Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

From The Machine (Harry Rag) Here are some Bruce Fisher's factual inaccuracies:

1. "Mignini sold this ridiculous story to a jury and they bought it."

Bruce: If I remember correctly, Amanda and Raffaele were convicted. This is a true statement.

Michael: Then why not simply state it that way on your site? Why the hyperbole?

2. Mignini already had a history of dreaming up "satanic ritualistic murder fantasies".

Bruce: This is a true statement. Read The Monster of Florence.

Michael: This is a lie. Peddled by the FOA (that's who wrote the book). Mignini never had Satanic theories. The Monster of Florence case was evidenced to have been carried out by individuals involved in a cult. However, Mignini did not investigate the MOF case. He investigated the Narducci case and he claimed no Satanic theories for it.

3. Mignini already had a "past history of corruption".

Bruce: This is a true statement. Read The Monster of Florence.

Michael: This is a lie, see my response above to #2.

4. "The interrogation of Amanda Knox was illegal."

Bruce: The Italian supreme court ruled that portions of Amanda's interrogation were illegal because she did not have an attorney present. Italy may not use the term "Illegal" as we do in the US.

Michael: Yet another blatant lie. The statements were never ruled 'illegal' by the High Court, they only ruled how they could or could not be used. No law was broken. Both of Amanda's statements were perfectly legal under Italian law.

5. Amanda Knox was questioned for 14 hours.

Bruce: Amanda was questioned for many hours in the days leading up to her arrest. This statement is not on the site however.

Michael: Then change your site to state that and remove the '14 hours' crap. That has been put there for no other reason then to mislead readers into thinking Amanda was interrogated for 14 hours straight on the night of her interrogation. That is a flat out lie.

6. "Suffering from extreme exhaustion with no food nor water, after a long and grueling interrogation, twenty year old college student Amanda Knox gave in to the interrogators demands by describing an imaginary dream or vision."

Bruce: This is a true statement. Amanda stated that she described a vision.

Michael: This is false. On the stand Amanda admitted she had simply 'omagined' it (that means lied). She was also given food and drinks.

7. "Amanda consistently told the same story over and over again. She repeatedly told the truth."

Bruce: This is a true statement. Amanda repeatedly told the police the same story leading up to the 5th.

Michael: False. Simply read Massei to see all the parts of her story she constantly changed.

8. "Physical force was also used on Amanda and she was lied to intentionally to make her believe the police had evidence against her."

Bruce: This is a true statement. Amanda was hit. I know we disagree. I believe Amanda.

Michael: Then it is false to state it as fact. You should make it clear it is simply Amanda's claim and it is your 'opinion' that it is true. To state it as having been a fact is false.

9. "One technique is to ask the suspect to imagine hypothetical scenarios. The interrogators feed the information that they want the suspect to imagine. Over long a long drawn out interrogation, the suspect gets confused and starts trying to comply with the request being made to imagine the scenarios. This is exactly what they did to Amanda Knox."

Bruce: This is a true statement. This is a very common interrogation tactic.

Michael: Common, it may or may not be (that's a separate debate). But to state it as fact as being what happened in this case is to mislead. It is no more then an assertion from you.

10. "It's possible the investigators were also targeting Lumumba because of the African hair that may have been found at the scene. Lumumba, of course, was African."

Bruce: This was taken out of context. The Machine (Harry Rag) likes to do this. PMF applauds him for it. Here is what the site says:

It was reported that Investigators found hair at the crime seen believed to belong to an African male. This was mentioned in early reporting but was never mentioned at trial. As it turns out, the hair could have belonged to Meredith.
It's possible the investigators were also targeting Lumumba because of the African hair that may have been found at the scene. Lumumba, of course, was African.

Michael: Prove it and provide the report. This is merely yet another false assertion from you.


11. "The finger prints pointed to a known criminal. This criminal was an African male named Rudy Guede."

Bruce: This is a true statement. Rudy Guede was then and still is a criminal and he is African.

Michael: it has already been made clear to you Rudy had no criminal record. Therefore, to call him a known criminal is to lie.

12. “A sample was taken from the knife blade and was tested for blood. The result was negative. There was no blood on the knife.”

Bruce: This is a true statement. The knife tested negative for blood.

Michael: The sample on the knife was all used up in the testing foir DNA, leaving nothing to be tested for blood. To twist this into a statement of fact that there was no blood on the knife is deceitful.

13. "There was no DNA on the blade."

Bruce: This sentence was pulled out of a paragraph discussing the testing done on the knife before the low copy DNA testing was done. PMF should be embarrased to be using these tactics to try and discredit me. Here is what I actually said:

Italian forensic police expert Patrizia Stefanoni performed the DNA testing on the knife. When the knife was tested, Amanda's DNA was found on the handle. This was expected because Amanda often prepared meals at Raffaele's apartment. She used the knife for cooking.

A sample was taken from the knife blade and was tested for blood. The result was negative. There was no blood on the knife. This needs to be repeated,

THERE WAS NO BLOOD ON THE KNIFE.

What was left of the sample from the blade was tested for DNA.. The results were negative.There was no DNA on the blade.

Michael: Wrong way round. The sample was tested for DNA first and was sacrified for that test. This left nothing on the blade to test for blood and this is why it was negative. Yo state emphatically that there was no blood on the knife is false, since it cannot be known one way or another.

14. "The DNA found on the knife came from the lab."

Bruce: This is my opinion. Here is another sentence that The Machine (Harry Rag) plucked out of a paragraph. This is a really poor attempt to discredit a website.

Michael: Then you need to make it clear it is only your 'opinion', rather then deceiving your readers that it is a fact.

15. "No other knives were taken from Raffaele's apartment."

Bruce: No other knives were taken from the kitchen. There was one more knife in the drawer. Neither of the knives looked like murder weapons so why not test them both? I looked at the video repeatedly and it is impossible to tell if the second knife had a tip or if it was rounded. It doesn't matter anyway. Other items should have been tested from that drawer as a control.

Michael: Then you need to make that clear on your site. And while you're about it, you can also inform your readership that there were actually no other knives to take .

16. "The outside shutters were open."

Bruce: The Machine (Harry Rag) likes to pull sentences out of paragraphs. Why not post the entire paragraph? Anyway, The shutters did not close properly and Filomena did not rmemebr if she had closed them. Either way, it would have taken Guede seconds to hop up and open the shutters and than jump back down to the ground and throw the rock.

Michael: Why do you misrepresent Filomena? To do so is to lie. Filomena mad absolutely clear, with certainty, that she closed the shutters. This was in the section of the Massei Report I posted. To continue to ignore that is evidence that yoi have no intention of being honest.

17. "They never photographed any glass on top of the clothes."

Bruce: I have not seen any photographs of glass on top of the clothes. This is not an important statement because the clothes were on the floor before the window was broken. The clothes were not there from a staged break in. They were there because Filomena left them there. Filomena's room was not clean. She left clothes on the floor.

Michael: This is pure misinformation. To continue to accuse Filomena of messing up her own room is not only false, but low and dishonourable.

18. "There was absolutely no proof presented in court showing any clean up."

Bruce: This is a true statement. It was insinuated that the luminol testing proved there was a clean up. This is completely false. There was no evidence pointing to Amanda and Raffaele so they must have cleaned it up. That is the prosecution's position. There was no proof of any clean up presented in court.

Michael: How can you state this as an absolute truth when you were never yourself in court? As it happens, it's completely false. Evidence of a clean-up WAS presented in court and that is a FACT.

19. "The clasp was not discovered until 47 days had passed."

Bruce: The Machine (Harry Rag) is insinuating that I worded this improperly. He will say that the clasp was discovered along with the bra but the investigators decided to leave it on the floor. Either way, my point is very clear. The clasp was not handled properly by the investigators.

Michael: Then you should reword your statement so it reflects accuracy. As for the calsp not being handled properly by investigators this has not been evidenced and is no more then opinion.

20. "In the 47 days that the clasp was on the floor it was moved around the room and ended up in a pile of garbage."

Bruce: This is a true statement. I have the video showing the clasp in different locations. I also have the video showing the investigators retrieving it from a pile of garbage.

Michael: This is a FALSE statement. It wasn't in a pile of 'garbage', it was under Meredith's things. Her things are not garbage! And to say 'garbage' is misleading since it leads the reader to think the clasp was in the contents from a dust bin and that is outright false!

21. "There is no evidence whatsoever placing Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito in the room at the time of Meredith's murder."

Bruce: This is a true statement. The Machine(Harry Rag) is still spreading lies about the shoe prints in the murder room. It has been proven that all shoe prints, set in Meredith's blood, in the murder room, belong to Rudy Guede. The clasp is not credible evidence. So, like I said, There is no evidence whatsoever placing Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito in the room at the time of Meredith's murder.

Michael. Yet another lie. The clasp, the footprints, and the lamp along with evidence of the presence of multiple persons (via Meredith's injuries) has all been presented. Whether you agree with the evidence is a completely different matter, but that is opinion and should be made clear as such.

22. "So in conclusion, the bra clasp tested positive for the DNA of Raffaele and many other people that visited the apartment."

Bruce: This is what my site actually says: So in conclusion, the bra clasp tested positive for the DNA of Raffaele and most likely several other people that visited the cottage. In other words, the bra clasp proves nothing.

Michael: Yet again this is false. It tested positive only for Meredith and Raffaele. A positive is a viable profile., there were no other viable profiles on the clasp. If you wanted to say there were partial profiles of three other people, that would be correct as would, to say several other people. But to state 'many other people' is deliberately misleading.

Once again, It does not say anything about 14 hours on my site.

Everything else you wrote is extremely weak. You are basically stating that I should change my opinion to yours and then everything will be okay with the site. You offer no proof to back up any of your comments. Your attempt was no better than The Machine's.

I am amazed that you won't admit that the clasp wasn't handled properly. That is a joke. That fact alone discredits you. You feel that the clasp was properly stored on the floor of the cottage.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

No, did see that. Still decided to comment on it since later in that some post you allude to the fact that the interrogation lasted many hours.


You could always ask Raffaele (or the owner of the appartment) what kind of knife that second knife was. For now I don't see any reason to doubt that this one knife was the only knife that qualified as a potential murder weapon when it was collected.


It doesn't really matter whether I agree with them or not. You made the absolute claim that the clasp wasn't discovered until 47 days had passed. From the comments you gave later it's obvious that you are not certain that is the case. Thus, your claim was improperly worded.

P.S. Obviously I would have liked the bra clasp to have been collected much earlier, during those first few days. That would have settled much of this debate one way or another.

So if I change the word discovered to collected then you would be fine with it?

Either way, it says the same thing. The clasp was mishandled. It is actually sounds more ridiculous that the clasp was discovered sooner but not collected. This is a perfect example of the tactics used by PMF. Bicker over nothing and attempt to make it appear that they have discovered a shocking error.

 

[Amazer]

So if I change the word discovered to collected then you would be fine with it?

Yes, because that is what happened for a fact. We don't know when it was discovered. We do know when it was collected.

Either way, it says the same thing. The clasp was mishandled. It is actually sounds more ridiculous that the clasp was discovered sooner but not collected. This is a perfect example of the tactics used by PMF. Bicker over nothing and attempt to make it appear that they have discovered a shocking error.

Discover and collected really don't convey the same meaning.

And the fact that the clasp was onsite for 47 days really doesn't tell us if it was mishandled. The videos show that the evidence collection itself could have been handled a little better, that much I agree with.

I am curious though what the reason is that the forensics team didn't return to the crime scene sooner. Can anyone explain the reasons that it took that long.

 

[RWVBWL]

Completely false. It is very common for witnesses to come forward a long time after the crime, for a variety of reasons. There is no time limit in law on witnesses.

The fact is, he was examined by the court and was found to be reliable.

Good day Fulcanelli,
What's with the Completley False answer!?!
You must be responding to this that I posted:


1)"Informing the police right away is what I would think that a "true" witness would do, homeless or not...Well let's see, I saw a car accident, and I told the police right then what I saw, that's what I call a "true" witness, not one who comes forward many months later. Let's see, I saw some people, and there was a murder, and I don't want to tell them what I saw, until a newspaper contacts me much later, is that a "true" witness?

2)And I do not believe that Mr. Curatolo did this with regards to the murder of Miss Kercher.
Did he come forth immediately or not?

I believe a true witness is one who comes forth on their own, immediately, when details of the specific incident are freshly in mind.

We are talking about a guy, with a brilliant memory, who like to sleep outside on the bench.
Good for him, maybe he likes the chilly November nights under the stars.

Anyways, this is a guy, who has been to court to testify before in another murder trial.
He, who has the incredible memory, would have remembered that the police will need him to do so again.

So a simple question is begging to be asked of this former murder witness.
With his superior memory, why did he not go and tell the police what he saw last night when he saw them do their investigation work that day that Miss Kercher was found after being brutally killed?
He must have heard of some of the details about what they wer doing.
"Hey guys, what happened? Oh, there was another murder? Well listen to what I know. I saw some strange people last night checking out the apartment and loitering for a while, 1 was a girl, she was wearing ?, one was a guy, he was wearing ?, and then a tall black guy, who was wearing ?, They were talking,acting suspiciously, etc, That's all I know. If you need me to ID them, I can do so by looking at mug shots or a police line-up. You know where to find me, that's "my" bench over there"...

He saw the police working, so what gives? Why did he do it so much later?
Was it because the police needed extra help gaining the conviction against Mr. Sollecito and Miss Knox.
The same reason they went back to find a bra clasp too?

Much later when he did come forward, was it from his own decision or did the newspaper Giornale dell'Umbria find him and bring him forth? Why then?
Did they promise him a newspaper subscription or something, hahaha?

This guys memory is too detailed for me to believe that he was there at 9:27 or 9:28 on a chilly November night, reading "The Expresso" newspaper, and watching Raffale Sollecito, Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede hang around in the dark.

Fulcanelli, you seem to be a curious, suspicious guy who digs into the background of PR firms,
and you believe this garbage, because the court did? OK...
RWVBWL

 

[Fulcanelli]

Once again, It does not say anything about 14 hours on my site.

Everything else you wrote is extremely weak. You are basically stating that I should change my opinion to yours and then everything will be okay with the site. You offer no proof to back up any of your comments. Your attempt was no better than The Machine's.

I am amazed that you won't admit that the clasp wasn't handled properly. That is a joke. That fact alone discredits you. You feel that the clasp was properly stored on the floor of the cottage.

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't assert things as facts that are actually false or/and assert things as facts when that are actually not facts, simply your opinion masquerading as fact. You do a great deal of both. You've been called out on it and you don't like it. That's your problem.

As for the clasp, I have no problem with it remaining in the cottage, it was fine there and it was safe. There is no rule that states all items must be removed from a crime scene within a set period of time. It is a rule you people have made up and arbitrarily assigned.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I am curious though what the reason is that the forensics team didn't return to the crime scene sooner. Can anyone explain the reasons that it took that long.

The police had to wait for the defence to get back to them and agree a dare. The defence delayed.

 

[Fulcanelli]

1)"Informing the police right away is what I would think that a "true" witness would do, homeless or not...Well let's see, I saw a car accident, and I told the police right then what I saw, that's what I call a "true" witness, not one who comes forward many months later. Let's see, I saw some people, and there was a murder, and I don't want to tell them what I saw, until a newspaper contacts me much later, is that a "true" witness?

Then you don't know much about how the 'real' world works. It simply doesn't happen that way. Just because, for whatever reason, a witness has delayed coming forward, that doesn't discredit them.

The most common reason people don'y come forward is because the witness doesn't realise that they've witnessed anything important, or that what they have seen the police already know. In the case of the reporters, how it worked was the reporters were going around questioning people in the area. After what they heard the reporters realised what they'd heard was important and told the witnesses so and advised them to go to the police. I see little wrong with that.

You'll find Massei lays out in his report exactly why he believes Curatolo's testimony to be reliable.

 

[christianahannah]

Well, that's one way to look at it. I'm not sure the ease of the prosecution's case is at issue, though, since, as I said before, it appears that no matter what happened, they couldn't lose. They had all the "problems" you listed above with the statement, in addition to no evidence, bad science and loony witnesses, yet they still managed to get a conviction.

Whether Amanda was "fortunate" in any way also is a bizarre approach. It's kind of like saying someone should count their blessings because they lost only an arm and a leg instead of both arms and both legs.

And again, the concept of inadmissibility is irrelevant in this case. The judges and the jury panel were all fully informed about Amanda's statements, regardless of whether they were brought up at trial. That was information that the judges, especially, could not be expected to put out of their minds.

I have been reading some of the early articles of the case of Meredith's death. One media source, Corriere Della Sera, publishes on November 6, 2007 the arrests of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick;

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_06/perugia_studentessa_meredith_questura_uccisa.shtml

and gives some details of their interrogation of November 5 and 6 (this article also describes the investigation as closed, though not all forensics had come back nor the murder weapon found and Rudy was later to be arrested).

I then read an article published the next day, November 7;

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

which has Amanda's complete 5:45 statement (read at the section I «non ricordo» di Amanda and Raffaele's statement from the same questioning (I am not sure if this is a partial or complete statement - read at Le bugie del fidanzato and Il ritorno a casa).

Does the press in Italy have access to police records and are free to publish them? If so, does this access trump the rights of those suspected of crimes, though not yet tried, in court?

Is this common for a suspect's statement/s to be published in the media before a hearing/trial? Would this not prejudice public opinion against the suspect and eventually jurors at trial?

 

[capealadin]

Hi, Christianahannah. If the public read the suspects statements prior to trial, well, they are what they are. And according to some, absolutely truthful. So, they say they didn't do it, and the jury acquits them. And they have read all the reports from the families and PR firm, give glowing accounts of Amanda, not able to kill a spider, or even trample a flower. NO WAY this sensitive, caring woman could kill another human being. From what I understand about jurors, they take trials very seriously, and in Italy, jurors volunteer their services. It says something that apparantly some jurors had tears in their eyes when they returned their verdict, so they obviously felt some compassion for the accused, but went with the guilty verdict, because the evidence left them no choice.IMO.

 

[LondonJohn]

Good day Fulcanelli,
What's with the Completley False answer!?!
You must be responding to this that I posted:


1)"Informing the police right away is what I would think that a "true" witness would do, homeless or not...Well let's see, I saw a car accident, and I told the police right then what I saw, that's what I call a "true" witness, not one who comes forward many months later. Let's see, I saw some people, and there was a murder, and I don't want to tell them what I saw, until a newspaper contacts me much later, is that a "true" witness?

2)And I do not believe that Mr. Curatolo did this with regards to the murder of Miss Kercher.
Did he come forth immediately or not?

I believe a true witness is one who comes forth on their own, immediately, when details of the specific incident are freshly in mind.

We are talking about a guy, with a brilliant memory, who like to sleep outside on the bench.
Good for him, maybe he likes the chilly November nights under the stars.

Anyways, this is a guy, who has been to court to testify before in another murder trial.
He, who has the incredible memory, would have remembered that the police will need him to do so again.

So a simple question is begging to be asked of this former murder witness.
With his superior memory, why did he not go and tell the police what he saw last night when he saw them do their investigation work that day that Miss Kercher was found after being brutally killed?
He must have heard of some of the details about what they wer doing.
"Hey guys, what happened? Oh, there was another murder? Well listen to what I know. I saw some strange people last night checking out the apartment and loitering for a while, 1 was a girl, she was wearing ?, one was a guy, he was wearing ?, and then a tall black guy, who was wearing ?, They were talking,acting suspiciously, etc, That's all I know. If you need me to ID them, I can do so by looking at mug shots or a police line-up. You know where to find me, that's "my" bench over there"...

He saw the police working, so what gives? Why did he do it so much later?
Was it because the police needed extra help gaining the conviction against Mr. Sollecito and Miss Knox.
The same reason they went back to find a bra clasp too?

Much later when he did come forward, was it from his own decision or did the newspaper Giornale dell'Umbria find him and bring him forth? Why then?
Did they promise him a newspaper subscription or something, hahaha?

This guys memory is too detailed for me to believe that he was there at 9:27 or 9:28 on a chilly November night, reading "The Expresso" newspaper, and watching Raffale Sollecito, Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede hang around in the dark.

Fulcanelli, you seem to be a curious, suspicious guy who digs into the background of PR firms,
and you believe this garbage, because the court did? OK...
RWVBWL

I'm afraid that his dismissal of your original well-made point, and his reply to this post of yours as well, both demonstrate (to me) an unwillingness to engage in an honest and proper debate. Nothing new there, though....

As far as I can tell, you were never arguing that the very fact of witnesses coming forward some time after the event should BY THAT VERY DEFINITION discredit their testimony. And if I'm correct in my interpretation of your argument, then I agree with you.

The point here surely should be: an ideal identification witness (from the prosecution's perspective) should be one who comes forward almost immediately after the crime is discovered and publicised, and one who is reliable in terms of recall and credibility.

I'd argue that, in this case, we had none of the above. PLEASE NOT that this does not mean the witness should automatically be deemed unreliable or untrustworthy. But it's INESCAPABLE that these are mitigating factors.

So, with this in mind, I can't help wondering if AK/RS's defence teams did a less-than-decent job in questioning the reliability or veracity of this particular witness. It IS materially important that the witness only came forward long after details of the crime had been spread all over Perugia and the national media, and long after AK and RS's faces had been similarly publicised.

Did the defence not (for example) make a big issue of the fact that many (most?) people, once they had got wind of a terrible and brutal crime that took place within a few dozen yards of where they must have remembered they'd been that evening/night, would have immediately tried to recall if they'd seen anyone acting suspiciously or strangely over that period?

And did the defence not actively question the credibility of a positive identification made long after pictures of the suspects had gone round the world a few times (let alone to a news stand next to a basketball court in Perugia)?

And did the defence not justifiably try to draw out this particular witness's lifestyle and psychology, in order to further question his credibility as a witness? I'd argue that such questioning would not only be fair and not indicative of prejudice of any kind, but that it would also be of material importance if the witness had any known long-term substance abuse problems, or whether he showed mental health problems in any other area. (Note to any potential authors of strawman arguments along the lines of "But AK and RS were stoners themselves" - that would be both misleading and irrelevant in trying to evaluate the specific reliability of a prosecution witness.)

If the court was minded to accept this witness's testimony entirely at face value, then I'd suggest that this might be one of the areas the defence team might want to try to examine further on appeal...

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi, Christianahannah. If the public read the suspects statements prior to trial, well, they are what they are. And according to some, absolutely truthful. So, they say they didn't do it, and the jury acquits them. And they have read all the reports from the families and PR firm, give glowing accounts of Amanda, not able to kill a spider, or even trample a flower. NO WAY this sensitive, caring woman could kill another human being. From what I understand about jurors, they take trials very seriously, and in Italy, jurors volunteer their services. It says something that apparantly some jurors had tears in their eyes when they returned their verdict, so they obviously felt some compassion for the accused, but went with the guilty verdict, because the evidence left them no choice.IMO.

Wooooah. This completely bypasses the entire rationale for sub-judice rules. There is a very good reason why these rules are so stringent in some countries (e.g. UK), and moderately strict in others (e.g. USA). And it's because pre-trial publicity has DEMONSTRABLY interfered with the application of justice in previous cases where there were no such rules in place. Sub-judice rules are there for a very well-defined reason - they don't exist in a vacuum.

To say of statements/other evidence released pre-trial to the media that "they are what they are" is to essentially argue that a) everything should be out there for contemporaneous public view (maybe police interrogations should take place in the town square...?) and b) people don't evaluate what they see/read/hear in the media and form often-strong personal judgments outside of the correctly-controlled environment of a courtroom.

Italy is, of course, wholly entitled to allow this sort of leaking and reporting to occur. But this case might possibly make Italian legislators re-think their laws in this area.

 

[quadraginta]

Wooooah. This completely bypasses the entire rationale for sub-judice rules. There is a very good reason why these rules are so stringent in some countries (e.g. UK), and moderately strict in others (e.g. USA). And it's because pre-trial publicity has DEMONSTRABLY interfered with the application of justice in previous cases where there were no such rules in place. Sub-judice rules are there for a very well-defined reason - they don't exist in a vacuum.

To say of statements/other evidence released pre-trial to the media that "they are what they are" is to essentially argue that a) everything should be out there for contemporaneous public view (maybe police interrogations should take place in the town square...?) and b) people don't evaluate what they see/read/hear in the media and form often-strong personal judgments outside of the correctly-controlled environment of a courtroom.

Italy is, of course, wholly entitled to allow this sort of leaking and reporting to occur. But this case might possibly make Italian legislators re-think their laws in this area.

If by "moderately strict ... in the U.S." you mean "virtually non-existent for any practical purposes" then that is an accurate statement. Otherwise it either reflects a profound lack of familiarity with the realities of media coverage of high profile crimes in the U.S., or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

There are sundry efforts by legal groups to restrain the comments of both defense and prosecution lawyers. They tend to be generally half-hearted and largely ineffectual. Judges will, from time to time, issue gag orders or other constraints. These are also evaded with all of the skill and art that can be mustered. The press pursues and defends their First Amendment privileges with great vigor. LE will be begged, harassed, and routinely sued for information concerning ongoing cases. The "press conference" is as much of a media icon as the "perp walk", and there are officers in every major jurisdiction whose only job is to handle the media.

As I've mentioned before some states (Florida being the poster child) make a fetish out of their "transparency". All consider the rights of a free press to require substantial objection to be overcome. Both prosecution and defense quite shamelessly take full advantage of the situation in equal measure.

Nearly the only line of redress for a defendant in this atmosphere is to ask for a change of venue (almost pointless in today's media environment), or subsequently attempt to have a conviction overturned on appeal on the basis of adverse publicity, but although such efforts have met with success on occasion it is not commonplace. The rare times when that works the success of such an appeal only garners a retrial, not an acquittal.

Even the fundamental principle of granting a mistrial on such grounds is relatively recent here from a legal perspective. The Sheppard v. Maxwell case which affirmed it was in 1966. Prior to that "show trials" were pretty much a form of public recreation, and the various media enthusiastically competed with each other in their efforts to do everything but fabricate their stories out of whole cloth. Not that that was unheard of, either.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Michael: This is a lie. Peddled by the FOA (that's who wrote the book). Mignini never had Satanic theories. The Monster of Florence case was evidenced to have been carried out by individuals involved in a cult. However, Mignini did not investigate the MOF case. He investigated the Narducci case and he claimed no Satanic theories for it.

Sure he did. Mignini opened an investigation into the Narducci case because of hearsay linking Narducci's death to some people he was already investigating. He eventually concluded that Narducci belonged to a Satanic cult that commissioned the MOF killings to obtain body parts for their rituals. According to Mignini, Narducci was killed by cult members because, as a narcotics addict, he had become a security problem.

 

[RoseMontague]

Sure he did. Mignini opened an investigation into the Narducci case because of hearsay linking Narducci's death to some people he was already investigating. He eventually concluded that Narducci belonged to a Satanic cult that commissioned the MOF killings to obtain body parts for their rituals. According to Mignini, Narducci was killed by cult members because, as a narcotics addict, he had become a security problem.

That sounds a lot like a bit of whackedness.

 

[LondonJohn]

If by "moderately strict ... in the U.S." you mean "virtually non-existent for any practical purposes" then that is an accurate statement. Otherwise it either reflects a profound lack of familiarity with the realities of media coverage of high profile crimes in the U.S., or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

There are sundry efforts by legal groups to restrain the comments of both defense and prosecution lawyers. They tend to be generally half-hearted and largely ineffectual. Judges will, from time to time, issue gag orders or other constraints. These are also evaded with all of the skill and art that can be mustered. The press pursues and defends their First Amendment privileges with great vigor. LE will be begged, harassed, and routinely sued for information concerning ongoing cases. The "press conference" is as much of a media icon as the "perp walk", and there are officers in every major jurisdiction whose only job is to handle the media.

As I've mentioned before some states (Florida being the poster child) make a fetish out of their "transparency". All consider the rights of a free press to require substantial objection to be overcome. Both prosecution and defense quite shamelessly take full advantage of the situation in equal measure.

Nearly the only line of redress for a defendant in this atmosphere is to ask for a change of venue (almost pointless in today's media environment), or subsequently attempt to have a conviction overturned on appeal on the basis of adverse publicity, but although such efforts have met with success on occasion it is not commonplace. The rare times when that works the success of such an appeal only garners a retrial, not an acquittal.

Even the fundamental principle of granting a mistrial on such grounds is relatively recent here from a legal perspective. The Sheppard v. Maxwell case which affirmed it was in 1966. Prior to that "show trials" were pretty much a form of public recreation, and the various media enthusiastically competed with each other in their efforts to do everything but fabricate their stories out of whole cloth. Not that that was unheard of, either.

"profound lack of familiarity"

"deliberate attempt to mislead"

Good to see that everything's back to normal on this thread....

In fact, I fully understand the current limitations of sub-judice rules in the USA. But thanks for reminding me of what I already know. And you also seemed to home in predominantly on the mid-trial news conferences that are routinely given in high-profile cases in the USA. These are obviously each side's attempts to put a "spin" on what's going on in the trial, and are different from what I was actually talking about.

What I was talking about was the freedom (or otherwise) of the media to publish - long in advance of a trial - actual evidence that will be presented at trial, and the freedom (or otherwise) of the media to "go to town" on a defendant's character, lifestyle, past life and previous misdeeds. As you well know, many American states (and federal statutes) limit pre-trial exposure of these sorts of things. And I believe that I used the qualifier "moderately" in my description of the US. If you're arguing that every state in America allows as much pre-trial publication of evidence and defendant character analysis as Italy, I'd argue that you were wrong.

And lastly, some of the tone of your post seemed to imply that you thought I believed that the lack of sub-judice rules was only potentially detrimental to the defence side of any case. However, I didn't argue this: in fact, arguably the strict sub-judice rules in force in the UK came about after the Crown lost cases in court due to prosecution-damaging pre-trial publicity. After all, there IS a remedy for bad procedure if the first trial ends in conviction (i.e reversal on appeal). But if the defendant is CLEARED, then the prosecution - by and large - has no redress to an appeal, let alone a retrial.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What I was talking about was the freedom (or otherwise) of the media to publish - long in advance of a trial - actual evidence that will be presented at trial, and the freedom (or otherwise) of the media to "go to town" on a defendant's character, lifestyle, past life and previous misdeeds. As you well know, many American states (and federal statutes) limit pre-trial exposure of these sorts of things. And I believe that I used the qualifier "moderately" in my description of the US. If you're arguing that every state in America allows as much pre-trial publication of evidence and defendant character analysis as Italy, I'd argue that you were wrong.

.

I'm not so sure about that - take the Casey Anthony case for one, that trial hasn't even started and you wouldn't believe the publication on it. You would also be very hard to find a single person that thinks she is innocent as well, so Ohio must not be one of those states you mentioned. This is also a case where there is very little evidence as well.

 

[katy_did]

I had read that the defence team was planning on challenging Curatolo's testimony again on appeal but I can't remember where I saw it.

I think this was in Frank's post on Knox's appeal. Curatolo mentioned buses ferrying people to and from town in his testimony, but apparently those buses weren't running on 1 November. So the defence have produced evidence of that for the appeal (a witness who works for the bus company, from memory). Originally Curatolo also said there were students in the square wearing Halloween masks, so sounds as if whatever he saw it may have happened on 31 October, rather than the night of the murder.

 

[katy_did]

It's not logical for Rudy to have locked it at all. He'd have been home inside 4 minutes, long before Meredith was discovered. Once he was at home, it would have made no difference to him 'whatsoever' when Meredith was discovered. Neither was there any chance of her surviving.

In contrast, Raffaele and Amanda had every reason to lock the door, the reasons for which have already been posted here.

Well, I posted logical reasons why he might have locked it, which you haven't really addressed here. I'd argue it makes much less sense for Amanda and Raffaele to have locked it in order to delay the discovery of the crime, given their actions the next appear to have done the opposite (i.e. hastened its discovery).

 

[stilicho]

I agree. If the sound of a scream (from a woman being strangled and having her face pushed into the floor?) had managed to escape the cottage, it would have bounced off the wall that runs next to the cottage and back again, or have competed with the sound waves from traffic on the street. If it could possibly have been heard, it is more likely it would have been heard by someone sitting outside than by someone inside her home.

I haven't been there but the street view shows a number of obstructions between the cottage and the basketball court but none between the cottage and the upper floors of the complex situated above the car park.

I lived near a busy road once which was on a grade. For a couple years, I had a suite on the downhill side of the road and couldn't hear anything from the roadway. I moved across the street, up the grade, and the noise was almost unbearable even though the suite was actually farther from the traffic.

Given what we know about the area (and the court was provided no reason to object), you'd have to have been suspicious if Curatolo mentioned the scream.

 

[stilicho]

Your splitting hairs. Whether they actually filed suit or not isn't the point, the fact is Rudy's lawyers were incensed because the description wasn't true and the story they were going to sue was covered by several different outlets and as a result the media got the message, for a time referring to Guede as a former gardener' or similar, rather then petty criminal or drug dealer.

I agree with Kevin and Mary that you should have stated that there was a possibility of legal action instead of that there was legal action. However, the media did stop calling him a drug-dealer at some point and then started up again after nobody cared to correct them.

I would just concede them the victory and continue since it's a pretty weak cause for FOA jubiliation.