Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Welshman]

I really want to go back and make a comprehensive list of Vixen's lies err false claims and the forum's refutation and post that. I'm convinced as I think most of us are that she is just cycling and recycling through these without regard for the fact that they not only were disproven before her arrival but to her several times.

This list would be useful because the next time Vixen accuses Amanda and Raffaele of lying Vixen could be given a reminder of all the lies she has said.

 

[Vixen]

Mignini is a sore loser. Instead of looking within for the reasons for him losing this case, he accuses others.... of what? Going to a bar?

This would be laughable if it was not so tragic. Mignini has already been censured by his peers. Mignini can retaliate by lodging all the complaints he wishes.

He lost. He lost big. And what does he claim in return? That Porta a Porta finally adjudicated the case properly in the media? That CNN told the truth?

I see, this is offered in rebuttal..... "This had happened in particular on two occasions, both in Piazza Matteotti, in front of the law courts building, one time in front of the main entrance and a second time, further back, in the direction of Via Oberdan, while [on a third occasion] Dr Stefanoni and Dr Comodi had seen them together, amongst the various defence lawyers for the accused, in a bar.. "

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

All of a sudden the climb in through Filomena is once again impossible. All of a sudden it makes no difference that a bra-clasp lay uncollected for 46 days, and then was destroyed by the Scientific Police for improper storage!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

In the UK it is a Bar Standard disciplinary offence to improperly fraternise during the course of a trial.

As an example:

ETHICS FIRST: GUIDANCE FROM THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE BAR STANDARDS BOARD

There are major ethical issues in witness preparation that every litigator must understand and address:-

Law Society Guide to Professional Conduct – 21.10

A Solicitor “must not, of course, tamper with the evidence of a witness or attempt to suborn the witness into changing evidence”.

The Bar Standards Board

Have a lot of useful information as to the practical dangers of dealing with a witness.

6. Witnesses6.1.1 The rules which define and regulate the barrister’s functions in relation to the preparation of evidence and contact with witnesses are set out in paragraphs 704, 705, 706, 707 and 708 of the Code of Conduct.
6.1.2 There is no longer any rule which prevents a barrister from having contact with any witness.

6.1.3 In particular, there is no longer any rule in any case (including contested cases in the Crown Court) which prevents a barrister from having contact with a witness whom he may expect to call and examine in chief, with a view to introducing himself to the witness, explaining the court’s procedure (and in particular the procedure for giving evidence), and answering any questions on procedure which the witness may have.

6.1.4 It is a responsibility of a barrister, especially when the witness is nervous, vulnerable or apparently the victim of criminal or similar conduct, to ensure that those facing unfamiliar court procedures are put as much at ease as possible.

6.1.5 Unless otherwise directed by the Court or with the consent of the representative for the opposing side or of the Court, a barrister should not communicate directly or indirectly about the case with any witness, whether or not the witness is his lay client, once that witness has begun to give evidence until it has been concluded.

6.2 Discussing the Evidence with Witnesses

6.2.1 Different considerations apply in relation to contact with witnesses for the purpose of interviewing them or discussing with them (either individually or together) the substance of their evidence or the evidence of other witnesses.

6.2.2 Although there is no longer any rule which prevents a barrister from having contact with witnesses for such purposes a barrister should exercise his discretion and consider very carefully whether and to what extent such contact is appropriate, bearing in mind in particular that it is not the barrister’s function (but that of his professional client) to investigate and collect evidence.

6.2.3 The guiding principle must be the obligation of counsel to promote and protect his lay client’s best interests so far as that is consistent with the law and with counsel’s overriding duty to the court (Code of Conduct paragraphs 302, 303)

6.2.4 A barrister should be alert to the risks that any discussion of the substance of a case with a witness may lead to suspicions of coaching, and thus tend to diminish the value of the witness’s evidence in the eyes of the court, or may place the barrister in a position of professional embarrassment, for example if he thereby becomes himself a witness in the case. These dangers are most likely to occur if such discussion takes place:

(a) before the barrister has been supplied with a proof of the witness’s evidence; or

(b) in the absence of the barrister’s professional client or his representative.

A barrister should also be alert to the fact that, even in the absence of any wish or intention to do so, authority figures do subconsciously influence lay witnesses. Discussion of the substance of the case may unwittingly contaminate the witness’s evidence.

6.2.5 There is particular danger where such discussions:

(a) take place in the presence of more than one witness of fact; or

(b) involve the disclosure to one witness of fact of the factual evidence of another witness.

These practices have been strongly deprecated by the courts as tending inevitably to encourage the rehearsal or coaching of witnesses and to increase the risk of fabrication or contamination of evidence: R v Arif (1993) May 26; Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd [1992] BCLC 1104, [1994] 1 /WLR 1271.

That is not to suggest that it is always inappropriate to disclose one witness’ evidence to another. If the witness is one to be called by the other party, it is almost inevitable that a witness’ attention must be drawn to discrepancies between the two statements. Discretion is, however, required, especially where the evidence of independent witnesses is involved.

6.2.6 Whilst there is no rule that any longer prevents a barrister from taking a witness statement in civil cases (for cases in the Crown Court see below), there is a distinction between the settling of a witness statement and taking a witness statement. It is not appropriate for a barrister who has taken witness statements, as opposed to settling witness statements prepared by others, to act as counsel unless he is a junior member of the team of Counsel and will not be examining the witness or there are exceptional circumstances, because it risks undermining the independence of the barrister as an advocate. Exceptional circumstances would include:

(a) the witness is a minor one;
(b) Counsel has no choice but to take a proof and this is the only practical course in the interests of justice – this would apply, for instance, where a witness appears unexpectedly at Court and there is no one else competent to take the statement.

The Cab-rank Rule does not require a barrister to agree to undertake the task of taking witness statements.

6.2.7 There is no rule which prevents a barrister from exchanging common courtesies with the other side’s witnesses. However, a barrister should not discuss the substance of the case or any evidence with the other side’s witnesses except in rare and exceptional circumstances and then only with the prior knowledge of his opponent.

 

[Vixen]

As per usual Vixen has not answered my question. My question was if C&V were so incompetent why were the prosecution and PGP unable to write a rebuttal of the report they wrote for Hellman. Vixen did not address this question at all in her reply.

Hullo? Serious disciplinary charges will follow against Maori and C&V depending on the outcome of the criminal charges of perverting the course of justice.

PM Mignini is not in a school playground were juveniles stand around poking their tongues out at each other.

I despair.

 

[Bill Williams]

In the UK it is a Bar Standard disciplinary offence to improperly fraternise during the course of a trial.

You want to reverse a 2015 ISC verdict because of an allegation of a bar-disciplinary breach in 2011!?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!

 

[acbytesla]

Hullo? Serious disciplinary charges will follow against Maori and C&V depending on the outcome of the criminal charges of perverting the course of justice.

PM Mignini is not in a school playground were juveniles stand around poking their tongues out at each other.

I despair.

You should despair. Not even Chieffi called Conti and Vechiotti, dishonest or a fraud. Only Mignini. That should tell you something.

 

[Vixen]

What ship? The Titanic? Or maybe since it's Italian, it's the Costa Concordia.

I do like how you believe that truejustice is a credible cite.

FYI: Mignini has a history of falsely accusing.

It's a metaphor for time running out:

I want it now
I want it now
Don't tell me that my ship is coming in
Nothing comes to those who wait
Time's running out the door you're running in
~ Echo and the Bunnymen, 'Nothing Ever Lasts Forever'

 

[Welshman]

Hullo? Serious disciplinary charges will follow against Maori and C&V depending on the outcome of the criminal charges of perverting the course of justice.

PM Mignini is not in a school playground were juveniles stand around poking their tongues out at each other.

I despair.

Why do I get this feeling that the idea C&V will be charged with disciplinary offences is yet another one of Vixen's lies. Why has it taken five years to bring these charges. Vixen is still refusing to answer the question why no one has been able to write a rebuttal of their report.

 

[Vixen]

You should despair. Not even Chieffi called Conti and Vechiotti, dishonest or a fraud. Only Mignini. That should tell you something.

He does have an Ace card up his sleeve of being a prosecutor.

 

[Vixen]

Why do I get this feeling that the idea C&V will be charged with disciplinary offences is yet another one of Vixen's lies. Why has it taken five years to bring these charges. Vixen is still refusing to answer the question why no one has been able to write a rebuttal of their report.

If you can't understand legal process, how ever will you understand "a rebuttal of their report"?

Read Chieffi. He trash-canned it. Our perhaps he's a liar, too, in the world of the nursery playground?

 

[Vixen]

You should despair. Not even Chieffi called Conti and Vechiotti, dishonest or a fraud. Only Mignini. That should tell you something.

A judge in a professional capacity will not call anyone a fraud unless he or she has been convicted of same.

Chieffi politely called Vecchiotti and Conti a pile of pants.

 

[acbytesla]

It's a metaphor for time running out:

I want it now
I want it now
Don't tell me that my ship is coming in
Nothing comes to those who wait
Time's running out the door you're running in
~ Echo and the Bunnymen, 'Nothing Ever Lasts Forever'

I'm well aware it's a metaphor. But the idea of your ship coming in is that it will be able to take you somwhere. Your ship will arrive at your dock but you'll still be stranded.

 

[Vixen]

You want to reverse a 2015 ISC verdict because of an allegation of a bar-disciplinary breach in 2011!?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!

Please get a grip. Remember what I told you about context? The above is in the context of charges filed against Maori.


Hoots!

 

[acbytesla]

He does have an Ace card up his sleeve of being a prosecutor.

So? He has no evidence of a crime. The scientific community has not been criticizing Conti and Vechiotti. They have on the other hand strongly been critical of Stefanoni.

As SpongeBob likes to say. "Good luck with that".

 

[Vixen]

I'm well aware it's a metaphor. But the idea of your ship coming in is that it will be able to take you somwhere. Your ship will arrive at your dock but you'll still be stranded.

We'll see buddy, we'll see.

At least it won't be like your luxury liner, forty tons of steel, headed for the iceberg.

 

[acbytesla]

If you can't understand legal process, how ever will you understand "a rebuttal of their report"?

Read Chieffi. He trash-canned it. Our perhaps he's a liar, too, in the world of the nursery playground?

No he didn't . No, Chieffi's a nutjob. He also says the US government conducted the 911 attacks.

 

[acbytesla]

We'll see buddy, we'll see.

At least it won't be like your luxury liner, forty tons of steel, headed for the iceberg.

The USS PR Super Cruiser? No, she's docked in warmer waters. We're all going on a celebration cruise.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please get a grip. Remember what I told you about context? The above is in the context of charges filed against Maori.


Hoots!

We finally agree on something.

Hoots!

 

[Mike1711]

In the UK it is a Bar Standard disciplinary offence to improperly fraternise during the course of a trial.

As an example:
ETHICS FIRST: GUIDANCE FROM THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE BAR STANDARDS BOARD

There are major ethical issues in witness preparation that every litigator must understand and address:-

Law Society Guide to Professional Conduct – 21.10

A Solicitor “must not, of course, tamper with the evidence of a witness or attempt to suborn the witness into changing evidence”.

The Bar Standards Board

Have a lot of useful information as to the practical dangers of dealing with a witness.

6. Witnesses

6.1.1 The rules which define and regulate the barrister’s functions in relation to the preparation of evidence and contact with witnesses are set out in paragraphs 704, 705, 706, 707 and 708 of the Code of Conduct.

6.1.2 There is no longer any rule which prevents a barrister from having contact with any witness.
6.1.3 In particular, there is no longer any rule in any case (including contested cases in the Crown Court) which prevents a barrister from having contact with a witness whom he may expect to call and examine in chief, with a view to introducing himself to the witness, explaining the court’s procedure (and in particular the procedure for giving evidence), and answering any questions on procedure which the witness may have.

6.1.4 It is a responsibility of a barrister, especially when the witness is nervous, vulnerable or apparently the victim of criminal or similar conduct, to ensure that those facing unfamiliar court procedures are put as much at ease as possible.

6.1.5 Unless otherwise directed by the Court or with the consent of the representative for the opposing side or of the Court, a barrister should not communicate directly or indirectly about the case with any witness, whether or not the witness is his lay client, once that witness has begun to give evidence until it has been concluded.

6.2 Discussing the Evidence with Witnesses

6.2.1 Different considerations apply in relation to contact with witnesses for the purpose of interviewing them or discussing with them (either individually or together) the substance of their evidence or the evidence of other witnesses.

6.2.2 Although there is no longer any rule which prevents a barrister from having contact with witnesses for such purposes a barrister should exercise his discretion and consider very carefully whether and to what extent such contact is appropriate, bearing in mind in particular that it is not the barrister’s function (but that of his professional client) to investigate and collect evidence.

6.2.3 The guiding principle must be the obligation of counsel to promote and protect his lay client’s best interests so far as that is consistent with the law and with counsel’s overriding duty to the court (Code of Conduct paragraphs 302, 303)

6.2.4 A barrister should be alert to the risks that any discussion of the substance of a case with a witness may lead to suspicions of coaching, and thus tend to diminish the value of the witness’s evidence in the eyes of the court, or may place the barrister in a position of professional embarrassment, for example if he thereby becomes himself a witness in the case. These dangers are most likely to occur if such discussion takes place:

(a) before the barrister has been supplied with a proof of the witness’s evidence; or

(b) in the absence of the barrister’s professional client or his representative.

A barrister should also be alert to the fact that, even in the absence of any wish or intention to do so, authority figures do subconsciously influence lay witnesses. Discussion of the substance of the case may unwittingly contaminate the witness’s evidence.

6.2.5 There is particular danger where such discussions:

(a) take place in the presence of more than one witness of fact; or

(b) involve the disclosure to one witness of fact of the factual evidence of another witness.

These practices have been strongly deprecated by the courts as tending inevitably to encourage the rehearsal or coaching of witnesses and to increase the risk of fabrication or contamination of evidence: R v Arif (1993) May 26; Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd [1992] BCLC 1104, [1994] 1 /WLR 1271.

That is not to suggest that it is always inappropriate to disclose one witness’ evidence to another. If the witness is one to be called by the other party, it is almost inevitable that a witness’ attention must be drawn to discrepancies between the two statements. Discretion is, however, required, especially where the evidence of independent witnesses is involved.

6.2.6 Whilst there is no rule that any longer prevents a barrister from taking a witness statement in civil cases (for cases in the Crown Court see below), there is a distinction between the settling of a witness statement and taking a witness statement. It is not appropriate for a barrister who has taken witness statements, as opposed to settling witness statements prepared by others, to act as counsel unless he is a junior member of the team of Counsel and will not be examining the witness or there are exceptional circumstances, because it risks undermining the independence of the barrister as an advocate. Exceptional circumstances would include:

(a) the witness is a minor one;
(b) Counsel has no choice but to take a proof and this is the only practical course in the interests of justice – this would apply, for instance, where a witness appears unexpectedly at Court and there is no one else competent to take the statement.

The Cab-rank Rule does not require a barrister to agree to undertake the task of taking witness statements.

6.2.7 There is no rule which prevents a barrister from exchanging common courtesies with the other side’s witnesses. However, a barrister should not discuss the substance of the case or any evidence with the other side’s witnesses except in rare and exceptional circumstances and then only with the prior knowledge of his opponent.

Vixen,

Am I missing something here?

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes Mike: you're missing the (amusing and rather telling) fact that Vixen posted something that was a) diametrically opposite to the "argument" she was trying to make, and b) not even remotely relevant to the issue at hand anyhow.

C&V were experts appointed by the court, for the purposes of assessing the forensic evidence in this case and producing a report for the court on their opinion of the quality, reliability, credibility and probative value of that evidence. They were not prosecution witnesses. They were not defence witnesses.

If C&V were (allegedly) seen in *gasp* the same bar/cafe in Perugia as defence lawyers, this IN NO WAY impugns their authority or credibility. If there were any evidence that defence lawyers had attempted to influence the C&V report in any improper way*, then there would be something to investigate. But of course there's not the slightest reason to suppose that this might ever have happened.

On the other hand, Mignini was by all accounts rather fond of meeting with the fragrant Nadeau and Vogt (and other journalists), and feeding them juicy pieces of information which *surprise* found their way immediately into the media in Italy and in other countries. Most bar associations would take a very very dim view of a prosecutor or a magistrate (Mignini was both) using the media in such an extra-judicial way to circumvent the proper court process and to get selective information into the public domain.



* And, incidentally, the provision of independent expert testimony and published information on things such as internationally-agreed standards and protocols would NOT count as improper input.....

 

[Welshman]

Yes Mike: you're missing the (amusing and rather telling) fact that Vixen posted something that was a) diametrically opposite to the "argument" she was trying to make, and b) not even remotely relevant to the issue at hand anyhow.

C&V were experts appointed by the court, for the purposes of assessing the forensic evidence in this case and producing a report for the court on their opinion of the quality, reliability, credibility and probative value of that evidence. They were not prosecution witnesses. They were not defence witnesses.

If C&V were (allegedly) seen in *gasp* the same bar/cafe in Perugia as defence lawyers, this IN NO WAY impugns their authority or credibility. If there were any evidence that defence lawyers had attempted to influence the C&V report in any improper way*, then there would be something to investigate. But of course there's not the slightest reason to suppose that this might ever have happened.

On the other hand, Mignini was by all accounts rather fond of meeting with the fragrant Nadeau and Vogt (and other journalists), and feeding them juicy pieces of information which *surprise* found their way immediately into the media in Italy and in other countries. Most bar associations would take a very very dim view of a prosecutor or a magistrate (Mignini was both) using the media in such an extra-judicial way to circumvent the proper court process and to get selective information into the public domain.



* And, incidentally, the provision of independent expert testimony and published information on things such as internationally-agreed standards and protocols would NOT count as improper input.....

Vixen accuses C&V of improper conduct but defends corrupt prosecutors who violated the rights of Amanda and Raffaele during the interrogations, feed false information to the media, lied in court, supressed evidence and forged documents.