They cannot be produced in coirt, under Italian law. And since, at the start of thr trial Raffaele's and Amanda's defence had them ruled out by Massei, they can never be produced in trial. If you want them, I suggest you get onto the defence and ask they request they be included in the next round.
Once again, do you have a link supporting your statement that transcripts of interrogations cannot be produced in court?
Nothing was 'leaked', they were legally released by the presiding judge, as she is bound to do under Italian law when she wrote her report. And they were released in 'text' form,. under Italian law. I say again, the Italian system is text based, not based on recorded media.There are exceptions. Recorded statements are not one of them, especially those made by Witnesses, which are not recorded in the first place. A recoirding has to actually 'exist' before it can be released.
So the prosecution didn't leak anything in the early days of the investigation? Glad we cleared that up. I'm assuming then that there are no reports as to what Amanda said during her 'confession' in the press prior to the publication of the judge's report.
Obviously, you have no idea how to research. Research 101...go here: KNOX AND SOLLECITO TRIAL HEARINGS TIMELINE and view who gave testimony when, that will give you the dates. Then, seek out those dates in the main discussion thread. You will see posts. But you will see a link to every article written on that particular testimony by the witnesses/experts concerned. Are there any other basics you need help with?
Fulcanelli, I searched for and read every forum post which contained the word 'scream'. Are you telling me the search function on the forum is inadequate, and there may have been statements about the scream which didn't appear on the search result?
If so, that is a different issue of course, and I can adjust my searches accordingly. Using your own logic, however, if you make a statement the onus should be on you to provide evidence, not expect other people to trawl through forum posts looking for it.
I believe those who show no reason to disbelieve them. Do you have any reason to support your assertion the police are proven liars? That is, aside from your predjudice and obvious agenda?
How about the claims of the postal police that they didn't enter Meredith's room, contradicted by two witnesses, and the claim by Battistelli that they arrived at 12.35, clearly contradicted by cell phone records and CCTV footage?
And may I say your own 'prejudice and obvious agenda' is crystal clear, also.
It's not 'selective'. The rule is, the evidence, the evidence, the evidence. Does what she say match the evidence and proof or not? That is and can only ever be the criteria.
You seem to be trying to avoid the point I made by responding with a very vague, general statement. You clearly ARE quite willing to believe certain parts of Amanda's testimony (and to misrepresent it, as it suits you) yet you disbelieve other parts because 'she's a liar'.
Really? I thought they got her convicted of murder with sexual aggravation, criminal slander, illegal transportation of a knife and the staging of a crime. They must have produced some evidence to do that. Don't you think?
Wow, you really do like to throw in a straw man when you want to avoid the question, don't you? You know quite well we were discussing evidence as to what was said in the interrogation.
'What' evidence? The only evidence you offer is 'Amanda said so'. That's evidence?
Well no, actually. I offered evidence from Judge Matteini's report, which oddly enough you neglected to quote. Here you go, I'll refresh your memory:
However, there is clear evidence in the statement itself that 'the scream' was suggested to her. Amanda says she DIDN'T hear Meredith scream, because she had her hands over her ears. Writing of the 'confession', Judge Matteini says, "specifying that in those moments she could not attest to hearing Meredith scream insofar as she was so frightened she blocked her ears, imagining what could have been happening". So in Amanda's 'confession', she says she can't testify to Meredith screaming, because she had her hands over her ears and couldn't hear. So why did she mention screaming? Because the police asked her why she didn't hear screaming. The statement she made on the night of the interrogation is completely consistent with her later claim that the scream was suggested to her.
And maybe it was. The killers would know.
I take it you've now dropped your argument that 'inside the closet' is equivalent to 'in front of the closet', then.
