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

[Malkmus]

Rudy's whole sentence reduction is indeed confusing. From what I thought 30 years is the maximum life sentence. However, going by the logic that a fast track trial automatically results in a reduced sentence, Rudy's 30 year sentence would appear to be a reduction. The fact that the reduction to 16 years occurred only after he appealed his fast track trial implies, however, that the reduction was not a result of the fast track trial itself, but of the appeals. In other words, if it's thought that the fast track trial is what reduced his sentence to 16 years then there would have been no need for the appeals. Yet, it's the appeals which occurred much later that resulted in his 16 year sentence. Hope that's clear.

 

[Malkmus]

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

Not sure about the keys, but when Rudy was busted in Milan squatting in a place he had broken into (just a month before the murder) he was in possession of stolen goods, a hammer for breaking windows, and an 18 inch knife.

ETA: IMO, Rudy was in Milan trying to fence the items he had stolen from the law office in Perugia just beforehand. A law office that was broken into by throwing a rock through the second floor window and scaling the wall.

Sounds familiar, huh? Second floor window, big kitchen knife, rock through window, stolen items...

 

[otto]

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



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

Rudy was sentenced per law ... 30 years minus one/third for fast track. The prosecutor most likely did not appeal this decision as it was according to law. Rudy did appeal his sentence, and as a result it was reduced to 24 years to match the sentences of the other two murderers. The sentence would not have been extended beyond 30 years, so there was nothing for the prosecutor to appeal. If Rudy had been sentenced to 24 years, then it would most likely have appealed ... just like what is happening with Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[otto]

Rudy's whole sentence reduction is indeed confusing. From what I thought 30 years is the maximum life sentence. However, going by the logic that a fast track trial automatically results in a reduced sentence, Rudy's 30 year sentence would appear to be a reduction. The fact that the reduction to 16 years occurred only after he appealed his fast track trial implies, however, that the reduction was not a result of the fast track trial itself, but of the appeals. In other words, if it's thought that the fast track trial is what reduced his sentence to 16 years then there would have been no need for the appeals. Yet, it's the appeals which occurred much later that resulted in his 16 year sentence. Hope that's clear.

So ... are you thinking that Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing a party in the trial, doesn't know what he's talking about?

 

[flourish]

Not sure about the keys, but when Rudy was busted in Milan squatting in a place he had broken into (just a month before the murder) he was in possession of stolen goods, a hammer for breaking windows, and an 18 inch knife.

Did he say the hammer was for breaking windows?
Keys just seem like a weird burglary tool--not that I would know, but lock-picks or a multi-tool or something...I don't get the whole fully stocked keyring thing.

 

[Malkmus]

So ... are you thinking that Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing a party in the trial, doesn't know what he's talking about?

Could you be more specific? In my post I stated that I find the reduction confusing and find both your points and Miley's factual, yet contradictory.

 

[Malkmus]

Did he say the hammer was for breaking windows?
Keys just seem like a weird burglary tool--not that I would know, but lock-picks or a multi-tool or something...I don't get the whole fully stocked keyring thing.

It was one of those pointed (not blunt) emergency hammers you find on a bus to break windows.

 

[otto]

Could you be more specific? In my post I stated that I find the reduction confusing and find both your points and Miley's factual, yet contradictory.

"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."

 

[Malkmus]

Not quite following your logic here:

Rudy was sentenced per law ... 30 years minus one/third for fast track. The prosecutor most likely did not appeal this decision as it was according to law.

Does this imply that Raffale's and Amanda's were not "according to law"? Can you elaborate, or cite why you believe the second sentence?

Rudy did appeal his sentence, and as a result it was reduced to 24 years to match the sentences of the other two murderers.

Right, I get that. To be more specific, 6 years were taken off all three because of their clean records.

The sentence would not have been extended beyond 30 years, so there was nothing for the prosecutor to appeal. If Rudy had been sentenced to 24 years, then it would most likely have appealed ... just like what is happening with Amanda and Raffaele.

Isn't Mignini appealing to just have the 6 years added back to the couple's sentence? Meaning that in Rudy's trial he could also have his 6 years added back, but retain the 1/3 off for the fast-track he took?

 

[Allusonz]

Did he say the hammer was for breaking windows?
Keys just seem like a weird burglary tool--not that I would know, but lock-picks or a multi-tool or something...I don't get the whole fully stocked keyring thing.

i will have to get the links for you flourish, he carried a key ring of keys and the hammer that malkmus described. The were specific to break and enter

 

[Malkmus]

"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."

Ok, this much I follow. What I find confusing is why his sentence was only reduced by a third after the appeals and not immediately after his fast track trial. And also why there are news reports stating that his apology to the family helped get his reduction.
For example, let's say that Rudy chose not to appeal his sentence after the initial fast track trial. Wouldn't his sentence still have been reduced by a third, regardless, without the appeals?
From what I can tell the 1/3 reduction wasn't reduced until after the appeals due to formality and what the appeals court did was reduce his sentence by 6 years based on his apology and clean record. Although his clean record is a whole other mystery if you ask me.

 

[otto]

Not quite following your logic here:



Does this imply that Raffale's and Amanda's were not "according to law"? Can you elaborate, or cite why you believe the second sentence?



Right, I get that. To be more specific, 6 years were taken off all three because of their clean records.



Isn't Mignini appealing to just have the 6 years added back to the couple's sentence? Meaning that in Rudy's trial he could also have his 6 years added back, but retain the 1/3 off for the fast-track he took?

Are you suggesting that even though Amanda and Raffaele did not opt for the fast-track option, they should have been sentenced to 30 years per the law for those that opt for the fast-track option? Why?

Rudy's sentence was reduced from 30 years to 24, according to the lawyer, so that the sentence was equal to that of the other two (AK and RS) that were convicted of the same crime.

The two prosecutors have appealed the 24 year sentence given to Amanda and Raffaele, and would like to see it extended to life.

Rudy's appeal is done. He benefited from the lower sentence given to AK and RS.

 

[miley]

Rudy's whole sentence reduction is indeed confusing. From what I thought 30 years is the maximum life sentence. However, going by the logic that a fast track trial automatically results in a reduced sentence, Rudy's 30 year sentence would appear to be a reduction. The fact that the reduction to 16 years occurred only after he appealed his fast track trial implies, however, that the reduction was not a result of the fast track trial itself, but of the appeals. In other words, if it's thought that the fast track trial is what reduced his sentence to 16 years then there would have been no need for the appeals. Yet, it's the appeals which occurred much later that resulted in his 16 year sentence. Hope that's clear.

Yes, thank you
What I was also saying ... Nova pointed out the fact that since Rudy wrote the victims family an apology letter, he was granted an additional reduction.

I provided a link that back up his claim - the appeals court indeed shaved an additional 16 years off of Rudy's 30 year sentence. The article says 14 years because of the apology letter.

 

[otto]

Ok, this much I follow. What I find confusing is why his sentence was only reduced by a third after the appeals and not immediately after his fast track trial. And also why there are news reports stating that his apology to the family helped get his reduction.
For example, let's say that Rudy chose not to appeal his sentence after the initial fast track trial. Wouldn't his sentence still have been reduced by a third, regardless, without the appeals?
From what I can tell the 1/3 reduction wasn't reduced until after the appeals due to formality and what the appeals court did was reduce his sentence by 6 years based on his apology and clean record. Although his clean record is a whole other mystery if you ask me.

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.

 

[Allusonz]

hhmmmmmmmmm

i wonder whom would truly have the ultimate decision

his lawyer
the prosecutor

or

the appeals court......

 

[Malkmus]

Are you suggesting that even though Amanda and Raffaele did not opt for the fast-track option, they should have been sentenced to 30 years per the law for those that opt for the fast-track option? Why?

Not sure where you get this insinuation as I don't see anything in my post relating to what you just implied. All I asked was why you think Rudy's trial can't be appealed by the prosecutor, since your reasoning was that it was "according to law". I'm asking you to clarify or cite something to back that up. So far I'm unconvinced that the prosecutor could not have appealed his sentence to be greater than 16 years.

Rudy's sentence was reduced from 30 years to 24, according to the lawyer, so that the sentence was equal to that of the other two (AK and RS) that were convicted of the same crime.

The two prosecutors have appealed the 24 year sentence given to Amanda and Raffaele, and would like to see it extended to life.

Rudy's appeal is done. He benefited from the lower sentence given to AK and RS.

Yes, all this I get. What I don't get is why you think the prosecutor couldn't have appealed Rudy's sentence to have the 6 years added back on. The 6 years have nothing to do with his fast track trial.

 

[Malkmus]

Yes, thank you
What I was also saying ... Nova pointed out the fact that since Rudy wrote the victims family an apology letter, he was granted an additional reduction.

I provided a link that back up his claim - the appeals court indeed shaved an additional 16 years off of Rudy's 30 year sentence. The article says 14 years because of the apology letter.

Yes, but from what I can tell, it was his fast track trial which earned him the 8 year reduction, but oddly, it wasn't applied until after his appeals. As bizarre as this seems, it does appear to be the case. The 6 years off appears to be due to his clean record and "apology". I still believe the prosecutor simply chose not to appeal the sentence to have the 6 years added back on, though, and not because he couldn't.

 

[Allusonz]

Yes, but from what I can tell, it was his fast track trial which earned him the 8 year reduction, but oddly, it wasn't applied until after his appeals. As bizarre as this seems, it does appear to be the case. The 6 years off appears to be due to his clean record and "apology". I still believe the prosecutor simply chose not to appeal the sentence to have the 6 years added back on, though, and not because he couldn't.

I believe though that ultimately it would be the decision of the court. They could of actually just taken the 10 years and no further time off, or conversely they could of taken additional time off from what they did.

 

[Malkmus]

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.

Yes, we're on the same page as to why he had 8 years taken off. But according to the news reports the "apology" was part of that other reduction , not the 8 year (fast-track) reduction. The lawyer you quoted doesn't mention the "apology" because he seems to be only referring to the 8 year fast track reduction. The "apology" is cited as being a part of the jury's reasoning for the 6 year reduction.

 

[Allusonz]

Case in point

The prosecutor for GM only asked for 10 months, but he received 16 months which of course he is now appealing. That does not mean though that the appeals court cant reduce it or increase it....