Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Del Prato is NOT going to say that, as she hadn't investigated it at the time. If you know anything about cross examination, the barristers gave her every opportunity to complain that Rudy broke in, which they could not ask outright, as a leading question, and at no stage did she say so.

Have a practice making a closing submission from this.

What on earth are you talking about now?

You still don't know what a leading question is. It would have been entirely proper and admissible to ask her something like: "Did it appear to you that someone had broken in?" And in any case, it's entirely possible that there were easy points of ingress to this nursery (nurseries don't exactly tend to be highly secure premises, nor do they tend to spend much money or effort on security (window locks, reinforced door locks, burglar alarms etc). And the nursery had been unlawfully entered at least once previously, when money had also been stolen from the lockable cupboard within the premises.

So it's entirely feasible that the petty crooks and drug addicts of Milan (and/or Guede himself) had found a way to get into the nursery with relative ease (e.g. a small unlocked window which could be opened from the outside, or a door which was easy to pick), such that there actually wasn't visible evidence of damage (e.g. broken window, broken door/door frame). And therefore even though del Prato answered that she didn't notice any signs of forced entry, that in no way implies that whoever trespassed into the nursery that night did so by way of having been "let in".

And why do you tend to regress so often to this strange fugue based upon fantasies of standing up in a courtroom making legal arguments? Or claiming that you know more about court practices than others on this thread, including me? Strange indeed.

 

[Stacyhs]

Er, he wasn't called to give evidence...?

Both Curatalo and Quintavalle were cross-examined (Tarmontano was not).

Massei and Nencini preferred their account to that of the defence, and the convictions were confirmed.

Not being called to testify is not evidence that the judge did not believe them. That is an assumption. Quennell claimed the judge didn't believe him in his TJMK article:
"A statement to police by Christian Tramontano was introduced; he claimed Guede once broke in and threatened him. But he was not called for cross-examination, and Judge Micheli had not believed him. "

(Someone should have let Quennell know it was Massei, not Micheli, who presided over the 2009 trial.)

As just noted, Tramontano's statement was introduced to the court and read. Tramontano was not there in person so it's rather difficult to cross-examine him. In other news accounts, such as Ann Wise's June 27 report, there is no claim that the judge did not believe Tramontano's statement.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is no evidence Rudy broke into anybody's home and stole property.

It is common knowledge Rudy was not charged with breaking and entry (burglary) at the nursery, precisely because he was let in, and a staff member was sacked, who presumably went through a disciplinary process wherein the transgression was upheld. We shall never know as this would be confidential to that staff member and the Milan Police did not turn up on time to give evidence.

Tramontano's statement to police is evidence.

It's more likely he was not charged because the knife was of little value. Heck, they didn't even charge him with having the stolen property from the law firm on him until Feb 2008. I doubt the Milan police wanted to be bothered with the paperwork involved with stealing a few euros kitchen knife.

This part you provided is interesting:

"DEFENSE – Avv. Rocchi – Do you know how he got into your nursery
school?
WITNESS – Well, at the time the entrance door was a little defective
and there was no gate and in fact later I had a gate installed for
safety, but at the time the door was a bit defective and it opened if you kicked it, but this was only known by... us or those who worked in the school knew. "

So Guede didn't need a key to get in. All he had to do was give the door a good kick or shove and it opened right up. Not that a penniless thief would ever think of forcing a door open in order to find a place to hole up for the night. Nah.

So the firing of an employee for letting Guede in is "confidential" but YOU know about it, right? How is that?

 

[Stacyhs]

What on earth are you talking about now?

You still don't know what a leading question is. It would have been entirely proper and admissible to ask her something like: "Did it appear to you that someone had broken in?" And in any case, it's entirely possible that there were easy points of ingress to this nursery (nurseries don't exactly tend to be highly secure premises, nor do they tend to spend much money or effort on security (window locks, reinforced door locks, burglar alarms etc). And the nursery had been unlawfully entered at least once previously, when money had also been stolen from the lockable cupboard within the premises.

So it's entirely feasible that the petty crooks and drug addicts of Milan (and/or Guede himself) had found a way to get into the nursery with relative ease (e.g. a small unlocked window which could be opened from the outside, or a door which was easy to pick), such that there actually wasn't visible evidence of damage (e.g. broken window, broken door/door frame). And therefore even though del Prato answered that she didn't notice any signs of forced entry, that in no way implies that whoever trespassed into the nursery that night did so by way of having been "let in".

And why do you tend to regress so often to this strange fugue based upon fantasies of standing up in a courtroom making legal arguments? Or claiming that you know more about court practices than others on this thread, including me? Strange indeed.

Vixen kindly provided a statement by del Prado that the front door was defective and could be opened by a kick. She later had it fixed. Hmmmm...I wonder just how a grown, athletic man could possibly gain entrance through a defective door accessible by a kick? I'll have to ponder that one for a while.

 

[bagels]

There is no evidence Rudy broke into anybody's home and stole property.

It is common knowledge Rudy was not charged with breaking and entry (burglary) at the nursery, precisely because he was let in, and a staff member was sacked, who presumably went through a disciplinary process wherein the transgression was upheld. We shall never know as this would be confidential to that staff member and the Milan Police did not turn up on time to give evidence.

There is ample circumstantial evidence Rudy broke into somebody's home and stole property. Do you think that a person leaving footprints at the scene of a break-in at the time where property was stolen is not evidence they participated in the crime of burglary? In what jurisdiction? On what planet? In what universe?

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0

 

[Vixen]

Not being called to testify is not evidence that the judge did not believe them. That is an assumption. Quennell claimed the judge didn't believe him in his TJMK article:
"A statement to police by Christian Tramontano was introduced; he claimed Guede once broke in and threatened him. But he was not called for cross-examination, and Judge Micheli had not believed him. "

(Someone should have let Quennell know it was Massei, not Micheli, who presided over the 2009 trial.)

As just noted, Tramontano's statement was introduced to the court and read. Tramontano was not there in person so it's rather difficult to cross-examine him. In other news accounts, such as Ann Wise's June 27 report, there is no claim that the judge did not believe Tramontano's statement.

If you knew anything about court procedure, the judges expect to be able to read all witness statements in advance. They read Tramontano's and decided it added absolutely nothing to the case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Follain the fabulist

Are you engaging in deliberate self-parody here? This is priceless!!

(By the way, the victim's name was Meredith Kercher. Or Meredith. Or Kercher. Just so you don't make the same mistake again )

This putative drink-throwing incident was mentioned in John Follain's book. Some measure of its accuracy is in the fact that no such incident came to light at the trial, where it would have been helpful to the prosecution's case. IMO either Follain made it up, or the person to whom he spoke (one of Meredith's British friends IIRC) made it up. On its face the story does not make sense: what could Meredith say that would mollify the DJ who was the recipient of the thrown drink?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen kindly provided a statement by del Prado that the front door was defective and could be opened by a kick. She later had it fixed. Hmmmm...I wonder just how a grown, athletic man could possibly gain entrance through a defective door accessible by a kick? I'll have to ponder that one for a while.

It's about time to give up your crib sheet factoid, 'Rudy was a serial burglar of great expertise and skill'.

All the Milan nursery incident tells us is that, at best, Rudy exhibited Anti-Social Behaviour tendencies. He had a laptop he personalised. He may well have bought it cheap, being hard-up. Most stolen electronic equipment does go on the black market/ secondhand market. There's a shop near me which offers to 'unlock' equipment. Rudy walked into the nursery, he did not scale a sheer wall or use a rock.

The defence's ridiculous hyperbole was rejected over and over again. Even the Marasca court was scornful and upheld that the burglary scene at the cottage was faked.

 

[Vixen]

This putative drink-throwing incident was mentioned in John Follain's book. Some measure of its accuracy is in the fact that no such incident came to light at the trial, where it would have been helpful to the prosecution's case. IMO either Follain made it up, or the person to whom he spoke (one of Meredith's British friends IIRC) made it up. On its face the story does not make sense: what could Meredith say that would mollify the DJ who was the recipient of the thrown drink?

Is it not a fact Amanda has a habit of hitting herself hard in the head with the palm of her hand, and even punched a wall, leaving her fists bloody?

The police witnessed her hitting herself.

This is the behaviour of someone with anger management issues.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is it not a fact Amanda has a habit of hitting herself hard in the head with the palm of her hand, and even punched a wall, leaving her fists bloody?

The police witnessed her hitting herself.

This is the behaviour of someone with anger management issues.

It is apparently a fact that Knox hit the side of her head with her hand after she had (to use the charming word employed by the Perugia Chief of Police) "buckled" under unlawfully coercive and bullying questioning with a little physical violence thrown in for good measure. That could reasonably be interpreted as a symptom of someone under enormous psychological pressure.

And please provide evidence to support your claim that it's "a fact" that Knox "punched a wall, leaving her fists bloody". Or, y'know, withdraw the claim as false and unsupported. Thanks in advance!

 

[LondonJohn]

If you knew anything about court procedure, the judges expect to be able to read all witness statements in advance. They read Tramontano's and decided it added absolutely nothing to the case.

Time to quit with this "if you knew anything about...." crap. You manifestly don't know much about it yourself. Thanks!

 

[Vixen]

There is ample circumstantial evidence Rudy broke into somebody's home and stole property. Do you think that a person leaving footprints at the scene of a break-in at the time where property was stolen is not evidence they participated in the crime of burglary? In what jurisdiction? On what planet? In what universe?

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0

There is zero evidence Rudy broke into Ms Diaz' flat. Pawn shops are full of gold watches, so presumably many get stolen (as some of these will be, as pawnbrokers rarely ask for receipts). At best, it is suspicious Rudy had a gold watch in his backpack. As none of Filomena's gold jewellery was touched (easy enough to slide into a burglar's pockets or backpack) there is zero link to the murder at the cottage.

The courts ruled that Rudy was let in by either Amanda or Mez, and it made little difference to the case as to which, so therefore, his footsteps are thus explained. He was already known to both as a friend of the boys downstairs, even playing basketball with them and watching sport on telly, so there is nothing unlikely about this, as you claim.

ETA The fact Rudy was there earlier, went away to have a kebab and then returned, indicates he was indeed awaiting someone to arrive home.

 

[Vixen]

Time to quit with this "if you knew anything about...." crap. You manifestly don't know much about it yourself. Thanks!

Stacyhs claimed the court couldn't possibly know Taramontano's (_sp?) testimony was useless as they hadn't questioned him, which does display a lack of knowledge of court procedure. They will have seen his witness statement in advance.

Judges don't go into a case completely blind, although they might like to act as though they do.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's about time to give up your crib sheet factoid, 'Rudy was a serial burglar of great expertise and skill'.

All the Milan nursery incident tells us is that, at best, Rudy exhibited Anti-Social Behaviour tendencies. He had a laptop he personalised. He may well have bought it cheap, being hard-up. Most stolen electronic equipment does go on the black market/ secondhand market. There's a shop near me which offers to 'unlock' equipment. Rudy walked into the nursery, he did not scale a sheer wall or use a rock.

The defence's ridiculous hyperbole was rejected over and over again. Even the Marasca court was scornful and upheld that the burglary scene at the cottage was faked.

So can it be taken as read that your prior ludicrous claim - a claim which was entirely unsupported by any evidence - that (in your own words):

"It is common knowledge Rudy was not charged with breaking and entry (burglary) at the nursery, precisely because he was let in, and a staff member was sacked, who presumably went through a disciplinary process wherein the transgression was upheld. We shall never know as this would be confidential to that staff member and the Milan Police did not turn up on time to give evidence."

...can be thrown onto the pile of unsupported nonsense and forgotten about forever? Super

 

[LondonJohn]

Stacyhs claimed the court couldn't possibly know Taramontano's (_sp?) testimony was useless as they hadn't questioned him, which does display a lack of knowledge of court procedure. They will have seen his witness statement in advance.

Judges don't go into a case completely blind, although they might like to act as though they do.

Judges in criminal trials read every statement provided to police in advance of the trial, even if those statements are never used by the prosecution or defence, do they? Are you absolutely certain of that.....?

I think unfortunately it's you who needs to do a little more work to understand how the criminal justice process and criminal trials process works......

(As a hint, cos I'm feeling generous: the answer to the question above is "no".)

 

[Vixen]

Judges in criminal trials read every statement provided to police in advance of the trial, even if those statements are never used by the prosecution of defence, do they? Are you absolutely certain of that.....?

I think unfortunately it's you who needs to do a little more work to understand how the criminal justice process and criminal trials process works......

Do pay attention. I said 'witness statement' (i.e. for the court), not 'police statement'.

 

[Vixen]

So can it be taken as read that your prior ludicrous claim - a claim which was entirely unsupported by any evidence - that (in your own words):

"It is common knowledge Rudy was not charged with breaking and entry (burglary) at the nursery, precisely because he was let in, and a staff member was sacked, who presumably went through a disciplinary process wherein the transgression was upheld. We shall never know as this would be confidential to that staff member and the Milan Police did not turn up on time to give evidence."

...can be thrown onto the pile of unsupported nonsense and forgotten about forever? Super

AIUI it was reported in the press and also mentioned in a couple of books, so it is in the public domain that a staff member at the Milan nursery was held responsible for Rudy's presence there.

The defence claim that, 'this is proof Rudy was a professional serial burglar' is pure reaching.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do pay attention. I said 'witness statement' (i.e. for the court), not 'police statement'.

You know not about what you write.

What is a "witness statement (i.e. for the court)"??

Are you actually aware of how criminal investigations and trials really work? I'll help you out:

The police (in Italy, under the authority of the PM) carry out an investigation.

In the course of that investigation, the police take witness statements. The court does not take witness statements (other than in the context of a witness appearing in court to give oral testimony, or in rare cases, written testimony).

These witness statements taken by the police are provided to the prosecutor (Italy: PM) and the defence team as part of the overall evidence bundle (though in Italy they don't seem to be very good at providing things properly to the defence.....).

The prosecution and defence decide which witness statements they wish to use in the trial (and whether or not they wish the witness who made the statements to appear in court for direct and cross examination).

The court reads and hears only that evidence which is placed before it by the prosecution and defence.

You're welcome.

 

[LondonJohn]

AIUI it was reported in the press and also mentioned in a couple of books, so it is in the public domain that a staff member at the Milan nursery was held responsible for Rudy's presence there.

The defence claim that, 'this is proof Rudy was a professional serial burglar' is pure reaching.

No no no no. No more of those weasel "AIUI" or "IIRC" or "I remember reading somewhere once that...." or "I'm sure it was reported that...".

Real, tangible, proper, credible evidence to support a claim, or the claim can be dismissed as unsupportable and false. OK?

 

[Vixen]

You know not about what you write.

What is a "witness statement (i.e. for the court)"??

Are you actually aware of how criminal investigations and trials really work? I'll help you out:

The police (in Italy, under the authority of the PM) carry out an investigation.

In the course of that investigation, the police take witness statements. The court does not take witness statements (other than in the context of a witness appearing in court to give oral testimony, or in rare cases, written testimony).

These witness statements taken by the police are provided to the prosecutor (Italy: PM) and the defence team as part of the overall evidence bundle (though in Italy they don't seem to be very good at providing things properly to the defence.....).

The prosecution and defence decide which witness statements they wish to use in the trial (and whether or not they wish the witness who made the statements to appear in court for direct and cross examination).

The court reads and hears only that evidence which is placed before it by the prosecution and defence.

You're welcome.

It is decided at preliminary hearings:

a) what the issues are

b) who the appearing witnesses will be

c) each side will be instructed to provide the evidence/witness statements to the other side.


Clear now?