Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Anglo while searching I found this:

Submitted by Guest (not verified) on Thu, 04/01/2010 - 10:15am.
PhanuelB, you said: "Italian law prohibits digitization and publication of trial documents in their complete unaltered form. The purpose of this law is to shield a corrupt and dysfunctional Italian judicial system from public scrutiny".

Why do you say things of which you know nothing about? Are you a liar or just a clueless ignorant?
Documents are public from the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, including the result of the investigations by the police and prosecutor.
Article 329 of the Penal Procedure Code: "Gli atti di indagine compiuti dal pubblico ministero e dalla polizia giudiziaria sono coperti dal segreto fino a quando l’imputato non ne possa avere conoscenza e, comunque, non oltre la chiusura delle indagini preliminari."

Every other court document is public. I have tons and tons of documents. Barbie Nadeau read over 10,000 pages of trial transcripts. Giornale dell'Umbria has everything you need (if you speak Italian, which you don't). If you have a friend in Perugia (which you don’t) he can get all information you need from the Tribunale.

The Italia criminal system is without doubt the best in the world. Amanda was lucky to have committed the crime in Italy. What's corrupted is your mind.

 

[anglolawyer]

Do you have handy a link to Mignini referring to early interviews with Amanda?
Snip

No

 

[anglolawyer]

Ratio
In mathematics, a ratio is a relationship between two numbers of the same kind, expressed as "a to b" or a:b, sometimes expressed arithmetically as a dimensionless quotient of the two that explicitly...

We are (or, at any rate, I am) talking English, not Maths

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo while searching I found this:

Submitted by Guest (not verified) on Thu, 04/01/2010 - 10:15am.
PhanuelB, you said: "Italian law prohibits digitization and publication of trial documents in their complete unaltered form. The purpose of this law is to shield a corrupt and dysfunctional Italian judicial system from public scrutiny".

Why do you say things of which you know nothing about? Are you a liar or just a clueless ignorant?
Documents are public from the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, including the result of the investigations by the police and prosecutor.
Article 329 of the Penal Procedure Code: "Gli atti di indagine compiuti dal pubblico ministero e dalla polizia giudiziaria sono coperti dal segreto fino a quando l’imputato non ne possa avere conoscenza e, comunque, non oltre la chiusura delle indagini preliminari."

Every other court document is public. I have tons and tons of documents. Barbie Nadeau read over 10,000 pages of trial transcripts. Giornale dell'Umbria has everything you need (if you speak Italian, which you don't). If you have a friend in Perugia (which you don’t) he can get all information you need from the Tribunale.

The Italia criminal system is without doubt the best in the world. Amanda was lucky to have committed the crime in Italy. What's corrupted is your mind.

Otiose

 

[Bill Williams]

We are (or, at any rate, I am) talking English, not Maths

Grinder has you on this one. Then again, maybe Leila Schneps (Thoughtful) will venture an opinion and it will be settled for sure.

 

[christianahannah]

Do you have handy a link to Mignini referring to early interviews with Amanda?

Dan O referred to the 10,000 page report. Is it available? If not, is an index to it available?

During Amanda's June 2009 testimony Mignini read off threel times and dates that Amanda was interviewed prior to November 5-6. They are November 2 at 15:30; November 3 at 14:45; and November 4, 14:45.

 

[Grinder]

During Amanda's June 2009 testimony Mignini read off threel times and dates that Amanda was interviewed prior to November 5-6. They are November 2 at 15:30; November 3 at 14:45; and November 4, 14:45.

Thanks. I remembered that he referred to them and at one point mentioned the lack of some aspect relating to Patrick.

I don't understand how he can refer to them and not put them in the record.

 

[christianahannah]

Thanks. I remembered that he referred to them and at one point mentioned the lack of some aspect relating to Patrick.

I don't understand how he can refer to them and not put them in the record.

I think they are in the record.

 

[Grinder]

I think they are in the record.

And where do you think that would be?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A stranger comes to town: Burleigh on wrongful prosecutions

Nina Burleigh discusses this case and the recent North Carolina exonerations: "It is human nature to suspect the outsider, which is one reason why Tolstoy noted that A Stranger Comes to Town is one of just two themes for great literature. (The other, certainly apropos in the Knox case, is A Man Goes on a Journey.) Outliers, strangers, minorities and people with no access to the levers of power can go from merely suspicious to convicted fast when a crime occurs, anywhere."

 

[carbonjam72]

Nina Burleigh discusses this case and the recent North Carolina exonerations: "It is human nature to suspect the outsider, which is one reason why Tolstoy noted that A Stranger Comes to Town is one of just two themes for great literature. (The other, certainly apropos in the Knox case, is A Man Goes on a Journey.) Outliers, strangers, minorities and people with no access to the levers of power can go from merely suspicious to convicted fast when a crime occurs, anywhere."

Thanks for posting this link.

I wish Nina Burleigh would debate Mr Winterbottom on the BBC, and ask him to defend his belief that, 'the truth will never be known' in this case.

The BBC did fund his film, I would hope they would feel some obligation to defend their decision and the POV they are putting out into the world, especially in an ongoing case.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O referred to the 10,000 page report. Is it available? If not, is an index to it available?

The file is available for a price that few can afford. Select pages have become public. That the community has not produced an index to the pages that they have shows a lack of interest on their part.

 

[lonepinealex]

Thanks for posting this link.

I wish Nina Burleigh would debate Mr Winterbottom on the BBC, and ask him to defend his belief that, 'the truth will never be known' in this case.

The BBC did fund his film, I would hope they would feel some obligation to defend their decision and the POV they are putting out into the world, especially in an ongoing case.

Winterbottom's film isn't even mentioned on the BBC Films website. I wouldn't be surprised if the only people in the UK who'd heard of it were in this thread.

 

[Dan O.]

And where do you think that would be?

Somewhere around page 500. But I don't expect to see these records. There is nothing that supports the prosecutions case or they would have used it already. There is nothing that we cannot find in later documents that we don't already have so the content won't help the defense. And there is nothing salatious or the press would have printed it. But since there will always be minor differences in anyone's recounting of events, we can be assured that the guilters will pick up on every percieved inconsistency and pretend that it is proof of guilt. The defense doesn't want this negative publicity for their clients so we will be limited in what we see.

Perhaps if the innocence community were stronger, showed more devotion to finding the truth, the weight favoring release could change.

 

[Bill Williams]

Winterbottom's film isn't even mentioned on the BBC Films website. I wouldn't be surprised if the only people in the UK who'd heard of it were in this thread.

Judging by the missing "buzz" in Toronto, this may be true elsewhere.

 

[carbonjam72]

Judging by the missing "buzz" in Toronto, this may be true elsewhere.

The one constant of the film business, is you can't fake buzz. You can't buy it, and you can't build it.

A movie is either 'good', or its a piece of ****.

How'd you like it? "it's good" - That's buzz.

How'd you like it? "oh, it was interesting" - kiss of death.

This film can't be good, because fundamentally it's based on a lie: They might have done it. No, that's not the truth. And that's why this movie is a guaranteed P.O.S.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.

 

[lonepinealex]

I disagree that good films can't be based on a lie, but from what Bill Williams has been saying, it doesn't even sound like the film is particularly about the case at all.

It's certainly not turned out to be the coup de grace some guilters were hoping it would be.

 

[carbonjam72]

I disagree that good films can't be based on a lie, but from what Bill Williams has been saying, it doesn't even sound like the film is particularly about the case at all.

It's certainly not turned out to be the coup de grace some guilters were hoping it would be.

Well that's certainly a POV. Do any films come to mind that are fundamentally dishonest, yet you would describe as good?

I'm always happy to be wrong, even if not right away -

btw, I actually believe this film is intended to help AK/RS, not hurt them, and I believe that is the intention of the Italian judiciary in supporting it.

(It's still a guaranteed POS, imo)

 

[lonepinealex]

Well that's certainly a POV. Do any films come to mind that are fundamentally dishonest, yet you would describe as good?

The saying goes, why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

 

[Bill Williams]

I disagree that good films can't be based on a lie, but from what Bill Williams has been saying, it doesn't even sound like the film is particularly about the case at all.

It's certainly not turned out to be the coup de grace some guilters were hoping it would be.

Well that's certainly a POV. Do any films come to mind that are fundamentally dishonest, yet you would describe as good?

I'm always happy to be wrong, even if not right away -

btw, I actually believe this film is intended to help AK/RS, not hurt them, and I believe that is the intention of the Italian judiciary in supporting it.
(It's still a guaranteed POS, imo)

To be clear, at the Sept 6 premier in Toronto the Q&A had a question from the audience on the reaction the Italian judicial folks had to the filming of the film, and if there was any interference in the project.

I think the fair assumption of the audience that night was that there was a scathing indictment of the first trial, and those who know about such things know that Mignini and Stefanoni, et al., have their reputations on the line with the outcome.

Still, I think it is an exaggeration to say what is highlighted, esp. if the source is Winterbottom's own answer to the audience question. It is not true that the "Italian judiciary" supports the film. The Italian judiciary also does not oppose the film.

What Winterbootm said was that the courtroom scenes were filmed in a real Siena courtroom, with real-lawyers asking the questions of the actors posing, for instance, as Stefanoni. The lawyers apparently did not have trouble participating in a scene that made Stefanoni look like a clown.

Take that for what it's worth.

It is true, that the film is not really about the case - it's about the journalists surrounding the case, as well as a fictional filmmaker who discovers he cannot make a film about the case. It's about a very touching memorial to Meredith. It's about elevating no less than Frank Sfarzo as the key to understanding the case, if that's what you're interested in.