Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[whoanellie]

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.

I think it's more idiom than metaphor.

It's equivalent to "hitting the jackpot". It means something good has happened.

Vixen is gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Mike1711]

I think it's more idiom than metaphor.

It's equivalent to "hitting the jackpot". It means something good has happened.

Vixen is gift that keeps on giving.

Vixen's argument for guilt has been well and truly dicredited on this forum. It's proven beyond a shadow of doubt that neither AK nor RS had anything to do with MK's dreadful murder.

What Vixen has done is provide all possible arguments of guilt. Each time his argument has been thoroughly discredited. Despite this Vixen comes back with more posts and highlights the case for the prosecution for what it is.

A case filled with contradictions, investigative ineptitude, memory loss and connective discontinuity.

Now where have I heard this conclusion before?

 

[Grinder]

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.....

Although I'm not positive when they were seen, since Comodi and <Dr. Steffi saw them (at the same time?) it most likely was during the trial (lunch break?) and that would violate the british law (which doesn't really matter).

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
​

 

[Mike1711]

Although I'm not positive when they were seen, since Comodi and <Dr. Steffi saw them (at the same time?) it most likely was during the trial (lunch break?) and that would violate the british law (which doesn't really matter).

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
​

A witness is out of bounds during court breaks where the witness is giving testimony (whether being examined or cross examined). At such break the witness is barred from speaking about the case or meeting with those involved in the case.

Before and after such testimony the witness is under no such controls.

Only fools would dare breach this and were it to happen the repercussions would be extremely serious for those involved. In the absence of those repercussions it's pretty safe to assume that such breach did not occur.

 

[Grinder]

Is there any indication of a legal action against any of the ILE other than the long ago complaint of denying legal representation when first arrested?

 

[Grinder]

A witness is out of bounds during court breaks where the witness is giving testimony (whether being examined or cross examined). At such break the witness is barred from speaking about the case or meeting with those involved in the case.

Before and after such testimony the witness is under no such controls.

Only fools would dare breach this and were it to happen the repercussions would be extremely serious for those involved. In the absence of those repercussions it's pretty safe to assume that such breach did not occur.

Well Mike this is Italy and if the TJMK piece is reasonably accurate then serious repercussions may be coming.

It was easy to comprehend that speaking with a witness during testimony is not permitted in England.

My experience is that if the "other" side wants to talk to a witness the side the witness is testifying for may have a lawyer and the defendant or party involved in a lawsuit present. The lawyers may challenge questions and a judge will later rule on them. Witnesses are not forced to discuss with the other side unless subpoenaed for a formal deposition.

I doubt it is safe to assume anything about the Italian system.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well Mike this is Italy and if the TJMK piece is reasonably accurate then serious repercussions may be coming.

It was easy to comprehend that speaking with a witness during testimony is not permitted in England.

My experience is that if the "other" side wants to talk to a witness the side the witness is testifying for may have a lawyer and the defendant or party involved in a lawsuit present. The lawyers may challenge questions and a judge will later rule on them. Witnesses are not forced to discuss with the other side unless subpoenaed for a formal deposition.

I doubt it is safe to assume anything about the Italian system.

Not sure what you're driving at here. E&W law forbids lawyers in a criminal case from talking about the case with a witness while that witness in in the midst of his/her time on the stand giving testimony and being examined. It's those bolded bits which are critically important.

And this is a sensible and appropriate rule. But it is a very long way away from the C&V situation. To start to make any sort of comparison, we would need to know:

a) Were either Conti or Vecchiotti actually in the midst of their time giving testimony in court when this alleged encounter took place outside of the courtroom?

b) Did this alleged encounter contain any discussion of the case?

Only if these two conditions were met would there be any shadow of a comparison. And again I'd point out that C&V were NOT partisan witnesses representing one side or another. This is very important, since the rule in E/W is primarily intended to prevent lawyers from "coaching" their own witnesses mid-examination (e.g. "You're giving bad answers about XYZ - answer them in this way instead") or to prevent them from badgering/intimidating witnesses from the "other side".

 

[Vixen]

In a complaint lodged by PM Dr Mignini 28th May 2015 against Raff's lawyer Maori for disinformation and slander against the prosecution, he makes the following observation about Vecchiotti and Conti improperly fraternising with the defense, in the papers he has filed.


Source: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...across_bows_of_fifth_chambers_could_be_cause/

Their ship is coming in.

Erratum: that should read 2014, not 2015.

 

[Grinder]

Not sure what you're driving at here. E&W law forbids lawyers in a criminal case from talking about the case with a witness while that witness in in the midst of his/her time on the stand giving testimony and being examined. It's those bolded bits which are critically important.

And this is a sensible and appropriate rule. But it is a very long way away from the C&V situation. To start to make any sort of comparison, we would need to know:

a) Were either Conti or Vecchiotti actually in the midst of their time giving testimony in court when this alleged encounter took place outside of the courtroom?

b) Did this alleged encounter contain any discussion of the case?

Only if these two conditions were met would there be any shadow of a comparison. And again I'd point out that C&V were NOT partisan witnesses representing one side or another. This is very important, since the rule in E/W is primarily intended to prevent lawyers from "coaching" their own witnesses mid-examination (e.g. "You're giving bad answers about XYZ - answer them in this way instead") or to prevent them from badgering/intimidating witnesses from the "other side".

Since the allegation is both Comodi and Steffi saw Maori meeting with C&V it almost had to be during the trial and since it was at a bar most likely not before their testimony.

Regardless of their lack of partisanship, speaking to them would at a minimum give the appearance of impropriety.

I'm not sure you're correct it must be proven they were discussing the testimony. Jurors here are not allowed to discuss their case with anyone and wear juror pins to alert people.

 

[Mike1711]

Since the allegation is both Comodi and Steffi saw Maori meeting with C&V it almost had to be during the trial and since it was at a bar most likely not before their testimony.

Regardless of their lack of partisanship, speaking to them would at a minimum give the appearance of impropriety.

I'm not sure you're correct it must be proven they were discussing the testimony. Jurors here are not allowed to discuss their case with anyone and wear juror pins to alert people.

Yes but does that imply that it was during testimony?

What about after the testimony?

Surely if the discussion was during testimony it would have been brought to the Judges' attention immediately.

 

[Grinder]

Yes but does that imply that it was during testimony?

What about after the testimony?

Surely if the discussion was during testimony it would have been brought to the Judges' attention immediately.

You do realize we are dealing with Italy and Italians, right?

If the TJMK info on the filing is correct, then they are pursuing the case now.

Perhaps Numbers has the cite on the law.

C&V came and gave testimony to Hellmann but AFAIK didn't generally attend court.

 

[Wattson]

Since the allegation is both Comodi and Steffi saw Maori meeting with C&V it almost had to be during the trial and since it was at a bar most likely not before their testimony.

Regardless of their lack of partisanship, speaking to them would at a minimum give the appearance of impropriety.

I'm not sure you're correct it must be proven they were discussing the testimony. Jurors here are not allowed to discuss their case with anyone and wear juror pins to alert people.

FYI, a bar in Italy is a coffee shop.

 

[acbytesla]

You do realize we are dealing with Italy and Italians, right?

If the TJMK info on the filing is correct, then they are pursuing the case now.

Perhaps Numbers has the cite on the law.

C&V came and gave testimony to Hellmann but AFAIK didn't generally attend court.

Mignini seemed to be filing or threatening legal actions against everyone. Like what happened to the charges against Curt and Edda?

 

[Grinder]

FYI, a bar in Italy is a coffee shop.

That isn't exactly correct as it is more of a quick stop for a bite and drink certainly not just coffee and tea. We of course don't know what the original Italian said so they may have translated the word for bar (non-Italian meaning) correctly.

It is possible C&S saw them there before the testimony started and if legal in Italy it is unlikely they would have filed charges.

An ex parte meeting seems wrong to me regardless of time of day until after testimony is complete.

 

[Grinder]

Mignini seemed to be filing or threatening legal actions against everyone. Like what happened to the charges against Curt and Edda?

I thought it was Amanda and Curt regardless AIUI the verdict is due any day.

 

[LondonJohn]

Since the allegation is both Comodi and Steffi saw Maori meeting with C&V it almost had to be during the trial

Agreed.

and since it was at a bar most likely not before their testimony.

Huh? Not sure about your logic there, pardner. And what (as Mike pointed out) if it was AFTER their testimony? You're aware that there's only even a potential problem if it was IN THE MIDDLE OF their testimony, aren't you....?

Regardless of their lack of partisanship, speaking to them would at a minimum give the appearance of impropriety.

Agreed. Up to a point. Exchanging pleasantries with them in the same bar is entirely different from holding a scheduled meeting with them, for example.

I'm not sure you're correct it must be proven they were discussing the testimony.

That's not what I said. I said it must be indicated (not proven) that they were discussing THE CASE.

Jurors here are not allowed to discuss their case with anyone and wear juror pins to alert people.

Firstly, there's a gigantic difference between a) those making judgement (jurors in your example above) discussing the case - whether among themselves or with anyone else, connected to the trial or not - and b) trial lawyers discussing the case with others. Surely you must know that. And secondly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with lawyers for either party discussing the case with witnesses, or their families, or among themselves, or with lawyers from the other side, provided it cannot be seen as any form of attempt to pervert justice. And pretty much the only way in which, say, a defence lawyer could give the appearance of trying to pervert justice would be if they were talking with either a) a witness in the course of that witness' testimony in court, and they were talking about the case, outside the courtroom; or b) a juror (or trier of fact) at any time during the trial, outside of the courtroom in the presence of the judge(s).

 

[acbytesla]

I thought it was Amanda and Curt regardless AIUI the verdict is due any day.

I thought that was just the case against Amanda. I thought the Curt and Edda case was separate. Whatever.

 

[Vixen]

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.....

A disgraceful allegation. PM Mignini categorically denied he has ever leaked any story to the press. In any case, there is no subjudice law in Italy, so newspapers can print any old rubbish they like, within the confines of libel law and calunnia.

 

[Vixen]

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

Would that be the Bruno-Marasca report you are celebrating which states strong suspicions of the kids remain?

It's fetch a bucket of water, boys.

 

[LondonJohn]

A disgraceful allegation. PM Mignini categorically denied he has ever leaked any story to the press. In any case, there is no subjudice law in Italy, so newspapers can print any old rubbish they like, within the confines of libel law and calunnia.

Ah, but PM Mignini is fond of the old Pork Pie, isn't he?