Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[Nova]

having worked in the legal field for some time i totally understand what is being said here and what the bolded phrase means always have

Yes, I, too, get that the fast-track reduction is essentially the Italian equivalent of an American defendant taking a plea bargain: the defendant gives up many of his rights in return for a shorter sentence. (The difference being, IIRC, that Italian law doesn't allow for actual bargaining; it's simply the defendant's choice.) This by no means clears up the rest of the sentencing confusion, but this much makes sense to me.

But the same links above say the sentence reduction in a case where a life sentence is possible is to 30 years. Yet RG got his sentence reduced to 24 (and we have more than one reason cited for that), and then and only then that sentence was reduced by one-third. Apparently RG was never eligible for a life sentence.

At the same time, the prosecutor is appealing AK's and RS' sentences, asking they get life instead of 24 or even 30 years! Apparently on the ground of "overwhelming evidence."

So we have RG, whose DNA is all over the death room and body of the victim somehow only eligible for a max of 30 years (and even that reduced), but AK and RS, who left little or no physical traces in MK's room or on MK's body, eligible for life in prison.

I don't think anyone need wonder why some of us find the prosecutor "spiteful."

 

[Nova]

That's great! You, having worked in the legal field, and Nova, having 20+ years in the legal field, should have no difficulty clarifying the legal proceedings and decisions for us non-legal people. I have no experience in the legal field and have no difficulty understanding why a maximum allowable sentence was not appealed by the prosecution, why three people convicted of the same crime are given equal sentences, or why a sentence reduction of 1/3 is applied after, and not before, the final sentence is determined.

I can't speak for Allusonz, but I've never pretended to be an expert in Italian law. I wouldn't even claim to be an expert on sentencing guidelines in the U.S., since they are very complicated, vary by jurisdiction, and change from time to time.

Back to Perugia: We have conflicting reports on the reasons for parts of RG's sentence reduction. That is the source of the confusion.

It is simple and obvious to you because you choose to ignore conflicting explanations for the reduction. And you may well be absolutely correct.

But we are left with reports that RG's sentence was reduced in the interest of parity with the sentences of AK and RS v. reports that RG's sentence was reduced because he expressed remorse and apologized to the victim's family.

And we have reports that a crime subject to a life sentence is only reduced to 30 years for fast-tracking, yet RG somehow got down to 24 without objection from the prosecutor. Meanwhile, the same prosecutor wants life for AK and RS.

So sometimes sentencing parity for co-defendants matters very much to the Italians and sometimes it matters not at all. Or maybe the prosecutor is putting on a show and the appellate court will end up evening out every sentence.

 

[Nova]

At 1:30 AM on Nov 6, Amanda status was changed from that of witness to that of suspect, and in fact all questioning was stopped ... so ... at the point, where Amanda was deemed a suspect, there was no need for an interpretter as she was put in a jail cell by herself and was not asked any more questions.

Amanda and Raffaele were treated the same as other witnesses. Meredith's friends were questioned as witnesses presumably under that same circmstances as Amanda ... as they were certainly all at the police station for questioning at the same time immediately after the murder was discovered. Do you think that Meredith's friends were provided with an interpretter and then when Amanda was questioned, the interpretter was dismissed, or are you thinking that none of the English speaking witnesses had the benefit of an interpretter during questioning as a witness.

AK may have been declared a formal suspect at 1:30 a.m., but surely none of us believes that was the first moment when LE suspected her.

You are "presuming" (your word) that MK's friends were questioned in the same manner and under the same conditions. I find that very unlikely.

My point about AK being interrogated in a foreign language is merely that it must have added to pressure she felt. I think that's obvious. I'm not blaming Italian police for speaking Italian.

 

[iluvmua]

Now Amanda's lawyers don't want the Lifetime movie to be shown.

If Amanda is so innocent then why would she/they not want the movie to be shown?

Gee, maybe because it's the TRUTH about what happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/0...k-stop-lifetime-film/?test=latestnews#content

 

[miley]

What the lawyer says is:

"Twenty-four years would be in line with the sentences given to Knox and Sollecito," he said. "They each got an extra year for simulating a burglary at the scene and Knox got a further year for falsely blaming a local barman for the murder."

... meaning ... Rudy's sentence was first reduced to 24 years to be "in line with the sentences given to Knox and Sollecito". That is, all three are convicted of the same crime and, since they were all involved in murdering Meredith; all equally responsible, they are all treated fairly and equally and given equal sentences of 24 years.

The reduction from 30 years to 24 years has nothing to do with anything beyond ensuring that 3 people that commit a crime are all given the same, equal sentence.

why do you believe Rudy's sentence was reduced from 30 to 24 (other then Francesco Maresca saying so)

 

[miley]

"would be in line" does not necessarily mean "was reduced to match." It may be the lawyer was merely defending the reduced sentence as not unreasonable. (I assume we are dealing with a translation, but if the English is unclear, we have no way of knowing whether the Italian was clearer.)

If this is the only evidence as to why RG's sentence went from 30 to 24 years, then that reduction remains a mystery.

At the time Francesco Maresca said all of this, Rudy's sentence had just been cut from 30 to 16. Apparently no one understood why...Maresca says "would be line" because he is speculating on why Rudy's sentence was reduced. Everyone was speculating because the court of appeals had not handed down their explanation.

Yesterday's decision to uphold his conviction but cut his sentence so drastically has left some legal observers bewildered. "Either he was party to the murder, along with Knox and Sollecito, or he wasn't," a lawyer told The First Post last night. "The reduced sentence seems to suggest that the court believes Guede might have been an accessory to the murder, but not a prime instigator of Meredith's killing."
Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57772...ntence-cut-to-half-amanda-knoxs#ixzz1DDau7jZz​

I think at the time a lot of people (including me) took Maresca's word for it and thought Rudy's sentence was reduced because he opted for the 'fast track,' plus dropped to match A & R's etc. until the court handed down their explanation and it came out about the apology letter.

The initial argument was over whether or not the apology letter had anything to do with Rudy's sentence being reduced - it does. It's not the only reason, like Malkmus said but it definitely played a part.

BBM

In it's 56-page explanation the judges of the appeals court wrote that Guede "participated fully" in the sexual assault and murder "not only as the perpetrator of the sexual assault, but also for having held down the victim's left hand" while she was being slashed. Guede's DNA was found on Kercher's left sleeve.\

The judges for the Perugia court of appeals also explained the reasons they granted Guede attenuating circumstances that led to a substantial reduction of his sentence. These include the fact that he had no previous police record, the fact that he did not wield the knife that killed Kercher, that he voluntarily returned to Italy after running to Germany in the days after the murder, his young age, and the "acute stress" that led him to flee the scene without rescuing the victim.\

The judges also mention Guede's difficult childhood without a mother and with a father who was often absent.\

In explaining the attenuating circumstances, the judges also mention the fact that Guede is the "only" one of the defendants to have said he was sorry to the Kercher family, "even if it (the apology) was only for not having been able to save Meredith," and not for his role in her killing.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/AmandaKnox/small-victory-amanda-knox/story?id=10169888&page=2​

 

[otto]

Now Amanda's lawyers don't want the Lifetime movie to be shown.

If Amanda is so innocent then why would she/they not want the movie to be shown?

Gee, maybe because it's the TRUTH about what happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/0...k-stop-lifetime-film/?test=latestnews#content

Censorship? Well, well, well ... who would have thought that Knox and her PR team would object to the US public knowing the whole story of what happened with the murder of Meredith Kercher. All those millions spent on PR would be down the tubes if the facts came out on film.

Meredith's parents have their own objections:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/04/tv-re-enactment-of-meredith-kerchers-murder-draws-parents-ire/

 

[otto]

why do you believe Rudy's sentence was reduced from 30 to 24 (other then Francesco Maresca saying so)

There are several reasons why I have the understanding regarding the reduction of sentence from 30 to 24 years ... but the primary reason is because I followed the discussions that occurred in 2009 when the sentence was handed down. Speculation, two years later, about the reasoning seems a little bit late ... and most certainly places the discussion out of context and without the full benefit of all relevant reports and information.

The article you linked earlier (Independent News), that mentions reasons for the reduction of sentence, claims that the sentence was handed down on March 23, 2010, but the sentence was handed down in December 2009. How can we take an article like that seriously ... it's dated 3 months late but claims the decision was given that day.

But hey ... maybe I got it all wrong ... regardless, I intend to go along with what the lawyer had to say, and not what may be said in other reports.

 

[miley]

There are several reasons why I have the understanding regarding the reduction of sentence from 30 to 24 years ... but the primary reason is because I followed the discussions that occurred in 2009 when the sentence was handed down. Speculation, two years later, about the reasoning seems a little bit late ... and most certainly places the discussion out of context and without the full benefit of all relevant reports and information.

The article you linked earlier (Independent News), that mentions reasons for the reduction of sentence, claims that the sentence was handed down on March 23, 2010, but the sentence was handed down in December 2009. How can we take an article like that seriously ... it's dated 3 months late but claims the decision was given that day.

The only speculating was right after Rudy's sentence was reduced from 30 years to 16 years

Yes, look at the date of BOTH articles I posted above -

Rudy's apology letter winning him a reduction in sentence was even discussed w/ no objections here on Websleuth:
(Notice Date)

Tizzle:

Apology over Meredith won term cut

March 22, 2010 Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3 - Page 17 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
​

ETA - The dates reflect when the appeals court handed down their explanation Not when the sentence reduction was announced

 

[Allusonz]

I can't speak for Allusonz, but I've never pretended to be an expert in Italian law. I wouldn't even claim to be an expert on sentencing guidelines in the U.S., since they are very complicated, vary by jurisdiction, and change from time to time.

Back to Perugia: We have conflicting reports on the reasons for parts of RG's sentence reduction. That is the source of the confusion.

It is simple and obvious to you because you choose to ignore conflicting explanations for the reduction. And you may well be absolutely correct.

But we are left with reports that RG's sentence was reduced in the interest of parity with the sentences of AK and RS v. reports that RG's sentence was reduced because he expressed remorse and apologized to the victim's family.

And we have reports that a crime subject to a life sentence is only reduced to 30 years for fast-tracking, yet RG somehow got down to 24 without objection from the prosecutor. Meanwhile, the same prosecutor wants life for AK and RS.

So sometimes sentencing parity for co-defendants matters very much to the Italians and sometimes it matters not at all. Or maybe the prosecutor is putting on a show and the appellate court will end up evening out every sentence.

BBM

Totally agree Nova !! I have even seen judges i thought i knew pretty well do complete 180's rofl

The first bolded sentence...prosecutor did not object

The 2nd bolded sentence could very well be an interesting statement

The other thing to consider is that if their convictions were overturned which could in turn open the door for potential lawsuits by them, I am wondering what position RG could then take

 

[miley]

The lawyer does not say anything about good behavior (I was under the impression from discussions here that Rudy's behavior wasn't all the good), or an apology, being justification for sentence reduction. He is quite clear in connecting the reduction with matching the sentences of the other two convicts. Is there any particular reason why we should ignore the lawyer's words and create other explanations for the sentence reduction?

One can only assume that is the process ... that the sentence reduction is applied after appeal, not before. If Rudy's sentence was reduced by 1/3 prior to appeal, and then reduced by 6 years to match the sentence of AK and RS ... well, that wouldn't make much sense.

but I don't understand why you won't even consider the argument I'm making - anyway, I think I've made my point
BBM
By Nick Squires in Perugia

Ivory Coast-born Rudy Guede, 21, was found guilty of murdering and sexually assaulting Miss Kercher in the medieval walled town of Perugia, where she was studying Italian. \

Guede had elected for a separate, fast-track trial from Knox and Sollecito because he feared they had a pact to frame him for the murder. In Italy, a fast-track trial is held behind closed doors, involves a few key witnesses taking the stand and can lead to a lesser sentence. Guede’s tactic appears to have backfired — 30 years counts as life under Italian law and is what prosecutors had requested.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...jailed-Knox-and-Sollecito-to-stand-trial.html​

Examiner.com:

Although his sentence was reduced, Guede’s murder conviction stands. The Ivory Coast native had originally chosen a fast-track trial in an attempt to obtain a reduced sentence, however, his proclamation of innocence launched the appeal, according to News.com.au.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Amanda Knox case: Meredith Kercher killer gets sentence cut in half, gives hope to Knox - National Crime | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-na...nce-cut-half-gives-hope-to-knox#ixzz1DDNMa1Ke​

Frank Sfarzo:

If Rudy got 30 years it means that the original penalty was life-jail, then discounted because of the abbreviated trial. And indeed life-jail is the ordinary penalty for murder and sexual violence. It was enough to have been condemned for the theft too and he would have taken life-jail anyway because in that case only the 'daily isolation' would have been discounted.
Nothing to say, pretty lucky the boy. He's got the best attorneys and scientific experts for free, the judge 'forgets' about the theft, and he saved 18 million euro in one day. I should take him as my counselor for stocks trading.
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/10/rudy-guede-sentenced-to-30-years-amanda.html​

 

[miley]

BBM

Totally agree Nova !! I have even seen judges i thought i knew pretty well do complete 180's rofl

The bolded sentence could very well be an interesting statement

The other thing to consider is that if their convictions were overturned which could in turn open the door for potential lawsuits by them, I am wondering what position RG could then take

He'd probably say Alessi was telling the truth

 

[Allusonz]

Thank you Miley for all of this research you have done!!!

 

[otto]

but I don't understand why you won't even consider the argument I'm making - anyway, I think I've made my point
BBM
By Nick Squires in Perugia

Ivory Coast-born Rudy Guede, 21, was found guilty of murdering and sexually assaulting Miss Kercher in the medieval walled town of Perugia, where she was studying Italian. \

Guede had elected for a separate, fast-track trial from Knox and Sollecito because he feared they had a pact to frame him for the murder. In Italy, a fast-track trial is held behind closed doors, involves a few key witnesses taking the stand and can lead to a lesser sentence. Guede’s tactic appears to have backfired — 30 years counts as life under Italian law and is what prosecutors had requested.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...jailed-Knox-and-Sollecito-to-stand-trial.html​

Examiner.com:

Although his sentence was reduced, Guede’s murder conviction stands. The Ivory Coast native had originally chosen a fast-track trial in an attempt to obtain a reduced sentence, however, his proclamation of innocence launched the appeal, according to News.com.au.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Amanda Knox case: Meredith Kercher killer gets sentence cut in half, gives hope to Knox - National Crime | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-na...nce-cut-half-gives-hope-to-knox#ixzz1DDNMa1Ke​

Frank Sfarzo:

If Rudy got 30 years it means that the original penalty was life-jail, then discounted because of the abbreviated trial. And indeed life-jail is the ordinary penalty for murder and sexual violence. It was enough to have been condemned for the theft too and he would have taken life-jail anyway because in that case only the 'daily isolation' would have been discounted.
Nothing to say, pretty lucky the boy. He's got the best attorneys and scientific experts for free, the judge 'forgets' about the theft, and he saved 18 million euro in one day. I should take him as my counselor for stocks trading.
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/10/rudy-guede-sentenced-to-30-years-amanda.html​

The end result is all the same ... Rudy was sentenced as a result of a fair trial, and his circumstances are different from those of Amanda and Raffaele not because they have different degrees of responsibility for the murder or because one or the other has been treated unfairly, but because they elected different trial methods.

Therefore ... Rudy could not be sentenced for longer than 30 years, but Amanda and Raffaele can be sentenced for some number of years, or they can be released ... depending on the findings of the appeal court.

 

[Nova]

Now Amanda's lawyers don't want the Lifetime movie to be shown.

If Amanda is so innocent then why would she/they not want the movie to be shown?

Gee, maybe because it's the TRUTH about what happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/0...k-stop-lifetime-film/?test=latestnews#content

Hardly. If you read the entire article, you'll find that MK's father isn't so thrilled with the movie either.

The problem with the film (based on the little I can know from that article) is that it dramatizes things about the crime that the prosecutor claimed, but was never able to prove. Yet a certain percentage of the viewing public will accept what they see on TV as true.

Why wouldn't AK object to that?

 

[Nova]

Censorship? Well, well, well ... who would have thought that Knox and her PR team would object to the US public knowing the whole story of what happened with the murder of Meredith Kercher. All those millions spent on PR would be down the tubes if the facts came out on film.

Meredith's parents have their own objections:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/04/tv-re-enactment-of-meredith-kerchers-murder-draws-parents-ire/

Anyone who thinks a fictional film will tell "the whole story" knows nothing of how films are made. It is far more likely the film will focus on the most sordid details reported, whether they are true or not. There is no reason to believe the film will be accurate or fair to any, much less all principals.

On that note, the victim's father has condemned the film in harsher terms than supporters of the defendants, according to the very link you provide.

 

[otto]

Anyone who thinks a fictional film will tell "the whole story" knows nothing of how films are made. It is far more likely the film will focus on the most sordid details reported, whether they are true or not. There is no reason to believe the film will be accurate or fair to any, but less all principals.

On that note, the victim's father has condemned the film in harsher terms than supporters of the defendants, according to the very link you provide.

Of course Meredith's parents would be horrified that their daughter's murder is being turned into film entertainment for the masses.

 

[Nova]

There are several reasons why I have the understanding regarding the reduction of sentence from 30 to 24 years ... but the primary reason is because I followed the discussions that occurred in 2009 when the sentence was handed down. Speculation, two years later, about the reasoning seems a little bit late ... and most certainly places the discussion out of context and without the full benefit of all relevant reports and information.

The article you linked earlier (Independent News), that mentions reasons for the reduction of sentence, claims that the sentence was handed down on March 23, 2010, but the sentence was handed down in December 2009. How can we take an article like that seriously ... it's dated 3 months late but claims the decision was given that day.

But hey ... maybe I got it all wrong ... regardless, I intend to go along with what the lawyer had to say, and not what may be said in other reports.

Is it possible the sentence was announced in December but officially given in March? That wouldn't be uncommon in the U.S.

 

[Allusonz]

wrong one sorry

 

[Allusonz]

Of course Meredith's parents would be horrified that their daughter's murder is being turned into film entertainment for the masses.

Then i am sorry i simply do not understand your conflicting statements. I dont believe any of them want this movie to be made and that is what they are all saying