with this clear assignment of blame to the Kerchers; and whether anyone in the Knox/ Mellas PR campaign knows the damage that Edda Mellas is doing to her daughter's cause. is she heavily medicated in order to cope, as I've seen some speculate? Or is she getting wilder by the day? There's a note of hysteria in these statements. Yet she seems to believe what she's saying.

Sorry if this is too subjective a response. I'm mostly speechless. This is a new "low," which I had not imagined possible. The narcissism in this is beyond expression; unless it's supposed to be some sort of publicity stunt, to continue to hook the public into some sort of response. (On the theory that even bad publicity is good publicity). Surely the PR firm has to regard her as a loose cannon by now, though, and doing far more damage than good?


Quote:
I am not a mental health expert.


I'm not either. But, I am a professional, certified NUT. Edda Mellas belongs in the club, IMO.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:12 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tigerfish wrote:
As for why he doesn't come clean about this - perhaps he simply took a gamble and hoped the court would believe him an absolute innocent. After all he has made an abundance of certifiably bad decisions - this would be just another one.


I wonder if his final appeal trial could result in an increased sentence because he has not stated the truth about the night of the murder. Is that possible?
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:32 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I thought I could hear a hint of desperation sprinkled with a touch of fear in Edda's voice. Rudy has been found guilty again he has a simple choice to make now does he keep his mouth shut and hope that third time is lucky or does he think about how long he will serve before any parole.

Having rolled the dice twice and lost I would be thinking, Telling the truth may increase my chances of an early parole, after all he can't be retried or have his sentence increased but he can get out sooner than 2025. By fully cooperating with the prosecution in Amanda and Raff's appeal.

If I was Amanda or Raff I would now be very afraid of what Rudy will do next. Rudy hasn't had anything near the news coverage of his co accused and could possibly slink off into obscurity following his release unlike Amanda and Raff. I cannot imagine what Meredith's family would feel but personally I would feel better for knowing the truth and that at least two of the three people responsible for the murder would be doing their full sentence.

I can't believe how Meredith's family have managed to rise above the utter bullshit pumped out by the Knox/Mellas cabal, I wish I had on ounce of their humanity. Having to hear this crap day in and day out knowing that it is all in an effort to subvert justice and to let my child's killers go free must be a herculean task. I really hope that Rudy plays he smart money, tells what he knows and exposes the cabal for what they are. I bet that if he does start talking Edda and Curt will be a lot less keen on giving interviews.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:10 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

Think about the number of injuries on MK's body. Think about the positions that all four people were in throughout. I'm sorry but I think you are too nice a person to have thought through the harsh realities of the brutality that happened and what those doing it would have seen. Of course he saw the knives and the holding of the victim which then allowed him to be able to carry out that sexual assault. Meredith had done Karate and was a ballsy young lady from Croydon / Coulsdon who would have fought with all her life per her father. The only way they got her under control was through the production of knives and RG saw and participated in it all. Count to 30 out aloud and imagine everything that could happen in 30 seconds. You'll find it's a very long time. Then multiply that by several to many times. That's what Rudy Guede was part of that night. He's scum and a convicted sexual assailant and murderer. Lets call him for what he is.


Here here ... well said.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:16 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:

Oh, okay. So the 1/3 is always applied to the end total and the mitigation is always deducted from the prior total before the the 1/3 is applied and only comes into play for a sentence below 30 years. That's simple...but as you say, the rest is rather complicated. So, simply, Micheli was activating a mechanism in order to counter another mechanism that would have given Rudy an unduly, in his view, lenient sentence.

Therefore, the circumstance that must have forced the appeal judges to counter Micheli's mechanism must have been the fact that Raffaele and Amanda were afforded such generous mitigation (25 and 26 years as opposed to life). They could not then justly deny Rudy mitigation thereby forcing the sentence below thirty years and by default, activating the 1/3 reduction mechanism. Therefore, Guede's fast track gamble only paid off because of Raffaele and Amanda getting such a good deal in their trial and would have failed had they been given a sentence above thirty years, for then Guede's final sentence of 30 years would have been in line with theirs!


That's interesting. So Rudy banked on the fact that his co-defendants were a rich Bari coast son of a doctor (only a doctor, according to unemployed Curt Knox), and an American floozy. Good call on his part. Now, is he going to act indignant until the final appeal, acting as though the reduction means the courts will continue to reduce the sentence?
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:26 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:

But the questionis a bit too long to answer for a discusion forum. I can address maybe a few coordinates. In the Italian penal code every crime is indicated by a code number - a bit like a dialling list - and a fact is a crime only if it has a provision in the list. Those numbers are part of an order. There is a general division betwen two kind of crimes: colposi - 'due to guilt' - and dolosi - 'due to will'. The charge of voluntary murder and manslaughter thus are two kind of offences which fall in two different sets. The charge of voluntary murder can have several degrees of culpability but those are given by a balance of 'circumstances' (mitigation and agravation) and the gravity of culpability itself falls on a continuum, it is not divided in gaps. An assessmnt on 'degree' of culpability cannot turn a voluntary murder in a manslaughter, even if the sentence might be in fact lower. It is the kind of culpability that is different. On the other hand a judge might even decide to change the charge - like in case of road accident decide that it is a manslaughter instead of a voluntary murder - but only in those cases where there is a provision for this: the 'criminal will' (dolo) can be specific, generic, or eventual. The alleged 'eventual' for example can be subject to separate assessment, but a specific dolo as it is connaturated in some charges and circumstances cannot be cancelled.


So even if Rudy didn't hold the knife, or give then final stab, is he culpable for voluntary murder because he falls in the "due to will", and not "eventual", or unavoidable (like car accident), category; in the sense that he could anticipate the eventual outcome of his situation?
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:47 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
anne wrote:
Hallo!

Its my birthday today (a quarter of a century pure me - yay! ;))
so i havn't really got the time to read through the posts of the last days. Just wanna ask what happened today in court - a shortcut would do. Anything new?

Thanks a lot in advance and a happy day for all of you!!

mul-)
hugz-)


In the midst of the RG appeal decision a lot of us have overlooked your birthday, I think. I will add a few extra party balloons for you. da-))


mul-) band-) mul-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:01 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
That party is now completely downplayed as some school girl misstep. I've had parties, but I've never had the police show up. I did have the firemen show up once, but that's because we put the Christmas tree in the firepit and it created a fireball ... guess someone thought the house was burning down. For the police to show up a party in issue a fine, it has to be very serious.


When I mentioned the party ticket at the JREF early on in the "guilty for doing cartwheels" thread, the original poster had never heard of it (JREF-speak for "I don't believe you until you cite it and even then I'll ignore it"). I, too, have hosted "wild parties" in my youth, including one where the four of us renting a house used to host actual bands with PA systems and everything, in part to charge admission and help pay the rent. Even then, police visits were relatively rare, and never were we issued a citation.

For a citation to be issued, you'd have to have something pretty brazen going on (ie more than loud noise after 11 pm). I believe it was Tara, here, who tried to find the original report but that the authorities said it was unavailable for some reason. Given Curt's political connections, I can just imagine why it was unavailable.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:05 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
piktor wrote:
Listen to Edda Mellas interview on Dec. 22 to BBC radio:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

Mella's blithe disregard for the investigation and passing remarks on Meredith's family is interesting to hear.


No surprise here.
Mellas is totally delusional and living in total denial.
She also lied through her teeth, I must have missed all the 'lovely' things about Amanda Knox that people testified in court.
Perhaps she was referring to Madison Paxton or Amanda's auntie or someone.

I thought it quite telling regarding what Mellas thinks of the Kerchers when asked by the interviewer - "I don't want to judge people" Mellas says.
She obviously looks down on the Kercher family with disdain because they too believe her perfect daughter is guilty of their daughters murder and they don't buy into the PR spin or defence argument - they believe the prosecution - "What did they tell them?"
A thoroughly odious woman.



Hi DF2K! Edda Mellas paints a picture of people saying lovely things about her daughter and the prosecution having no evidence. According to Edda, Amanda is a brilliant student who is studying hard in prison while awaiting her "real" trial when she will surely be released. Interesting. I checked the following newslink: http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=260669 and it contains several comments. One is a plea for money for Amanda and the rest are very anti-knox. This one in particular was quite clearly anti knox:
ClownPosse wrote...
DEAT "TOMKAT"
I would be happy to assist your efforts to bring the Darling Amanda Home ! I personally will contribute a zippered vinyl bag. Please supply her height ! Thank You !
***

I just wonder how much rage this family is stirring up with their continued pleas for money and denial of all evidence. I think they are making matters much worse for themselves by behaving so loudly and constantly. Someone said it before (sorry I can't remember which poster - but I agree): Most people do not rub salt into people's wounds and would therefore never write a negative letter to knox or the family post ruling. But the family's behavior, IMO, stirs up a lot of ill will and negativity on top of the additional hurt caused to the Kercher family. I cannot believe the pr firm is not putting a muzzle on edda and curt. All this behavior even after knox was afforded every benefit under the Italian system. *sigh*
Top Profile 

Offline Del


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:27 pm

Posts: 21

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:18 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
dittany1 wrote:
Hi Fiona, would you be happy to have Guede, Knox or Sollecito as your neighbours when they get out? Would you be happy for them to babysit your children or date one of your family?

I used to have rather similar sanctimonious views to you about the Moors murderers, until I read a transcript of the tape recording they had made of them murdering a little girl. If the families of the victims of Brady and Hindley stayed angry forever (and remember part of that anger was because of Hindley's repeated attempts to be set free by the authorities) that was because they were put in hell by the evil pair, not because some particular moral failing of theirs. Lesley Ann Downey's mother, Ann West, certainly kept her daughters memory alive whilst sanctimonious fools like Lord Longford were pressing for Hindley's release. It's arrogant in the extreme to think you can dictate how someone should respond emotionally to that kind of horror. Unless you've been there, you just don't know what you'd do.


I don't think Fiona is being sanctimonious. I can sympathise with her viewpoint. I go back to my post a little earlier where I make the point that on this board there can never be a consensus about exactly what sentence is 'just'. It's subjective and arbitrary and that makes no perspective inherently right or wrong. Do the Kerchers feel they have got justice? That's the only important question.

In the case of the Moors Murders, it is different. Many of the victims families never got their childrens' bodies back so they couldn't begin to grieve, even with the convictions of those responsible.

Michael, obviously the government couldn't let these people go if the victims families felt they had suffered enough already. I think the question "would you like to have Guede as your neighbor" hits on the point, society has to be protected it's not just about helping the victim's family grieving process. I think the motive was unclear so the whole idea that they got caught up in drugs, alcohol, and a sex game makes them seem less likely to commit these acts again. Personally I disagree, the amount of violence that they inflicted on Meredith tells a different story in my mind.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:23 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The PR firm gets paid for their time. No matter the outcome.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:27 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

True, Emerald.

**shiver**
Top Profile 

Offline Leodmaeg


User avatar


Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:18 pm

Posts: 30

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:14 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I know this might sound a little silly, but can someone tell me how to pronounce Guede and Sollecito's names please? Perhaps using some phonetic spelling?
Top Profile 

Offline zinnia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:57 am

Posts: 56

Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I can't find the link right now, but there is a missing female student from a few years back in Perugia, wondering about similarities.
I really was disappointed Rudy didn't sing, but I can understand why. Merry Christmas Meredith, we miss you. Help everyone find the truth if you can.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:53 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I have been following the discussion between Fiona and Machine, Fiona and dittany1 and Michael.

This is the primary reason I read this site and TJMK. After all, what is "True Justice"? Finding those responsible, guilty, to be sure. But what about sentencing and the justice regarding that?

At the end of the day, Michael is right. The only people whose opinions on this that has any true significance are the Kercher family.

However, I'd like to add my two cents.

Fiona, you seem to lean heavily on the understanding/compassionate point of view toward those who commit murder. While I understand this comment to Machine: "But do not rely on "Anger's Freeing Power" as a long term strategy for dealing with grief: it is very useful in the short term; but it does not live side by side with peace. And this grief is not yours: Meredith's family must make their own path."; I would add that short term anger vented in healthy ways - i.e. creation of this site/posts on TJMK/etc. - are extremely valuable. No one can take on the grief or anger of any other person (not possible), because everyone has their own path. Anger that leads to dialogue isn't something that I would consider problematic - unlike anger that leads to murder as we have seen with AK.

And dittany1 has an excellent question for Fiona. Would you be okay with one of the 3 criminals marrying one of your children?

The reason I thought it was an excellent question is because we all have a line that we draw. All of us. Could you be as compassionate as you are toward these criminals and still embrace a connection with one of them with one of your own kids? Maybe yes, maybe no. Not right and not wrong. Just different lines drawn in the sand of what each of us could/would be open and accepting of.

My line is drawn very tight and narrow. This works for me and my life.

I personally do not believe that true justice is served until there is a strong attempt at balancing the scales. Obviously, in this life, there will never be a complete balancing of the scales in this case, as a precious life has been violently taken. But the attempt to balance the scales in my opinion, starts with the expression of truth. Without that, I believe in punishment. In my mind, if someone continues to lie about her role in killing another human being, be it lying for 10 years, 20 years, or for life, no amount of punishment will encourage some people to talk. And if no amount of punishment will do that, then I do believe that these murderers should not have the privilege of a life of freedom. Ever.

This is not an eye for an eye revenge mentality. An eye for an eye would be administering the death penalty.

Fiona, you also ask a question as to whether we should continue to see AK as a pariah, especially when she is released from prison. After all that I have seen, when AK is released, I have no doubt there will be a "hero's" welcome home party for the girl that was "unjustly imprisoned in a horrible foreign country", with parades, fanfare and the like.

What is True Justice?

My prayers are with the Kerchers tonite.
Top Profile 

Offline Leodmaeg


User avatar


Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:18 pm

Posts: 30

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:00 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:

Listen to Edda Mellas interview on Dec. 22 to BBC radio:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

Mella's blithe disregard for the investigation and passing remarks on Meredith's family is interesting to hear.


I have just listened to it and was spitting teeth. The bare-faced lies that woman is coming out with drove me up the wall.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:14 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Leodmaeg wrote:
I have just listened to it and was spitting teeth. The bare-faced lies that woman is coming out with drove me up the wall.


Me, too. Edda insists Amanda never changed her story. The police made her tell the Patrick lie. What about the several page hand written confession of Amanda?

Leodmaeg, what did you think of the interviewer? I thought she was very effective. If the calls and e-mails coming in were positive, no doubt the interview would have continued. The host could hardly conceal the disdain for Edda.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:21 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

I think this is right. One of the first headlines emphasized that the guilty verdict had been upheld. Guede's lawyer opted for the fast track and, if the prosecution made the right case, then there is no reason Guede's sentence should be heavier than that of the other two. He did not have a prior record either.

I keep thinking of how compassionate the Kerchers were during the press conference they gave after the verdict against Knox and Sollecito was announced. They referred to the two people just convicted of murdering their daughter as "young people" and to Guede as "the gentleman" already serving his sentence. They reiterated their faith in the Italian justice system, which to me extends beyond the trial and the verdict to the rights of convicted criminals and the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption of sorts.

Perhaps they will speak publicly about this latest development. But seen for what it is -- i.e., an automatic 1/3 reduction because of a prior choice (the fast track, which is looking better and better as an option) -- it shouldn't come as a total surprise to us.


Perhaps they considered Rudy a gentleman only because he opted to fast track with the assumption, and his admission, that he was guilty of some complicity. Whether they agree with the Italian discount system for admission of complicity (fast track) ... who knows. It's an interesting point ... that they viewed Rudy Guede differently for having apologized and accepted some responsibility - although it now appears that he wants to "walk" because he was a "boyfriend", and is remaining silent while demanding an innocent verdict. That doesn't work for me. If he's going to get another discount, he really needs to tell the complete truth, and demonstrate that he had nothing to do with the murder.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:26 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

martin wrote:
Hi Yummi,
why has RG been handcuffed and put in the cage during the trial and the other two not?
Is RG believed to be more dangerous?
Am I correct that his sentence was reduced to 24 years minus the 1/3 reduction for the fast track trial option? Excuse me if these questions have already been answered but I am very busy now and had no time to read all the comments.


We haven't seen the other two since their conviction as murderers, have we. Presumably they will be given the same courtesy.
Top Profile 

Offline lamaha


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:08 am

Posts: 36

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:28 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Leodmaeg wrote:
piktor wrote:

Listen to Edda Mellas interview on Dec. 22 to BBC radio:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

Mella's blithe disregard for the investigation and passing remarks on Meredith's family is interesting to hear.


I have just listened to it and was spitting teeth. The bare-faced lies that woman is coming out with drove me up the wall.

Ugh. I had to switch it off.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
A question for clueless public voices:


Will today's light treatment of Guede on appeal satisfy Cantwell concerns about Knox verdict?

"The fact that Guede chose a fast track trial, but was able to have an appeal before a jury which lightened his sentence would suggest the Italian system is not quite the mockery portrayed by Cantwell. Of course, Knox's appeal must be judged on its own circumstances.

This reporter has learned from a trusted confidential source with personal information that the American Embassy was monitoring Knox's trial from day one, so one would think if there had been some overt maltreatment of Ms. Knox, that it would have been brought up with the Italian authorities much earlier, not after the fact."- examiner. com

http://www.examiner.com/x-32288-Spokane ... ox-verdict


Were those the same American Embassy people that visited her in jail after the verdict? I heard the embassy was not sitting in court every day, but they were available in the event that there was a complaint about an irregularity. Apparently, there were no irregularities during the trial ... at least none that the embassy has on record.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:33 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

hikergirl99 wrote:
After all, what is "True Justice"? Finding those responsible, guilty, to be sure. But what about sentencing and the justice regarding that?
....
What is True Justice?

My prayers are with the Kerchers tonite.


You have some really excellent points there, hikergirl. I've been contemplating the idea of justice, too, especially with the media reports in this area of the country deviating so wildly from the reality of the case.

I was reading a book by Margaret Atwood, Payback, right at the time the verdict came out. She writes extensively about justice, but probably only justice as she perceives it and wants her readers to understand it. One idea she seemed to have is that debt is a problem and justice too often becomes a balancing of accounts that she seems to think is unfair.

I believe that each of us is incredibly indebted to others around us, and not just financially, throughout our lives. We get so busy, though, that it's easy to forget it. Have you ever sneaked in ahead of someone to get the preferred parking spot at the mall? (I am not picking on you specifically; more of a rhetorical question). Well when you do that, you rather unsettle accounts without consciously doing so. And if someone steals "your" parking spot then you certainly would feel what I mean.

The problem I see, in social situations, is when there are people who don't feel any sense of indebtness whatsoever and take full advantage of those who do. The worst cases of that I can think of are those who take advantage of children, the mentally or physically handicapped, or old people. The people who, in spite of any sense of indebtedness truly are so.

Where this comes back to Meredith's murder is, to me, that the culprits and their support groups seem to feel or express no sense of indebtedness whatsoever. How can the accounts *ever* be settled in such a case? Instead this seems to be a real-life rendering of Greek tragedy where there is no redemption or justice.

Hope that's not too much of a downer! sor-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:34 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
Fiona wrote:
They are not murderers, though they have committed murder..


Hi Fiona,

You've completely lost me with this comment. How would you define murderer?


It's the idea that people are basically good, but they do bad acts.

The young child that steals a candy from the corner store is basically good, but the child has done a bad act. Rudy is not a child, but there is no reason to assume the worst.
Top Profile 

Offline Leodmaeg


User avatar


Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:18 pm

Posts: 30

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:35 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
Leodmaeg wrote:
I have just listened to it and was spitting teeth. The bare-faced lies that woman is coming out with drove me up the wall.


Me, too. Edda insists Amanda never changed her story. The police made her tell the Patrick lie. What about the several page hand written confession of Amanda?

Leodmaeg, what did you think of the interviewer? I thought she was very effective. If the calls and e-mails coming in were positive, no doubt the interview would have continued. The host could hardly conceal the disdain for Edda.


Yes the interviewer came across as 'polite' but little more, lol. I kept hoping she'd raise the subject of Lumumba but alas no.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:47 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

pataz1 wrote:

Yes, I agree.. i think the knox/mellas and FOA camp will have a field day with this.. the person who has all of the DNA evidence at the scene only got 16 years, yet Knox got 26! hardly fair!

Pat


Crimes were solved without DNA for centuries ... just because it's been available for the last 15 years doesn't mean that all suspects without DNA are innocent. That' perfectly absurd ... ruling someone out with DNA is quite different than claiming someone is innocent because the DNA has been argued out of court on a technicality.

Maybe that's what makes this case so interesting. The lawyers could argue for a new DNA expert and sufficiently muddy the waters to exclude the DNA. Would that mean that the culprits are innocent, or would that mean that the case must be decided on the abundant circumstantial evidence?
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:50 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
piktor wrote:
BBC Radio5 interview with Edda Mellas:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

(will be available for six more days)


Very interesting. the longer Edda Mellas speaks the loonier she sounds. The interviewer told EM the phone calls and e-mails received during the interview were overwhelmingly negative about allowing the Mother of the murder so much air time. EM assured the interviewer the sites set up by people insupport of the Family were only receiving positive replies. Duh!


Is it worth plugging in the speakers, or is it the same old - same old: there is no evidence, my daughter is innocent, I still have a job, everyone in the country of Italy is showering us with gifts because of the big bad justice system.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:56 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Leodmaeg wrote:

Yes the interviewer came across as 'polite' but little more, lol. I kept hoping she'd raise the subject of Lumumba but alas no.


Yes, they spoke about PL. Edda Mellas once again blamed the police, accusing them of striking Amanda.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:00 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Jester -

Nicely done on the virtual reality. I'll see what I can do about getting them loaded up to the albums (I suspect you've had issues because they're too large...there's a size limit on pics).


Thanks ... will post a link when I get the camera rendered
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:03 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Reader31 wrote:
In this latest interview with the BBC, Edda Mellas is quoted as blaming the Kercher family for putting Amanda in jail: "putting a girl in jail for a crime she didn't commit is not going to make them feel better."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8426201.stm

I haven't been able to listen to the radio version yet (don't have 'phones & in a public place). But I'm assuming that in the radio interview the subject of the "putting a girl in jail" is the Kercher family, as it reads here.

If so, Mellas has just assigned responsibility for her daughter's incarceration to the family of the victim.

I am not a mental health expert. But doesn't this sound like paranoia? First it was the Italian people who imprisoned her daughter, basically because "they don't like Americans." (the Italian Sollecito was completely overlooked).

And now it's the victim's family who has imprisoned her daughter.

Am I missing something? Is this woman seriously unhinged? Put responsibility any where except where it belongs.... I know there have been discussions about Edda Mellas here before (and I've read them). I guess I'm interested in how people are responding to this; what people are thinking with this clear assignment of blame to the Kerchers; and whether anyone in the Knox/ Mellas PR campaign knows the damage that Edda Mellas is doing to her daughter's cause. is she heavily medicated in order to cope, as I've seen some speculate? Or is she getting wilder by the day? There's a note of hysteria in these statements. Yet she seems to believe what she's saying.

Sorry if this is too subjective a response. I'm mostly speechless. This is a new "low," which I had not imagined possible. The narcissism in this is beyond expression; unless it's supposed to be some sort of publicity stunt, to continue to hook the public into some sort of response. (On the theory that even bad publicity is good publicity). Surely the PR firm has to regard her as a loose cannon by now, though, and doing far more damage than good?



All right ... I'm going to plug in the speakers ... work can wait ... did she realy imply that the victim's family had something to do with Knox being a convicted murderer? I guess that's true in the sense that if the Knox woman had not murdered anyone, she wouldn't be in jail.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:08 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Brogan wrote:
I thought I could hear a hint of desperation sprinkled with a touch of fear in Edda's voice. Rudy has been found guilty again he has a simple choice to make now does he keep his mouth shut and hope that third time is lucky or does he think about how long he will serve before any parole.

Having rolled the dice twice and lost I would be thinking, Telling the truth may increase my chances of an early parole, after all he can't be retried or have his sentence increased but he can get out sooner than 2025. By fully cooperating with the prosecution in Amanda and Raff's appeal.

If I was Amanda or Raff I would now be very afraid of what Rudy will do next. Rudy hasn't had anything near the news coverage of his co accused and could possibly slink off into obscurity following his release unlike Amanda and Raff. I cannot imagine what Meredith's family would feel but personally I would feel better for knowing the truth and that at least two of the three people responsible for the murder would be doing their full sentence.

I can't believe how Meredith's family have managed to rise above the utter bullshit pumped out by the Knox/Mellas cabal, I wish I had on ounce of their humanity. Having to hear this crap day in and day out knowing that it is all in an effort to subvert justice and to let my child's killers go free must be a herculean task. I really hope that Rudy plays he smart money, tells what he knows and exposes the cabal for what they are. I bet that if he does start talking Edda and Curt will be a lot less keen on giving interviews.

He's probably got a bucketload of cash waiting for him if he keeps his mouth shut.
Top Profile 

Offline franzine


Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:56 pm

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:09 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I understand the logic and the math behind Rudy's reduced sentence, but I agree it is sad that he may be out in several years. He IS eligible for parole approximately halfway through his sentence, correct?

And Fiona, I understand what you're saying, but I also think we are sometimes too willing to assume Amanda is not a cruel killer because of her appearance or background. Many people want to grant her leniency because she seems so relatable or pretty, at least as far as convicted murderers go. We want to believe she was on drugs or that something clouded her judgment. Perhaps it was planned, perhaps it was not planned, but I certainly wouldn't want her living next door. With such a short sentence (assuming parole), Amanda's getting exactly what she wants. Fame. The guise of innocence. No need for repentence. Basically, this reinforces what I believe to be the worst attributes of Amanda - she can basically get away with murder because of her cuteness. People will treat her differently. Obviously this is the case, as Rudy is kept inside of a cage during his hearings! Even the jury expressed they had a hard time believing Amanda could be capable of the crime, although they had to make their decisions based on the evidence. The only reason I think she wouldn't kill again is because all eyes are on her. This means (1) she has what she wants, and (2) it would be difficult to claim innocence a second time.

A "normal" person perhaps should have learned her lesson by now... but Amanda and her family have proven time and time again that they don't take this trial very seriously. It's an excuse to parade around in front of cameras. Her parents speak of the trial almost as though it is a minor inconvenience and they dress like they are on holiday. I have no doubt Amanda can make it through the next ten years without ever facing reality, especially with her parents reinforcing her innocence.

I have yet to see Amanda actually come to terms with the fact that she was tried and convicted of murder. Had she expressed remorse and explained what happened - assuming it was an accident, or that she had a lesser role in a crime that was not premeditated by her - then I would agree with you that she is not a murderer, but someone who committed a murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:11 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
Is it worth plugging in the speakers, or is it the same old - same old: there is no evidence, my daughter is innocent, I still have a job, everyone in the country of Italy is showering us with gifts because of the big bad justice system.



It's the same old - same old responses. At the end, the host tells Edda the calls and e-mails coming in during the interview are overwhelmingly negative. She reads some. "Why are you putting the Kerchers through this" "Why are you giving airtime to a the Mother of a convicted and sentenced killer" Edda practically calls the host a liar, saying she's only received positive responses from around the World (naming some continents).

Edda even repeats the accusations of brutality. I thought she and Curt were warned about that.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:26 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stilicho wrote:
Jester wrote:
That party is now completely downplayed as some school girl misstep. I've had parties, but I've never had the police show up. I did have the firemen show up once, but that's because we put the Christmas tree in the firepit and it created a fireball ... guess someone thought the house was burning down. For the police to show up a party in issue a fine, it has to be very serious.


When I mentioned the party ticket at the JREF early on in the "guilty for doing cartwheels" thread, the original poster had never heard of it (JREF-speak for "I don't believe you until you cite it and even then I'll ignore it"). I, too, have hosted "wild parties" in my youth, including one where the four of us renting a house used to host actual bands with PA systems and everything, in part to charge admission and help pay the rent. Even then, police visits were relatively rare, and never were we issued a citation.

For a citation to be issued, you'd have to have something pretty brazen going on (ie more than loud noise after 11 pm). I believe it was Tara, here, who tried to find the original report but that the authorities said it was unavailable for some reason. Given Curt's political connections, I can just imagine why it was unavailable.


Keg parties with full bar, bands, paying rent parties, but no police.

Thing is, police might get a call about a rowdy party, but they have to look after the real crimes first. When they have a break, they do a drive by on a party. If they have to actually stop, find out who is in charge, stop whatever is going on, and issue a court appearance summons (to which Knox appeared, pled guilty, and paid a fine), then it's more (maybe uglier) than a wild keg party with a band.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:28 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Leodmaeg wrote:
I know this might sound a little silly, but can someone tell me how to pronounce Guede and Sollecito's names please? Perhaps using some phonetic spelling?


Gwae-dey (emphasis on second syllable) ... it's a bit like 'gwee-day'.
So - leh - chi (chee) - toe (emphasis on first and third syllable)

But I'm not Italian.


Last edited by Jester on Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:40 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
Keg parties with full bar, bands, paying rent parties, but no police.

Thing is, police might get a call about a rowdy party, but they have to look after the real crimes first. When they have a break, they do a drive by on a party. If they have to actually stop, find out who is in charge, stop whatever is going on, and issue a court appearance summons (to which Knox appeared, pled guilty, and paid a fine), then it's more (maybe uglier) than a wild keg party with a band.


For someone to get arrested at one of those keggers, there has to be some extreme impropriety going on. If an arrest is made, the police have to do mountains of paperwork and show up in front of a Judge. If on University property, the University security handles it.

Most likely, there was some serious back talk from Amanda. Or else she was doing something totally disgusting, egregious and out of line.

Has there been verification of the rape prank Amanda and a group of kids did in Seattle?
Top Profile 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:50 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
Leodmaeg wrote:
I know this might sound a little silly, but can someone tell me how to pronounce Guede and Sollecito's names please? Perhaps using some phonetic spelling?


Gwae-dey (emphasis on second syllable) ... it's a bit like 'gwee-day'.
So - leh - chi (chee) - toe (emphasis on first and third syllable)

But I'm not Italian.

Sorry, wrong.

Gway-day (emphasis on FIRST syllable)
So - leh - chi (as in itch) - toe (emphasis on SECOND syllable)

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:52 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:

For someone to get arrested at one of those keggers, there has to be some extreme impropriety going on. If an arrest is made, the police have to do mountains of paperwork and show up in front of a Judge. If on University property, the University security handles it.

Most likely, there was some serious back talk from Amanda. Or else she was doing something totally disgusting, egregious and out of line.

Has there been verification of the rape prank Amanda and a group of kids did in Seattle?


I agree, even rowdy parties are rarely attended by police with a summons. Amanda's summons has been, according to the medie, reduced to a fine ... but there had to have been more to it, and a summons is no light matter in the community.

There was a post on a comment board from someone that was there ... at the break-in-rape-prank. The comment prompted a verification which, as far as internet verification goes, and as far as I know, it happened, details have not been made public.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:53 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tom_ch wrote:
Jester wrote:
Leodmaeg wrote:
I know this might sound a little silly, but can someone tell me how to pronounce Guede and Sollecito's names please? Perhaps using some phonetic spelling?


Gwae-dey (emphasis on second syllable) ... it's a bit like 'gwee-day'.
So - leh - chi (chee) - toe (emphasis on first and third syllable)

But I'm not Italian.

Sorry, wrong.

Gway-day (emphasis on FIRST syllable)
So - leh - chi (as in itch) - toe (emphasis on SECOND syllable)

Tom


At least I got the syllables right.
Thank you
Are you Italian?
Top Profile 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:03 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Jester wrote:
Leodmaeg wrote:
I know this might sound a little silly, but can someone tell me how to pronounce Guede and Sollecito's names please? Perhaps using some phonetic spelling?


Gwae-dey (emphasis on second syllable) ... it's a bit like 'gwee-day'.
So - leh - chi (chee) - toe (emphasis on first and third syllable)

But I'm not Italian.

Sorry, wrong.

Gway-day (emphasis on FIRST syllable)
So - leh - chi (as in itch) - toe (emphasis on SECOND syllable)

Tom


At least I got the syllables right.
Thank you
Are you Italian?

No, but I've been living in the Italian part of Switzerland since 1990, and speak Italian with my girlfriend, and most of my coworkers, etc.

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
So we don't really know the discount for mitigation then? Maybe the judges will explain. When can we expect a report?


We know exactly the discount due to fast track: 8 years. The appeal court decided he deserved 24 years, that's why he got 16 (this is an automatic discount due to the fast track).

The reason why they decided he deserved 24 instead of life is because of generic mitigation (young, no criminal records), plus the fact that he was probably not the leading criminal in the action.

The previous convictiion - 30 years - is because Micheli had opted for a mandatory life sentence, no generic mitigation, which is turned into 30y due to the fast track.

But it is difficult that an Appeal jury denies generic mitigation to a person of that mental age without previous CR.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:17 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tom_ch wrote:
No, but I've been living in the Italian part of Switzerland since 1990, and speak Italian with my girlfriend, and most of my coworkers, etc.

Tom


Is this case getting press in Switzerland?
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:25 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Brogan wrote:
I thought I could hear a hint of desperation sprinkled with a touch of fear in Edda's voice. Rudy has been found guilty again he has a simple choice to make now does he keep his mouth shut and hope that third time is lucky or does he think about how long he will serve before any parole.

Having rolled the dice twice and lost I would be thinking, Telling the truth may increase my chances of an early parole, after all he can't be retried or have his sentence increased but he can get out sooner than 2025. By fully cooperating with the prosecution in Amanda and Raff's appeal.

If I was Amanda or Raff I would now be very afraid of what Rudy will do next. Rudy hasn't had anything near the news coverage of his co accused and could possibly slink off into obscurity following his release unlike Amanda and Raff. I cannot imagine what Meredith's family would feel but personally I would feel better for knowing the truth and that at least two of the three people responsible for the murder would be doing their full sentence.

I can't believe how Meredith's family have managed to rise above the utter bullshit pumped out by the Knox/Mellas cabal, I wish I had on ounce of their humanity. Having to hear this crap day in and day out knowing that it is all in an effort to subvert justice and to let my child's killers go free must be a herculean task. I really hope that Rudy plays he smart money, tells what he knows and exposes the cabal for what they are. I bet that if he does start talking Edda and Curt will be a lot less keen on giving interviews.


I don't agree with you that Rudy "lost" yesterday; I thought he got quite a result. I doubt that whatever his legal stance he has ever really entertained any hopes of a full acquittal.

I'm also not sure that Curt and Edda are really keen on doing interviews rather than it being a necessity to keep the money flowing for their trips to Italy. Certainly Curt seemed really angry in his immediate post-verdict interviews. I think they are both very resentful of the Kerchers for not buying the lone wolf theory and having their lawyer robustly support the prosecution case and Edda is beginning to let this show.

OT but it's my birthday today.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:26 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
It's the idea that people are basically good, but they do bad acts.

The young child that steals a candy from the corner store is basically good, but the child has done a bad act. Rudy is not a child, but there is no reason to assume the worst.


I don't think your allegory of a young child stealing candy from the corner shop is relevant. Rudy Guede is a convicted murderer and sex offender. I'm not assuming anything, Guede sexually assaulted Meredith. He left her to die and never called an ambulance.


Last edited by The Machine on Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tom_ch wrote:
Gway-day (emphasis on FIRST syllable)
So - leh - chi (as in itch) - toe (emphasis on SECOND syllable)
Tom


At least I got the syllables right.
Thank you
Are you Italian?

tom_ch wrote:
No, but I've been living in the Italian part of Switzerland since 1990, and speak Italian with my girlfriend, and most of my coworkers, etc.
Tom


Thank you. I've had to rely on media reports for the pronounciation, and that's been pretty much all over the place ... a bit like people saying "kilom-eters" or "kilo-meters".
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:31 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:

I don't agree with you that Rudy "lost" yesterday; I thought he got quite a result. I doubt that whatever his legal stance he has ever really entertained any hopes of a full acquittal.

I'm also not sure that Curt and Edda are really keen on doing interviews rather than it being a necessity to keep the money flowing for their trips to Italy. Certainly Curt seemed really angry in his immediate post-verdict interviews. I think they are both very resentful of the Kerchers for not buying the lone wolf theory and having their lawyer robustly support the prosecution case and Edda is beginning to let this show.

OT but it's my birthday today.



Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:39 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:

I don't think your allegory of a young child stealing candy from the corner shop is relevant. Rudy Guede is a convicted murderer and sex offender. I'm not assuming anything, Guede sexually assaulted Meredith. He left her to die and never called an ambulance.


Sure it is. That's the Christian belief. All people are good. All people have salvation and redemption. All people are good, but sometimes they do bad acts. It's also a basic principal in child rearing ... all children are basically good.

Laws account for the idea that people are basically good, but they do bad acts. Countries that practice capital punishment do not believe that people are basically good, instead choosing to execute the mentally disabled, and those that commit crimes as young as the age of 14. Apparently Italian law includes rehabilitation and the idea that people, even murderers, are basically good people that did a bad act.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:48 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:

I'm also not sure that Curt and Edda are really keen on doing interviews rather than it being a necessity to keep the money flowing for their trips to Italy. Certainly Curt seemed really angry in his immediate post-verdict interviews. I think they are both very resentful of the Kerchers for not buying the lone wolf theory and having their lawyer robustly support the prosecution case and Edda is beginning to let this show.

The lone wolf theory came to a dead stop when Raffaele's lawyer acknowledged that there was more than one assailant in her closing arguments.


Last edited by Jester on Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:50 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
The Machine wrote:

I don't think your allegory of a young child stealing candy from the corner shop is relevant. Rudy Guede is a convicted murderer and sex offender. I'm not assuming anything, Guede sexually assaulted Meredith. He left her to die and never called an ambulance.


Sure it is. That's the Christian belief. All people are good. All people have salvation and redemption. All people are good, but sometimes they do bad acts. It's also a basic principal in child rearing ... all children are basically good.


That isn't the Christian belief at all. The Bible doesn't say that all people are good. In fact, it says the complete opposite. It doesn't say that all people have salvation either.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:51 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:

That isn't the Christian belief at all. The Bible doesn't say that all people are good. In fact, it says the complete opposite. It doesn't say that all people have salvation either.


All right. Don't quote me on the Bible. It's been a while since I read that book.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:13 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

"well you know Amanda has her ups and downs" bullshit ... and what about her speech days before the verdict stating that they expected a guilty verdict?
Top Profile 

Offline Leodmaeg


User avatar


Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:18 pm

Posts: 30

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:28 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
Leodmaeg wrote:

Yes the interviewer came across as 'polite' but little more, lol. I kept hoping she'd raise the subject of Lumumba but alas no.


Yes, they spoke about PL. Edda Mellas once again blamed the police, accusing them of striking Amanda.


I should have been clearer, lol. What I meant was, I wish the interviewer had quizzed her about why she kept quiet about Lumumba being framed after her daughter told her.

tom_ch wrote:
Jester wrote:
Leodmaeg wrote:
I know this might sound a little silly, but can someone tell me how to pronounce Guede and Sollecito's names please? Perhaps using some phonetic spelling?


Gwae-dey (emphasis on second syllable) ... it's a bit like 'gwee-day'.
So - leh - chi (chee) - toe (emphasis on first and third syllable)

But I'm not Italian.

Sorry, wrong.

Gway-day (emphasis on FIRST syllable)
So - leh - chi (as in itch) - toe (emphasis on SECOND syllable)

Tom


Thanks very much. It's been puzzling me a great deal so very much appreciated.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Edda is lying, and lying, and lying ... and she has to be aware of what she is doing.

"The only time they (the Kerchers) came to the trial ... was at the end", and "when they testified" ... and so 'they don't know anything'. Edda, who speaks no Italian; by her own admission, suddenly knows what the prosecutor put forth.

Listen to the innonation in her voice ... she's plays the sexy voice card when she blatantly lies.


Last edited by Jester on Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:33 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Leodmaeg wrote:
Emerald wrote:

Yes, they spoke about PL. Edda Mellas once again blamed the police, accusing them of striking Amanda.


I should have been clearer, lol. What I meant was, I wish the interviewer had quizzed her about why she kept quiet about Lumumba being framed after her daughter told her.

tom_ch wrote:
Jester wrote:

Gwae-dey (emphasis on second syllable) ... it's a bit like 'gwee-day'.
So - leh - chi (chee) - toe (emphasis on first and third syllable)

But I'm not Italian.

Sorry, wrong.

Gway-day (emphasis on FIRST syllable)
So - leh - chi (as in itch) - toe (emphasis on SECOND syllable)

Tom


Thanks very much. It's been puzzling me a great deal so very much appreciated.

By the way, if you listen to the BBC interview, you'll notice Sollicito is pronounced SO leh CHI to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm


Last edited by Jester on Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 11 of 14 [ 3464 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


29,144,411 Views