Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[Nova]

Selective evidence. Amanda was in Perugia. She rented a room. Then she left. She went to Germany for a couple of weeks. Meredith arrived in Perugia. She rented a room and then stayed in Perugia. Meredith moved in before Amanda. Amanda moved in a couple of weeks later.

The timeline to which wasnt_me linked had AK returning from Germany a few days before MK moved in. (MK had been in Perugia while AK was in Germany, but she hadn't yet taken the room in which she was killed.)

 

[otto]

You didn't read what I said or something to still think I need to refer to Italian law. Either that, or you just ought to break it down, because I see no reason to refer to another thread or to Italian law to discuss what I just read in that article to be an opinion of a lawyer talking to a reporter. He told the reporter that with the sentence reduction, RG's sentence now more closely matched those of the other two.

I don't need to read anything further, unless you are trying to tell me that I dont understand his statement.

Further, for as many times as we've had to restate things to you, I do take exception to you telling me to go back and read threads. i've seen many, many incidences where people have explained things to you again and you were part of the discussion in the earlier threads to boot. If you find an old post relevent, bring it forward. It's that simple.

Just trying to be helpful. You'be been asking about the 1/3 reduction and there is a long discussion about that on this discussion forum. It seem to me that it would be easier to research the topic than to repeatedly insist that someone else do the research and give it to you.

 

[wasnt_me]

Where is your confusion coming from?

1. Filomina arrived at the house and Meredith's door was locked.
2. That door was locked with a key
3. Police wanted to enter that room.
4. NO ONE had a key for the room
5. Filomina insisted that police break down that door.
6. If Filomina had a key, why didn't she use it?

Filomina's bedroom was unlocked

1. Amanda arrived at the cottage and did or did not see the broken glass (depends on whether you believe Amanda or those Amanda spoke to after the murder was discovered)
2. Raffaele arrived at the cottage. Filomina's bedroom was unlocked
3. Filomina arrived at the cottage and was not surprised that her door was unlocked. She did not say that her door was locked and there was no discussion or testimony from her claiming that her door was locked.

Laura's bedroom was unlocked

1. Laura's bedroom was unlocked when everyone arrived at the cottage.
2. Laura has not testified that her door was locked and there has been no suggestion from Laura that she locked her door.

Amanda's bedroom door was unlocked.

1. Again ... no testimony to the contrary.

The only confusion I have is somewhere on one of these recent posts, I placed RF with a key to Laura's room. We have no evidence of that.

Otherwise, whether RF was suprised about her door being open or not, unless we have a report of it, we do not know. I'm guessing she was surprised about her window that she thought she closed, but that was not stated. If her room had been broken into, then it is no surprise to find that the thief opened her door.

I don't know why I placed the key in RF's hands a post or two back, so thanks for the correction. But the main doors I am concerned about, and I did state this in a prior post, are just RF's door, MK's door, and the front door. I still contend that unless we know for a fact that RF didn't lock her door, it's possible that she did. You can say it's not probable, but it's still not impossible. If you don't have reasonable doubt on that theory, then that is your opinion. I have reasonable doubt on it, based on the statements RF made about her window. Those statements lead me to believe she could have locked her door. Without concrete proof, it can't be dismissed from my mind.

 

[Nova]

I respectfully hear you and disagree, because he asks us to cite stuff and prove stuff. If he knew all the facts, we wouldn't have to keep repeating the same things to him. And the idea that he knows everything is flawed, because he doesn't know that AK and RS killed MK. That's for certain.

I respectfully apologize if this post offends anyone, but I believe the very nature of thinking anyone knows everything is the very reason these people got convicted.

I don't believe I said anyone knows everything. Obviously, I argue with otto all the time and, also obviously, I disagree with many of his conclusions.

My point was that some allowance must be made for the fact that this discussion has been going on for 4 years; you and I have come into it relatively recently. If some of the "old timers" don't want to go searching for links they have supplied many times before, I think some understanding on our part is only fair.

That doesn't mean you have to concede the point. Agreeing to disagree should suffice.

 

[wasnt_me]

But if Filomena had Laura's keys, why didn't she have MK's keys?

We have ample record that a debate was held as to whether to break down MK's door. if other doors in the house were locked, we should have some record of a discussion about breaking them down as well; we have no record of any such discussion.

So while I can't say with 100% certainty, I am convinced that MK's was the only door in the apartment that was locked from the inside.

You're right about RF and Laura's key. As I just told Otto, I wasn't thinking when I placed that key in RF's hands. I'd originially theorized that none of them had each other's keys, so I don't know where that came from in my mind. I probaby need a break. I still contend that RF's door is an unknown.

Thanks!

 

[otto]

The timeline to which wasnt_me linked had AK returning from Germany a few days before MK moved in. (MK had been in Perugia while AK was in Germany, but she hadn't yet taken the room in which she was killed.)

You probably read in the Motivation Report that Meredith rented the room after Amanda rented the room, but Meredith moved in first since Amanda went to Germany after renting the room.

 

[wasnt_me]

Just trying to be helpful. You'be been asking about the 1/3 reduction and there is a long discussion about that on this discussion forum. It seem to me that it would be easier to research the topic than to repeatedly insist that someone else do the research and give it to you.

That's really a back handed slap to say that when you were the one asserting a point and I asked for a citation for your point. No one asked you repeatedly to spoonfeed me research. You disagree with a fact, then you ought to be willing to cite for EVERYONE who reads the boards, guests and members, where your differing information came from.

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't believe I said anyone knows everything. Obviously, I argue with otto all the time and, also obviously, I disagree with many of his conclusions.

My point was that some allowance must be made for the fact that this discussion has been going on for 4 years; you and I have come into it relatively recently. If some of the "old timers" don't want to go searching for links they have supplied many times before, I think some understanding on our part is only fair.

That doesn't mean you have to concede the point. Agreeing to disagree should suffice.

The only way I know to debate a fact is to prove it. It someone debates a fact, they should just prove the reference for the debate and be done. Oldtimers should suffer newtimers a little and realize that guests are also in here that might benefit because after all, they were once new, too. If everyone can do it, we'll be going along swimmingly.

 

[otto]

That's really a back handed slap to say that when you were the one asserting a point and I asked for a citation for your point. No one asked you repeatedly to spoonfeed me research. You disagree with a fact, then you ought to be willing to cite for EVERYONE who reads the boards, guests and members, where your differing information came from.

Please refer to the discussion on this board, regarding the sentence reduction, that I linked.

 

[otto]

The only way I know to debate a fact is to prove it. It someone debates a fact, they should just prove the reference for the debate and be done. Oldtimers should suffer newtimers a little and realize that guests are also in here that might benefit because after all, they were once new, too. If everyone can do it, we'll be going along swimmingly.

After four years of discussion, all of the points have been supported by links at one time or another. Many links are no longer easily accessible as information does disappear from media sites over time. Everything that is currently being discussed about trial evidence was discussed at the time of the trial (2 years ago). In a way, it's all old news. Each time someone suggests that Rudy's sentence was reduced because he apologized, someone has to go back and get all those old links, including links to Italian law, to once again explain the fast track trial option. Stick around long enough, and you'll see the point raised again in a couple of weeks or months, and then again, and again and again. One begins to think that the reason for this point being raised is not in order to gain understanding, but to argue that Rudy is treated special for no particular reason.

During this appeal, there are new points to discuss ... like the corroded clasp, the testimony of the heroin addict. We also have the court hearing of Dr Sollicito for trying to "make water flow uphill"; influence people in authority regarding the outcome of the trial. We have Knox filing a complaint against Lifetime movies. We have Raffaele's lawsuit regarding the movie. There is lots of new information, but it seems to get bogged down with rehashing the trial evidence from 2 years ago.

 

[wasnt_me]

The timeline to which wasnt_me linked had AK returning from Germany a few days before MK moved in. (MK had been in Perugia while AK was in Germany, but she hadn't yet taken the room in which she was killed.)

Right, the motivations report:

It says of MK, that she moved in around mid-september.

At the beginning of September Amanda Knox arrived and said she was interested in living in the house. She had chosen her own room, the one located between Romanelli’s room and the one that would be Meredith’s room.
Amanda Knox had then left to spend a few days in Germany, where she had an aunt.
Meredith had arrived after this and also expressed interest in the house [16]. She began to live there in mid-September 2007, occupying the room

Pg 29 of the report.

She had left the United States around middle of August 2007 and had stopped in Germany till late August or beginning of September had come to Italy, to Perugia together with her sister and she viewed over the house on Via della Pergola and returned to Germany and from there back to Italy, in Perugia, to the house that had already seen and found to her liking.

Page 61.

From this description, I'm getting that AK was living there at least a week before "mid-september." or it's possible that MK moved in a couple days before AK returned. The second quote describes it even more differently. The exact time frame is sketchy. Depending on what you think a few days is, or depending if some other reference pins it down more, it's up to the reader to descern that.

 

[flourish]

And who in the world is "RF?" I can't think of anyone in this case who belongs to those initials, and I keep seeing them and it's driving me a teensy bit crazy :crazy:

 

[wasnt_me]

One begins to think that the reason for this point being raised is not in order to gain understanding, but to argue that Rudy is treated special for no particular reason.

For this one, it's best to try not to assign motives to posters.

During this appeal, there are new points to discuss ... like the corroded clasp, the testimony of the heroin addict. We also have the court hearing of Dr Sollicito for trying to "make water flow uphill"; influence people in authority regarding the outcome of the trial. We have Knox filing a complaint against Lifetime movies. We have Raffaele's lawsuit regarding the movie. There is lots of new information, but it seems to get bogged down with rehashing the trial evidence from 2 years ago.

For this, advance it forward. it needs to be discussed. It might be that we need a different thread, so that this type of thread about the old case can continue to be for people still discussing old stuff. maybe a thread called "Appeals for AK and RS in MK murder" or something. Can we create those ourselves?

Otherwise, I don't want to get into a debate about the logistics between posters anymore, if that's okay, because we're here to discuss the case. I thank you for coming back and explaining to me more your thoughts on it and I don't disregard them. I just don't want to bog the thread down with more stuff that's not relevant. We're all adults, so I know that we can all shrug off it and continue forward.

 

[wasnt_me]

And who in the world is "RF?" I can't think of anyone in this case who belongs to those initials, and I keep seeing them and it's driving me a teensy bit crazy :crazy:

I keep putting that meaning FR. I apologize.

 

[sherlockh]

Did I miss the correction? Cold you extract the line that contains the correction, because I somehow missed it.

This was in relation to cellmate vs prison mate. The later article said that he is in the same ward, not in the same cell. A lot of media had this wrong at first. I don't even know if these sex offenders have cellmates. If the story isn't unbelievable enough, that Alessi is his prison mate makes it IMO only more unbelievable. He claims that RG came to him with his story during an open air break.

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/New-evidence-or-jailhouse-desperation-in-Knox-887799.php

 

[Allusonz]

Miley did an incredible amount of research with respect to this reduction and I am going to pull it over

02-06-2011, 06:26 PM
miley
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 251

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova
"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,...#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/AmandaKno...0169888&page=2

 

[Allusonz]

More research done by Miley

02-06-2011, 07:25 PM
miley
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 251

Quote:
Originally Posted by otto
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/ukne...and-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-nat...#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/20...rs-amanda.html

 

[otto]

Miley did an incredible amount of research with respect to this reduction and I am going to pull it over

02-06-2011, 06:26 PM
miley
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 251

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova
"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,...#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/AmandaKno...0169888&page=2

There you have it. Italian law stipulates that any person that opts for the fast track option will have their final sentence reduced by one third.

Let's ignore this fact. Instead, let's believe that Rudy, who opted for the fast track trial, did not have his sentence reduced by one third. Let's believe that the courts violated the law in Rudy's case. Let's believe instead that Rudy's sentence was reduced by one third because he said sorry, not because the law required that his sentence be reduced by one third.

 

[Allusonz]

More again thanks Miley

02-06-2011, 06:49 PM
miley
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 251

Quote:
Originally Posted by otto
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
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]

There you have it. Italian law stipulates that any person that opts for the fast track option will have their final sentence reduced by one third.

Let's ignore this fact. Instead, let's believe that Rudy, who opted for the fast track trial, did not have his sentence reduced by one third. Let's believe that the courts violated the law in Rudy's case. Let's believe instead that Rudy's sentence was reduced by one third because he said sorry, not because the law required that his sentence be reduced by one third.

Which would of been 10 years NOT 14 as I have pointed out before and Miley went to a great amount of research

30 - 10 = 20