Sunday, December 20, 2009

Guede Appeal Outcome Mon-Tues Could be An Indicator To Knox-Sollecito Appeal Outcome

Posted by Peter Quennell

The first eight posts at the bottom here represent our previous reporting on Rudy Guede’s appeal.

Commissario Montalbano’s recent post on the Italian appeals process is also vital reading here.

The appeals grounds seemed thin, and the appeals judge will be very thoroughly acquainted with the report of the judge who first sentenced him, Judge Micheli.

There were only two variations to his original story in the appeal hearings: that he had not had intimate relations with Meredith, and that he had seen and identified Knox but not Sollecito. In his trial, his story was that he had identified Sollecito by appearance if not by name, and that he might have heard Knox nearby.

He emphasized that he briefly tried to save Meredith. But of course he fled without ever calling an ambulance, even anonymously, and Meredith was left clutching her wounded neck, with her door locked and her mobile phones removed. Guede then went out to a disco before taking to his heels to Milan and then Germany.

Recently Guede was mysteriously attacked in prison. Connected or not? Who knows? But Rudy might be thinking that 30 years in prison with time off for behavior is a better bet than another possible attack that ends worse.

The pro-Knox and Sollecito factions seem to be banking on their appeals late 2010 being a whole new trial. Guede’s appeals judge simply refused to reopen the whole case with new witnesses, and the November hearings were over very quickly.

Our Italian experts tell us that if Guede gets freedom, then Knox and Sollecito may expect to see freedom too. And if Guede gets his sentence reduced or confirmed, then that is very likely to be their fate too.

For why they all seem to be so joined at the hip read here and here. The Guede-as-lone-wolf theory never even got to first base.

Tweet This Post


The fact that the Judge has denied the defense to introduce any new evidence is a sign that the ‘guilty’ verdict is going to stand. However since in the Knox-Sollecito trial the court applied the ‘attenuanti generiche’ (generic attenuating circumstances) set forth in art. 62 bis of the Penal Code, which reduced their sentence to 25 years, the same is likely to happen to him.

Given that the choice of the abbreviated trial guarantees a 1/3 reduction of the sentence, we should expect a sentence that is about 1/3 less than the one given to AK and RS. Therefore it should not surprise anybody if he gets a sentence between 15 and 20 years.

Posted by Commissario Montalbano on 12/20/09 at 09:45 PM | #

Appreciated, Commisario. So even if Guede’s sentence is reduced as you eaplain there is nothing automatic about RS’s or AK’s being shortened as well.

All over the threads on other websites now it is being claimed that Guede robs people at knifepoint, deals drugs, and breaks in. He may deal drugs, which seems to be the reason the police took his mobile away. but he has no convictions for that or for knife threats or burglaries. A clean record.  In contrast Knox has a Seattle conviction for disturbing the police (the rock throwing party) and Sollecito at least one drug-related conviction back in Bari.

And talking of burglaries there are three easier points at which to break into Meredith’s apartment than Filomena’s window, and an entire apartment downstairs was empty of people at the time.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/20/09 at 10:45 PM | #

The two trials are totally independent from one another and the decision in one does not necessarily affect the outcome of the other, from a legal standpoint. My opinion above is simply a prediction because logic dictates that the judges would want to appear consistent in their sentencing. A sentence to Guede to 30 years while Amanda, who was identified by the court as the person who inflicted the fatal stab, gets only 25 years, would be perceived as an unjust verdict.

The primary role of the Supreme Court of Cassation is to “uniformly apply the law”. If the two decisions were dramatically differing from each other, the Supreme Court would likely intervene to resolve any apparent blatant contradiction of the two sentences. I’m sure these considerations are in the minds of the judges.

The only way that a conflict of sentencing would stand would be if the appeal judges came to the conclusion that Guede committed the crime by himself, in other words if the judges espoused the theory of the defense in the AK/RS trial. This is not likely in my opinion.

Posted by Commissario Montalbano on 12/20/09 at 11:20 PM | #

Tweet This Post

Post A Comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Rudy Guede Appeal: Not Yet The Hoped-For Last-Minute Story Change

Or to previous entry A Shoot-From-The-Hip Donald Trump Appears To Have Been Told Less Than The Full Truth