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

[trillian]

What does Rudy have to gain by remaining silent regarding the involvement of RS and AK in the murder?

1. No cross examination to expose his own lies. The prosecution cannot make up a decent story to match all the known facts, so I doubt Rudy could.

2. If he comes clean and takes full blame, then he becomes the catalyst to expose a shoddy and ridiculous investigation. A huge international embarrasment. I bet things are easier in prison if he keeps his mouth shut.

I hope he survives and finally tells what happened. Could he get additional charges for perjury or lying to LE? That would be a compelling reason to keep quiet as well.

 

[otto]

BBM: What is the evidence for this claim?

Of the group, how many were being interrogated in a second language?

Are you concerned that other non-Italian witnesses had a translator while Amanda did not?

 

[Nova]

Are you concerned that other non-Italian witnesses had a translator while Amanda did not?

No, I'm saying that interrogation in a second language (one in which AK did not claim fluency) must be very different than interrogation in your native tongue.

So AK was not treated the same, even if the behavior of LE was the same. AK was not afforded the opportunity to be questioned in her native tongue.

 

[otto]

No, I'm saying that interrogation in a second language (one in which AK did not claim fluency) must be very different than interrogation in your native tongue.

So AK was not treated the same, even if the behavior of LE was the same. AK was not afforded the opportunity to be questioned in her native tongue.

Rudy lived in Perugia, but Italian was not his first language. Meredith's friends were from the UK. Several of the witnesses were not native Italians. In what way was Amanda treated different from the other witnesses?

 

[miley]

The reduction in sentence had nothing to do with any apology.

The appeal court had reduced Guede's sentence to 24 years and cut one-third off as is custom when defendants opt for a fast-track trial, said Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing Kercher's family, who argued for the original sentence to be left unchanged.

"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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder

Nova is right... as unfathomable as it may seem, Rudy's apology had everything to do with his sentence reduction - notice the date the article you link to was written - before an explanation had been handed down.
By law and within a few months, Italian courts must give a written explanation for their rulings

From a more recent article: (BBM)

An appeals court today said it shaved 14 years off the sentence of a man involved in the murder of a British student Meredith Kercher because he was the only one of the three defendants to apologise to her family.
​

SOURCE: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...killers-apology-won-sentence-cut-1925868.html

 

[otto]

Nova is right... as unfathomable as it may seem, Rudy's apology had everything to do with his sentence reduction - notice the date the article you link to was written - before an explanation had been handed down.
By law and within a few months, Italian courts must give a written explanation for their rulings

From a more recent article: (BBM)

An appeals court today said it shaved 14 years off the sentence of a man involved in the murder of a British student Meredith Kercher because he was the only one of the three defendants to apologise to her family.
​

SOURCE: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...killers-apology-won-sentence-cut-1925868.html

The author of that article forgot to provide their name.

Fast-track trial

The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated proceeding)[24] consists, basically, of a proceeding where the trial phase is absent.

It is the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing who, according to the evidence gathered, during the preliminary investigations by the prosecutor and by the lawyer during the defensive investigations, if there were any, convicts or acquits the defendant.

Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights (he basically gives up his right to presenting new evidence and to be tried by a Judge of the Trial), it must be he who asks that the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing hand down a judgement over him.

The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third. If the crime was punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant will be sentenced to thirty years.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgement before the Court of Appeals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

 

[Allusonz]

Are there any sources which discuss the negative drugs testing other than the Nadeau book and/or does she offer a specific source for that possible fact? Like, is there a footnote or an, "according to _____," or something like that?

Sorry thought i had answered this till i saw i forgot to put in the link

Amanda had both blood and urine tests and only trace amounts of cannabis was found in her system. There is misinformation with respect to the testing of cocaine. The drug itself does not stay in your system as long as the metabolite does thus it amuses me to read what is said on other blogs. Although they test for cocaine they also test for benzoylegonine which stays in your system much longer as explained below. If she had ingested cocaine or been a habitual user it would of been all over every media outlet and tabloid immaginable

This is the quote tks flourish

"Technically none at all, since Amanda basically tested negative for drugs (only low traces of cannabis), therefore, didn’t need rehab therapy in jail. So useless you’re trying to say that she was a drug addict when it’s already acknowledged she was not."

http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?...2&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=MiABrkvbA_AF0qelP71yVA--


There is a bit of misinformation out there and that is cocaine is out of your system in 2-3 days. Well while that might be true LABS DON'T TEST FOR THE DRUG ITSELF. Yes, that is true, they look for the metabolite. A metabolite is something that the body produces when it ingests something, in the case of cocaine it is "benzoylecgonine" that will stay around long after the drug is gone, up to 30 days for a frequent user. THE DRUG ITSELF can stay in your bloodstream up to 72 hours. It can stay in your urine for about 2 or up to 7 days after single use. Habitual or chronic use can be detected in urine for up to 12 weeks depending on quantity, duration, and frequency of use.

Cocaine can stay in your hair up to about 90 days. But there are also information that cocaine can stay in your hair for about 25 years after you only take it once

 

[Allusonz]

The author of that article forgot to provide their name.

Fast-track trial

The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated proceeding)[24] consists, basically, of a proceeding where the trial phase is absent.

It is the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing who, according to the evidence gathered, during the preliminary investigations by the prosecutor and by the lawyer during the defensive investigations, if there were any, convicts or acquits the defendant.

Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights (he basically gives up his right to presenting new evidence and to be tried by a Judge of the Trial), it must be he who asks that the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing hand down a judgement over him.

The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third. If the crime was punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant will be sentenced to thirty years.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgement before the Court of Appeals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

one third would be 10 years he got 14 years taken off

 

[otto]

one third would be 10 years he got 14 years taken off

Rudy's sentence was reduced from 30 years to 24 to match the sentences given to Amanda and Raffaele, and then was further reduced by 1/3 because he opted for a fast-track trial, resulting in a 16 year sentence.

"The appeal court had reduced Guede's sentence to 24 years and cut one-third off as is custom when defendants opt for a fast-track trial, said Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing Kercher's family, who argued for the original sentence to be left unchanged.

"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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder

 

[Allusonz]

Got it, thanks.

My understanding is that RG did not testify in either AK's or RS' trial. Is that right?

But he did deny their involvement in a discussion with his friend that was taped (I think while RG was on the lam), no?

So all we are talking about is why he didn't exonerate two people who were at best casual acquaintances of his?

I repeat: doing so might have antagonized LE (even if it didn't affect his sentence) and RG simply wasn't feeling that generous. Nothing so mysterious there.

Correct RG used his right to remain silent

 

[Allusonz]

1. No cross examination to expose his own lies. The prosecution cannot make up a decent story to match all the known facts, so I doubt Rudy could.

2. If he comes clean and takes full blame, then he becomes the catalyst to expose a shoddy and ridiculous investigation. A huge international embarrasment. I bet things are easier in prison if he keeps his mouth shut.

I hope he survives and finally tells what happened. Could he get additional charges for perjury or lying to LE? That would be a compelling reason to keep quiet as well.

so very true trillian

 

[Allusonz]

Are you 100% sure that isn't the type of lock that locks automatically when the door closes? (It would still require a key to open again.) I'm not a lock expert, but it appears it could be that type of door lock to me.

I am double-checking because if it is an auto-lock door, then there's no need to discuss further why it was locked.

we must remember as well that RG was used to breaking into places and had a keychain full of keys i would think for this specific purpose

 

[flourish]

Sorry thought i had answered this till i saw i forgot to put in the link

Amanda had both blood and urine tests and only trace amounts of cannabis was found in her system. There is misinformation with respect to the testing of cocaine. The drug itself does not stay in your system as long as the metabolite does thus it amuses me to read what is said on other blogs. Although they test for cocaine they also test for benzoylegonine which stays in your system much longer as explained below. If she had ingested cocaine or been a habitual user it would of been all over every media outlet and tabloid immaginable


Technically none at all, since Amanda basically tested negative for drugs (only low traces of cannabis), therefore, didn’t need rehab therapy in jail. So useless you’re trying to say that she was a drug addict when it’s already acknowledged she was not.

http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?...2&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=MiABrkvbA_AF0qelP71yVA--


There is a bit of misinformation out there and that is cocaine is out of your system in 2-3 days. Well while that might be true LABS DON'T TEST FOR THE DRUG ITSELF. Yes, that is true, they look for the metabolite. A metabolite is something that the body produces when it ingests something, in the case of cocaine it is "benzoylecgonine" that will stay around long after the drug is gone, up to 30 days for a frequent user. THE DRUG ITSELF can stay in your bloodstream up to 72 hours. It can stay in your urine for about 2 or up to 7 days after single use. Habitual or chronic use can be detected in urine for up to 12 weeks depending on quantity, duration, and frequency of use.

Cocaine can stay in your hair up to about 90 days. But there are also information that cocaine can stay in your hair for about 25 years after you only take it once

RBBM
You might want to edit your post so it's clear which part is a quote from your link and which part is yours...

Okay, so let me see if I have this clear. AK was given what is commonly referred to as a drug urinalysis, which I completely understand involves testing for the metabolites of some drugs, for the sake of our conversation, cocaine, not the actual drug itself, due to human physiology. No benzoylecgonine was found in AK's urine, but whatever it is that indicates THC use was found in AK's urine, correct? You mention benzoylecgonine stays in the system up to about a month for a habitual user. How long does benzoylecgonine generally stay in the system of a new user?

ETA: oops, I see you answered that when you stated, "It can stay in your urine for about 2 or up to 7 days after single use." And she was tested how many hours after the murder?

Was AK's hair ever tested? Since this is a question regarding fact, I'd also appreciate that if anyone answers it, a clear source is provided, as well. TIA

 

[Allusonz]

I believe when i read this that Nova was actually stating the exact opposite

Originally Posted by Nova
(Sorry. Got back to this post too late to add an ETA.)

Just to be clear re my post above...

It was my assumption that no one reading it would think I meant that otto's opinions might be "baseless" or "delusional."

It is my opinion that anyone who has read otto's posts knows better.

And in fact, no one was more helpful than otto in assisting me to re-familiarize myself with this case, both in the threads themselves and in private messages where he directed me to the most important sources.

I was merely discussing the semantics of the word "opinion" and how the word alone tells us nothing of its worth.

My friend. Are you suggesting that my remarks are baseless or delusional?
Are you apologizing for suggesting same?

I better go back and read the last few posts ...

 

[miley]

The author of that article forgot to provide their name.

It's from The Independent... so what if it's written by the Press Association it sources The ANSA and Apcom news agencies

Fast-track trial

The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated proceeding)[24] consists, basically, of a proceeding where the trial phase is absent.

It is the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing who, according to the evidence gathered, during the preliminary investigations by the prosecutor and by the lawyer during the defensive investigations, if there were any, convicts or acquits the defendant.

Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights (he basically gives up his right to presenting new evidence and to be tried by a Judge of the Trial), it must be he who asks that the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing hand down a judgement over him.

The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third. If the crime was punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant will be sentenced to thirty years.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgement before the Court of Appeals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

Read the next sentence the sentence you didn't bold
The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third. If the crime was punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant will be sentenced to thirty years.

Rudy's crime was punishable by life imprisonment - Rudy was given 30 years.

 

[Allusonz]

My friend. Are you suggesting that my remarks are baseless or delusional?
Are you apologizing for suggesting same?

I better go back and read the last few posts ...

RBBM
You might want to edit your post so it's clear which part is a quote from your link and which part is yours...

Okay, so let me see if I have this clear. AK was given what is commonly referred to as a drug urinalysis, which I completely understand involves testing for the metabolites of some drugs, for the sake of our conversation, cocaine, not the actual drug itself, due to human physiology. No benzoylecgonine was found in AK's urine, but whatever it is that indicates THC use was found in AK's urine, correct? You mention benzoylecgonine stays in the system up to about a month for a habitual user. How long does benzoylecgonine generally stay in the system of a new user?

Was AK's hair ever tested? Since this is a question regarding fact, I'd also appreciate that if anyone answers it, a clear source is provided, as well. TIA

Thank you!!!!

 

[flourish]

we must remember as well that RG was used to breaking into places and had a keychain full of keys i would think for this specific purpose

How many keys did he have? Did he admit they were for breaking into places?

 

[Malkmus]

Rudy chose the fast track trial ... he accepted responsibility for part of the crime, but has maintained that others were involved ... coincidentally similar to the story of Amanda Knox.

Pleading and fast tracking the trial kind of precludes the prosecutor attempting to extend, or appeal the sentence. Rudy more or less confessed to the lesser charge of being culpable in the murder, but not commiting the murder (it would not have made any difference in his sentance if he had admitted murder).

Rudy was sentenced with 30 years in prison and his sentence was reduce for cooperating ... to 16 years ... but never has he exonerated Amanda and Raffaele. Is Rudy just a terrible person that enjoys seeing innocent people in jail, or is there a reason why he implicated Amanda and Raffaele ... that he was there but he didn't cause all of the 44 injuries.

Otto, I hope you noticed that the wiki article you just cited contradicts your statement above which I've bolded.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgement before the Court of Appeals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure#Fast-track_trial

 

[Allusonz]

RBBM
You might want to edit your post so it's clear which part is a quote from your link and which part is yours...

Okay, so let me see if I have this clear. AK was given what is commonly referred to as a drug urinalysis, which I completely understand involves testing for the metabolites of some drugs, for the sake of our conversation, cocaine, not the actual drug itself, due to human physiology. No benzoylecgonine was found in AK's urine, but whatever it is that indicates THC use was found in AK's urine, correct? You mention benzoylecgonine stays in the system up to about a month for a habitual user. How long does benzoylecgonine generally stay in the system of a new user?

ETA: oops, I see you answered that when you stated, "It can stay in your urine for about 2 or up to 7 days after single use." And she was tested how many hours after the murder?

Was AK's hair ever tested? Since this is a question regarding fact, I'd also appreciate that if anyone answers it, a clear source is provided, as well. TIA

To my knowledge her hair was never tested.

This was something they use to do more frequently but with the tests they perform now being so sensitive for example athletes etc., the actual drug in my opinion could be detected for a much longer period of time

From a personal experience they were able to detect it for 3 months and it was under the same group of drugs as cocaine, and that was a one time deal. They were actually even able to tell from one glass of wine as there were still trace amounts of that which i was quite surprised at

 

[otto]

It's from The Independent... so what if it's written by the Press Association it sources The ANSA and Apcom news agencies


Read the next sentence the sentence you didn't bold
The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third. If the crime was punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant will be sentenced to thirty years.

Rudy's crime was punishable by life imprisonment - Rudy was given 30 years.

That's right. Rudy was sentenced to 30 years. The appeal resulted in his sentence being reduced first to match the sentences of the other two convicted murders, and then further reduced by 1/3 for choosing the fast-track option.