Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Something like that would be held internally and would be confidential.

In a case I won in summary fashion the judge one his own sanctioned the attorney on the other side for being a dumb ass. I got a nice check in the mail.

From reading on this it appears the complaint was filed some time ago and only now are Mignini's chickens coming home to roost.

 

[acbytesla]

Massei rejected Tremantano's testimony as irrelevant. In any case, it is impossible to prove a negative.

That doesn't mean that CT's testimony wouldn't be accepted in a civil trial. I wouldn't have allowed CT to testify in the criminal trial either. I also would have rejected Curatalo and Quintavalle.

But the standards are different at civil trials. And in a civil trial where Rudy is the plaintiff he has the burden of proof. He must prove not that he is not a thief not beyond a reasonable doubt but by a preponderance of the evidence. I can't see him clearing that bar.

 

[Vixen]

We're not in a court room. Clear?

It helps to think logically, otherwise we are in the hypothetical land of "What If...?"

Before you know it, people start believing their own "What if...?" model.

 

[acbytesla]

Nobody's objecting to it. However, when you go to court, the judge expects a bit more than, "Oh, he's a burglar, cos Nina Burleigh, self-proclaimed Amanda Knox advocate, says so, even though no-one can find any newspaper reference to the supposed Diaz burglary and arson and the lawyers say they believe their burglary was an inside job with more than one person.


Clear now?

Was Rudy caught inside the nursery? Was he in possession of the knife from the kitchen? Was Rudy in possession of a laptop and a cell phone stolen from a burglary that took place near his home only weeks befofe?

Clear?

 

[Vixen]

In a case I won in summary fashion the judge one his own sanctioned the attorney on the other side for being a dumb ass. I got a nice check in the mail.

From reading on this it appears the complaint was filed some time ago and only now are Mignini's chickens coming home to roost.

Bruno and Marasca slated the prosecution, so now they have to be seen to act on it. Let's see if anything more than minor human error transpires.

 

[Vixen]

That doesn't mean that CT's testimony wouldn't be accepted in a civil trial. I wouldn't have allowed CT to testify in the criminal trial either. I also would have rejected Curatalo and Quintavalle.

But the standards are different at civil trials. And in a civil trial where Rudy is the plaintiff he has the burden of proof. He must prove not that he is not a thief not beyond a reasonable doubt but by a preponderance of the evidence. I can't see him clearing that bar.

He's convicted of being in possession of a stolen laptop (=theft) together with aggravated murder.

You note, originally, it was Amanda who was charged with stealing Mez' rent money (later dropped).

 

[acbytesla]

It helps to think logically, otherwise we are in the hypothetical land of "What If...?"

Before you know it, people start believing their own "What if...?" model.

Huh? You're the one suggesting that it is illegal or not correct to describe Rudy as a burglar simply because he has not been convicted of burglary. BTW, The Hellman court said he was a burglar.

You're suggestion is ridiculous. Rudy is a burglar. PERIOD.

 

[sept79]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague:
Too funny and glad to see Migi getting sanctioned. IIRC, this was mentioned in Raffaele's first appeal. I expect to see more come out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mig's sanctioning for the denial of an attorney for Raf seems somewhat minuscule in comparison to Stefanoni's fraud, Amanda's coerced confession without an attorney and without a competent translator, HIV lies, . . .

 

[acbytesla]

The sheer audacity of Raff will one day be remarked upon by crime writers, like the guy who went out searching for his missing kid, and he was the one who topped her! Or the grandfather who went on national tv crying his eyes out, appealing for witnesses to come forward, when all the time, the body of his little granddaughter was stashed away in the attic and for which he was convicted of her murder.

Chutzpah! Amanda and Raff have lashings of it.

Does anyone have an idea what this rant is about? Mignini is going down down down.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague:
Too funny and glad to see Migi getting sanctioned. IIRC, this was mentioned in Raffaele's first appeal. I expect to see more come out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mig's sanctioning for the denial of an attorney for Raf seems somewhat minuscule in comparison to Stefanoni's fraud, Amanda's coerced confession without an attorney and without a competent translator, HIV lies, . . .

It's like pulling a loose thread from a sweater. Pretty soon the whole thing unravels.

 

[Grinder]

That doesn't mean that CT's testimony wouldn't be accepted in a civil trial. I wouldn't have allowed CT to testify in the criminal trial either. I also would have rejected Curatalo and Quintavalle.

But the standards are different at civil trials. And in a civil trial where Rudy is the plaintiff he has the burden of proof. He must prove not that he is not a thief not beyond a reasonable doubt but by a preponderance of the evidence. I can't see him clearing that bar.

The person defending themselves against such a law would need to present evidence that he was a burglar if the defense was that what had been said was the truth. Clearly no one could prove that they had never been, well, anything.

 

[Grinder]

Bruno and Marasca slated the prosecution, so now they have to be seen to act on it. Let's see if anything more than minor human error transpires.

Minor human error? It is a constitutional right in Italy to be able to have an attorney as soon as being put into custody. Having been able to speak to an attorney in the days leading up to the arrest doesn't count as the CSM made clear. Is that clear now?

If the prosecutor wants a waiver, he must make clear why in a WRITTEN statement. That written statement must be presented to all parties immediately. This was not a minor oversight as it violated a constitutional protection.

Could you explain in English what Bruno and Marasca slated the prosecution, so now they have to be seen to act on it means?

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe you don't get irony, but Italy's former ITL currency has long been the butt of jokes amongst us accountants. My little quip about Raff being lucky to get one Lire alluded to it.

(Well, a joke is never a joke if one has to explain it.)

It might be a better "joke" if the accountant telling it realised that the singular of "lire" is "lira" - i.e. "one lira"....

And Sollecito will almost certainly be getting many, many thousands of lire euros in compensation from the Italian state, in whose name Mignini, Massei and Nencini so disgracefully acted. Perhaps the Italian state might pause to wonder why it is having to pay out so much to Sollecito. It might consider not only the actions of the state's representatives in this particular case, but also to the dreadful (and manifestly not-fit-for-purpose) nature of the Italian criminal justice system.

But, Italy being Italy, it's very likely that nothing will be done and no lessons will be learned.

 

[LondonJohn]

The CSM is vaguely political. The presiding judge is a member of the old Berlusconi cabinet. Someone lodges a complaint (BTW did Amanda ever get round to lodging a complaint about being slapped around the head by Ficcara?).

There will be a complaints procedure, in line with good corporate governance, and if a rule has been breached, then the complaint is upheld. The Mignini one seems to be more human error by one of his staff than police corruption, as Raff did confer with his lawyers as per his right.

Where and when, precisely, did this occur? You have repeatedly made this assertion.

As a reminder, Sollecito was detained and arrested at some time in the early hours of 6th November 2007. He was brought before the court in an arraignment hearing some time on the morning of 9th November 2007.

So precisely when do you think Sollecito "conferred" with his lawyers during this period? And, as a follow-up question, from what point onwards should Sollecito have been able to obtain access to his lawyers? Please think carefully about your answer, and give concise, unambiguous timings and responses. Thanks.

 

[LondonJohn]

The sheer audacity of Raff will one day be remarked upon by crime writers, like the guy who went out searching for his missing kid, and he was the one who topped her! Or the grandfather who went on national tv crying his eyes out, appealing for witnesses to come forward, when all the time, the body of his little granddaughter was stashed away in the attic and for which he was convicted of her murder.

Chutzpah! Amanda and Raff have lashings of it.

You do realise that:

a) Sollecito - and Knox - has been acquitted and effectively pronounced innocent by the Italian courts; and

b) The available evidence* (and lack of evidence) shows clearly that Sollecito - and Knox - almost certainly had nothing whatsoever with the attack and murder of Kercher,

don't you?


* That is to say: credible, reliable evidence.

 

[Vixen]

Huh? You're the one suggesting that it is illegal or not correct to describe Rudy as a burglar simply because he has not been convicted of burglary. BTW, The Hellman court said he was a burglar.

You're suggestion is ridiculous. Rudy is a burglar. PERIOD.

Do keep up. bagels said police should have known Rudy would go on to kill Meredith, as he was a burglar. I merely challenged what is a false premise. To you, it might be given "Rudy was a burglar who went onto kill, when interrupted burgling", as you are an ardent pro-Knox advocate. A more neutral person such as a judge, will not "just take bagels' word for it".

 

[acbytesla]

The person defending themselves against such a law would need to present evidence that he was a burglar if the defense was that what had been said was the truth. Clearly no one could prove that they had never been, well, anything.

While I understand your point Grinder, Rudy would have to persuade a jury that he didn't burglarize the law office and that he just bought those stolen items,. Considering the discovery of the stolen items was made while he was found illegally in another business I don't think his chances are very good. Also keep in mind that the standard is much different in a civil trial vs a criminal trial. The preponderance of evidence shows Rudy to be a burglar. Is that the same as beyond a reasonable doubt? No.

The question is, is it more likely than not that Rudy was committing a burglary at CT or the law office or the nursery or the cottage. Given that he is suspected at not 1 but 4 different businesses/residences I'd say he has 2 chances of winning that suit, slim and none.

 

[Vixen]

Minor human error? It is a constitutional right in Italy to be able to have an attorney as soon as being put into custody. Having been able to speak to an attorney in the days leading up to the arrest doesn't count as the CSM made clear. Is that clear now?

If the prosecutor wants a waiver, he must make clear why in a WRITTEN statement. That written statement must be presented to all parties immediately. This was not a minor oversight as it violated a constitutional protection.

Could you explain in English what Bruno and Marasca slated the prosecution, so now they have to be seen to act on it means?

It was an error in that Mignini's administrators omitted to give Raff written notice he could consult a lawyer now he was arrested. We can infer it was an error, rather than obstruction of justice, as Raff was told this verbally and a police transcipt proves it. In addition, Raff did consult with his counsel, so no actual rights denied

 

[acbytesla]

Do keep up. bagels said police should have known Rudy would go on to kill Meredith, as he was a burglar. I merely challenged what is a false premise. To you, it might be given "Rudy was a burglar who went onto kill, when interrupted burgling", as you are an ardent pro-Knox advocate. A more neutral person such as a judge, will not "just take bagels' word for it".

Moving the goalposts again?

 

[Vixen]

Where and when, precisely, did this occur? You have repeatedly made this assertion.

As a reminder, Sollecito was detained and arrested at some time in the early hours of 6th November 2007. He was brought before the court in an arraignment hearing some time on the morning of 9th November 2007.

So precisely when do you think Sollecito "conferred" with his lawyers during this period? And, as a follow-up question, from what point onwards should Sollecito have been able to obtain access to his lawyers? Please think carefully about your answer, and give concise, unambiguous timings and responses. Thanks.

If you reread the articles about this issue, you will note Mignini's defence is, as I set out, above. Bongiorno's ex-compatriot in the Italian goverrnment - the presiding judge - decided to uphold the complaint with a censure. Mignini can appeal to the ISC, as he did before.

It reeks of politics.