Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK

I really want to drop this but feel compelled to ask this question.

In the context of the legal route Guede took, what exactly could the Kercher family have done within the Italian legal process?

As you know Guede opted for a fast track trial, this in its self automatically reduces any sentence by one third, as far as I know there is no legal scope to appeal against sentence in a fast track process.

They could have sicced their man Maresca on him, gotten him to demand the most 'aggravations' and contest any 'mitigations' so that at least before the 'fast track' was calculated it would be a higher number. As an example, if he was willing to make that desperation display at the end of Amanda and Raffaele's appeal and splash those pictures of Meredith up there without warning, he could have told the Michaeli court just how Meredith (probably) died. That would have been worth an aggravation or two.


He could have also have contested the mitigation of (supposedly) being with Raffaele and Amanda by noting that Rudy left all the evidence in the murder room, so even in the case of all three being convicted he was (probably) the most active attacker.

No, instead he was working for Mignini, and perhaps looking to make a buck as well.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Yes, that's surely how it worked out, but I think in retrospect they reveal a great deal about how weak the case was and that the causes of Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele being arrested were just as weak.

It also brings to mind that Matteini told Amanda that her arrest was arranged before her mother got there (later) on the 6th, thus she would get no consideration for staying and trying to help police with the investigation.



I suspect their making so much of that innocuous difference has more to do with them trying to do the most with the scant 'evidence' they had, and also to square their 'witness' to Patrick's bar being closed with the fact they also had the receipts from later that night.

That text message theory is interesting, if Amanda deleted it then they couldn't have 'found' it by accident as they claimed.

Incidentally, one thing I never did nail down to my satisfaction. Was there definitely a meeting between Amanda and Patrick the day of the last interrogation, as is in the 5:45 AM statement?

From many sources, yes there was. But, of course, the 5.45 contains an error in referring to 'this morning' rather than 'yesterday morning'. I believe the meeting was of considerable significance to the cops. I have probably not explained this very well hitherto but the cops' obsession with putting everyone and everything under surveillance seems to have made them paranoid. They interpreted anything which frustrated their monitoring as being deliberately intended for that purpose. Thus, the supposed turning off of the phones was viewed as suspicious even though it implies a deliberate desire to evade detection at a time when they could hardly have been planning anything more than heading over to her place for a fish dinner (copyright Machiavelli) or a row about the missing rent. The face to face with Lumumba (mentioned in several books as a real event - but better consult The Book of Grinder for the definitive story) will have been seen as a deliberate attempt to communicate without being overheard. I have no doubt either the cops simply attributed the absence of inculpatory content in Raffaele's exchanges with Amanda to their surveillance having been rumbled. And so on. This is the trouble with being Italian. You think everything is more complicated than it seems, even when it isn't!

I am not sure the cops claimed they found Patrick's message, other than in De Felice's statement to the press on 06 or 07 Nov ('we found messages from Lumumba on her phone fixing a meeting'). I would be thrilled if you have another cite for that but I think what they officially 'found' was Amanda's message to him.

I wonder how they managed these messages before Matteini? They were clearly central. They are the means by which the whole thing was set up. As an aside, it's interesting how the absence of communication with the right black guy doesn't seem to matter anymore. But, back to Matteini, how did they stop her asking to see the Lumumba message or the full text of Amanda's. she was only told the 'see you later' part and it was some time before the rest of the message came out. How was Matteini dissuaded from asking what became of Lumumba's text? She majors on the discrepancy between his version and Amanda's so it's not easy to see why she never said - 'hey, Giuly my old son! Chuck the trombone over here so I can take a gander!' If she had, then they would have had to say 'she deleted it' (and he deleted it too!) and then her lawyer might have turned to her and mouthed the words 'did you' and she would have answered 'no'.

[CoulsdonUK]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

They could have sicced their man Maresca on him, gotten him to demand the most 'aggravations' and contest any 'mitigations' so that at least before the 'fast track' was calculated it would be a higher number. As an example, if he was willing to make that desperation display at the end of Amanda and Raffaele's appeal and splash those pictures of Meredith up there without warning, he could have told the Michaeli court just how Meredith (probably) died. That would have been worth an aggravation or two.


He could have also have contested the mitigation of (supposedly) being with Raffaele and Amanda by noting that Rudy left all the evidence in the murder room, so even in the case of all three being convicted he was (probably) the most active attacker.

No, instead he was working for Mignini, and perhaps looking to make a buck as well.

My point is by opting for a fast track process, different rules are applied, as far as I am aware the one third reduction is automatic, have I got this wrong?

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK

My point is by opting for a fast track process, different rules are applied, as far as I am aware the one third reduction is automatic, have I got this wrong?

Tis is my understanding. But your chances of acquittal are reduced too as the type of evidence you can call is limited.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK

My point is by opting for a fast track process, different rules are applied, as far as I am aware the one third reduction is automatic, have I got this wrong?

Had he (Maresca) tried, he might have won the denial of Rudy's mitigation which reduced his sentence to 24 years, which brought it to 16 once the 'fast track' mitigation was considered. That would have also entailed him contesting the mitigation for 'remorse' which Rudy hardly showed by blaming it on others and just admitting to 'not doing more to save her.'

A life sentence is thirty years in Italy, and I even recall reading somewhere that fast track can be denied as well. Just googling I found this article that suggests the prosecutor must request it, and the judge grant it.

So if that holds for other crimes, how come Mignini gave that option to Rudy and did Maresca contest it before the judge?

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

From many sources, yes there was. But, of course, the 5.45 contains an error in referring to 'this morning' rather than 'yesterday morning'. I believe the meeting was of considerable significance to the cops. I have probably not explained this very well hitherto but the cops' obsession with putting everyone and everything under surveillance seems to have made them paranoid. They interpreted anything which frustrated their monitoring as being deliberately intended for that purpose. Thus, the supposed turning off of the phones was viewed as suspicious even though it implies a deliberate desire to evade detection at a time when they could hardly have been planning anything more than heading over to her place for a fish dinner (copyright Machiavelli) or a row about the missing rent. The face to face with Lumumba (mentioned in several books as a real event - but better consult The Book of Grinder for the definitive story) will have been seen as a deliberate attempt to communicate without being overheard. I have no doubt either the cops simply attributed the absence of inculpatory content in Raffaele's exchanges with Amanda to their surveillance having been rumbled. And so on. This is the trouble with being Italian. You think everything is more complicated than it seems, even when it isn't!

Thanks, Anglo, that's what I thought but I couldn't recall for sure.

Quote:

I am not sure the cops claimed they found Patrick's message, other than in De Felice's statement to the press on 06 or 07 Nov ('we found messages from Lumumba on her phone fixing a meeting'). I would be thrilled if you have another cite for that but I think what they officially 'found' was Amanda's message to him.

That may be, the place I was thinking would be from Ficarra, Napoleoni and Lugarini's testimony in the original Massei court, but come to think of it they might have been referring to finding the 'sent' message.

Quote:

I wonder how they managed these messages before Matteini? They were clearly central. They are the means by which the whole thing was set up. As an aside, it's interesting how the absence of communication with the right black guy doesn't seem to matter anymore. But, back to Matteini, how did they stop her asking to see the Lumumba message or the full text of Amanda's. she was only told the 'see you later' part and it was some time before the rest of the message came out. How was Matteini dissuaded from asking what became of Lumumba's text? She majors on the discrepancy between his version and Amanda's so it's not easy to see why she never said - 'hey, Giuly my old son! Chuck the trombone over here so I can take a gander!' If she had, then they would have had to say 'she deleted it' (and he deleted it too!) and then her lawyer might have turned to her and mouthed the words 'did you' and she would have answered 'no'.

I kinda doubt Matteini does much checking of Mignini's work, outside maybe telling him here and there that satanic cults/whatever don't sell in her courtroom as often as he may like!

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

snip
I kinda doubt Matteini does much checking of Mignini's work, outside maybe telling him here and there that satanic cults/whatever don't sell in her courtroom as often as he may like!

But she did do some questioning of the suspects. She asked Lumumba how come he had no receipts before 22.29 and records it took him a few moments to come up with an answer. So she might easily have clapped her hands together and said, 'Right! Let's check out them phones!' But she didn't ...

[CoulsdonUK]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Had he (Maresca) tried, he might have won the denial of Rudy's mitigation which reduced his sentence to 24 years, which brought it to 16 once the 'fast track' mitigation was considered. That would have also entailed him contesting the mitigation for 'remorse' which Rudy hardly showed by blaming it on others and just admitting to 'not doing more to save her.'

A life sentence is thirty years in Italy, and I even recall reading somewhere that fast track can be denied as well. Just googling I found this article that suggests the prosecutor must request it, and the judge grant it.

So if that holds for other crimes, how come Mignini gave that option to Rudy and did Maresca contest it before the judge?

Thanks for the link but not really a like for like example.
I always thought Guede’s reduction to 24 years was to bring it into line with Raffaele and Amanda’s first level sentencing, I thought that was the mitigating reasons. Anyway the highlighted portion of your post refers to the prosecutor and judge, Maresca is neither.

[Supernaut]

Originally Posted by Bri1

<snip> The sad thing is that the Kerchers have been so focused of AK and RS that the fact their daughters' murderer will walk free from prison soon hasn't registered (at least in public statements) despite overwhelming evidence against him, despite his total dishonesty since the crime, despite his flee from justice, despite his sickening, disgusting statements in court where he tries to align himself with the victim (ugh).

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK

I really want to drop this but feel compelled to ask this question.

I'm sure you do, hence the ensuing attempt at misdirection;

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK

In the context of the legal route Guede took, what exactly could the Kercher family have done within the Italian legal process?

As you know Guede opted for a fast track trial, this in its self automatically reduces any sentence by one third, as far as I know there is no legal scope to appeal against sentence in a fast track process.

Whatever legal recourse the Kerchers would have had regarding Guede's short sentence is not the issue (and plainly the prosecution were in a position to oppose the massive reduction in his sentence, but did nothing - in fact they engineered it.).

What's being noted is their conspicuous silence about it - not a WORD - (particularly from the voluble John), and it's difficult not to perceive this as a conscious strategy. One with which you are plainly 'on message'.

[Supernaut]

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK

Thanks for the link but not really a like for like example.
I always thought Guede’s reduction to 24 years was to bring it into line with Raffaele and Amanda’s first level sentencing, I thought that was the mitigating reasons. Anyway the highlighted portion of your post refers to the prosecutor and judge, Maresca is neither.

Well he sure acted like a 'prosecutor' against AK and RS, don't you think? But not against Guede, don't you think?

[Supernaut]

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK

Thanks for the link but not really a like for like example.
I always thought Guede’s reduction to 24 years was to bring it into line with Raffaele and Amanda’s first level sentencing, I thought that was the mitigating reasons. Anyway the highlighted portion of your post refers to the prosecutor and judge, Maresca is neither.

Could you tell us what damages were awarded to the Kerchers from Guede? And how much he's likely to actually pay? Thanks in advance.

[CoulsdonUK]

Originally Posted by Supernaut

<snip> One with which you are plainly 'on message'.

Yes I am part of a tug boat PR campaign, a spontaneous anthill campaign directed from a bus shelter in darkest deepest Coulsdon.

[CoulsdonUK]

Originally Posted by Supernaut

Could you tell us what damages were awarded to the Kerchers from Guede? And how much he's likely to actually pay? Thanks in advance.

Haven't got a scooby doo (clue).

[Supernaut]

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK

Yes I am part of a tug boat PR campaign, a spontaneous anthill campaign directed from a bus shelter in darkest deepest Coulsdon.

Well, all you've been doing is repeating the same 'mantra', "remember the REAL victim(s) here", ad nauseum, for what, a year and a half, in response to practically every point raised, including the studious efforts to make Guede disappear from public consciousness. So 'on message' is appropriate.

[Supernaut]

Originally Posted by Supernaut

Could you tell us what damages were awarded to the Kerchers from Guede? And how much he's likely to actually pay? Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK

Haven't got a scooby doo (clue).

No? How about damages awarded from AK and RS?

[Supernaut]

I wonder if, in the event a guilty verdict is returned at the new trial (or new appeal, whatever it's supposed to be) and it were to prove impossible to get at Amanda's and her family's assets, the prosecution would have the power to make Raff alone (the Sollecito family, in effect) liable for the entire damages award to the Kerchers?

[CoulsdonUK]

Originally Posted by Supernaut

I wonder if, in the event a guilty verdict is returned at the new trial (or new appeal, whatever it's supposed to be) and it were to prove impossible to get at Amanda's and her family's assets, the prosecution would have the power to make Raff alone (the Sollecito family, in effect) liable for the entire damages award to the Kerchers?

No idea.

[Supernaut]

Another question;

at what point will the Italian judiciary actually enforce the civil court's award to the Kerchers? Assuming a guilty verdict, would it be after the next trial? Or would it be delayed by further appeals in the criminal courts?

[Cuddles]

This thread is once again being cut short due to length. The continuation can be continued here.

Posted By:Cuddles