Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps they did, and their client decided to ignore their advice?

I might agree up to a point. But it seems that the defence lawyers either actively colluded in, or at least acquiesced over, things like the prison diaries. This indicates to me that they were - at best - indifferent to their clients communicating their thoughts. And I'd classify that as extremely bad legal judgement.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

A person expressing a hope that a dead friend had not suffered is making a "dumb" comment? I think we'll have to agree to differ on this point, Bruce.

Now your spinning. I said that the statement may appear to sound dumb due to the circumstances of stress. It was an emotional reaction.

See my funeral example.

 

[stilicho]

Gods below, I do hate references to futurological fruit preserves. I'm with Alice on that. I wish people would either put up the information they have or shut up about it until it can be published.

Absolutely agreed.

There is a lot of this and it's not only from Bruce Fisher. It is meaningless to taunt people with information that's supposed to be confidential. If it's confidential then that means any reference to it should be likewise confidential.

People have been shot as spies and traitors for doing stuff like this during times of conflict. I would lose my job if I did this with privileged information I receive at work.

It's no different in a murder case where there are two upcoming appeals.

That's why we have to err on the side of simple lying. Nobody with privileged information would state boldly that, for example, Rudy Guede was a police informant if it was not in the public domain somewhere. Unless they were lying.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

The comments from Fulcanelli along with his link, certainly show the media's effect on this case.

His link states that someone sent a letter to a newspaper stating their daughter heard Amanda make a statement.

Sounds like gossip to me. Yet Fulcanelli posts it as a credible article.

This shows a lot about how Fulcannelli and other have shaped their views.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The comments from Fulcanelli along with his link, certainly show the media's effect on this case.

His link states that someone sent a letter to a newspaper stating their daughter heard Amanda make a statement.

Sounds like gossip to me. Yet Fulcanelli posts it as a credible article.

This shows a lot about how Fulcannelli and other have shaped their views.

Pot...Kettle...black.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, you're not right. There were some rare exceptions she wasn't present (and one of those was due to illness....although she wasn't, it was a device ). She was there for nearly all the court days and only missed 3 - 4 of them. And even on those, she was still directing, from afar.

The court had to re-arrange its schedule to accommodate her - that's why it only usually sat on a Friday and Saturday. Bongiorno had a full-time job in the Italian Parliament in Rome, where she was an elected member of Parliament at that time. This case was essentially "moonlighting" for her. I'd argue that there was no way that she could have given the necessary care and attention to Sollecito's defence. Normal practice for defence lawyers in serious criminal cases is for them to entirely immerse themselves in the case - especially during the trial.

In my view, Sollecito should have engaged a full-time lead defence attorney - one who was able to devote 100% of his/her working time and energy to his defence. I think he and his father made a mistake hiring her, and I think she made a mistake agreeing to take the case.

 

[Agatha]

Now your [sic] spinning. I said that the statement may appear to sound dumb due to the circumstances of stress. It was an emotional reaction.

See my funeral example.

To be fair, that isn't quite what you said in post 1153. You said that:

We all do this when we are under stress or we feel that someone has asked a dumb question or makes a dumb comment

No "appearing" to sound dumb at all.

I think if there is spinning, it is being done on both sides, since none of us can possibly know what was in AK's mind at the time.

 

[stilicho]

As it happens I do not think this statement is significant either. This is one of those situations where hearing it is shocking to some. Perhaps I too lack empathy but I could see myself saying it perhaps: if I was shocked and tired and angry and the person asking the question was annoying me. Again I do not at all see we can read much into it. Perhaps that is just me

I suppose it's not the content but the commonality of this type of behaviour that most people find notable. It was certainly things like this which caused Meredith's British friends to tell the investigators that they thought Amanda was involved. So, regardless of being guilty or innocent, this statement (and others) were quite damaging to her.

 

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Bruce Fisher View Post
Now your [sic] spinning. .

If we're starting to correct grammatical errors, then I'm going to have a field day!!

PS Yes, before anyone does the old "comeback" routine, I know that I previously asked one poster if they could use apostrophes rather than commas (where appropriate). However, this wasn't a pedantic form of correction, but it was because I'd had genuine difficulty scan-reading that poster's contributions (or ".... I,d had genuine difficulty scan-reading that poster,s contributions")

 

[stilicho]

I wouldn't mind betting that if you asked people who were intimately acquainted with the criminal law system in Italy, they would tell you that there are dozens and dozens of practising criminal defence lawyers who are more highly regarded than Bongiorno or Ghirga (let alone dalla Verdova, who's not even a criminal lawyer by practice). There might even be some more highly-regarded criminal lawyers practising in Perugia...

* Although unless she'd retained a lawyer voluntarily on 3rd/4th November (which, incidentally, I'd argue she should actually have done), there would have been no legal adviser around to counsel her not to say things in public about the murder.

This has been the subject of a lot of speculation. It appears that both RS and AK secured the services of expensive but not necessarily the best lawyers. The trial, though, featured a standard cadre of the best experts they could find. These people all have high profile reputations.

Dalla Vedova was almost certainly on the team only because he speaks English. I have no idea why the Family didn't hire a translator.

To your last statement, Amanda and Raffaele likely didn't let on that they were in trouble to their families. If they had been honest then they almost certainly would have had representation earlier.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Absolutely agreed.

There is a lot of this and it's not only from Bruce Fisher. It is meaningless to taunt people with information that's supposed to be confidential. If it's confidential then that means any reference to it should be likewise confidential.

People have been shot as spies and traitors for doing stuff like this during times of conflict. I would lose my job if I did this with privileged information I receive at work.

It's no different in a murder case where there are two upcoming appeals.

That's why we have to err on the side of simple lying. Nobody with privileged information would state boldly that, for example, Rudy Guede was a police informant if it was not in the public domain somewhere. Unless they were lying.

You should take a break. You have made no sense for two days now.

Gosh, I sure hope Marriott doesn't shoot me!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

To be fair, that isn't quite what you said in post 1153. You said that: No "appearing" to sound dumb at all.

I think if there is spinning, it is being done on both sides, since none of us can possibly know what was in AK's mind at the time.

From my posts, you knew exactly what I was saying. Your tactics are very common on this board.

You are locked in to a belief. Everything you hear about Amanda sounds terrible to you. You have a much different (most likely influenced by the media) perspective than I do.

 

[Agatha]

My tactics? Do, please, elaborate.

 

[Bob001]

It's a touch disingenuous to say that once a person is deemed a "suspect" in Italy, they can only be questioned by a "judge". Given that Fulcanelli knew he was giving a reply to someone who didn't know the finer points of the Italian justice system, I can only assume that the word "judge" was used here to give the impression of a judge in the UK/US meaning of the word. In other words, a disinterested and impartial figure who hears cases in a court of law.

But, as Fulcanelli well knows, "judge" in this scenario actually means prosecuting magistrate - who is effectively (within the Italian system) acting in the capacity of a higher form of investigator. So the interrogation can (and does) still continue once a person is deemed "suspect" - only it's not the police doing the interrogating at this point but a prosecuting magistrate acting as a kind of "higher form of police officer".)

Yes, call me a fool, but in the U.S. we would assume that a "judge" is an impartial participant in the process. Police arrest and charge a defendant, and the prosecutor (part of the executive branch of government) takes him before a judge or magistrate (part of the judicial branch) who decides whether there is sufficient evidence to hold him, sets bail, etc. A judge plays no role in the investigation of a crime before it comes before him as part of a public proceeding, and can throw out the charge and set the defendant free if he wants to. If a "judge" in Italy is part of the prosecution team, that is a very different role. An American college student would not be likely to understand that, or to understand her rights more broadly in a foreign system. There also appears to be a strong incentive to question someone as a "witness" as long as possible and even extract a signed statement from them before formally naming them a "suspect." Questions about the Italian system really are about whether the system is structured to reach the correct result, meaning convict the guilty and free the innocent (and yes, the U.S. system makes plenty of mistakes too).

 

[LondonJohn]

I see your point: but I place myself in category 5: I believe in AK/RS/RG's guilt because I believe the evidence has been tested. In this country it is usual to accept a finding of guilt unless and until the finding is overturned at appeal. In this country the burden of proof is reversed at appeal (more or less). On this thread some seem to continue to talk as if the trial did not take place. It may be that this is because they have all accepted the Italian approach, which does not seem to reverse the burden of proof. But it is curious that those who do this do not accept any other part of the Italian system as superior, nor do they accord it much respect. That is my impression anyway.

I find the highlighted part quite difficult to reconcile in logical terms. Are you saying that it is invalid or inappropriate to question a court's verdict in the UK unless or until that verdict is overturned at appeal? That certainly seems to me to be what you are suggesting.

Let's take the Barry George case (i.e. the Jill Dando murder) as an example here. If one is to accept your logic, then it was wrong for people to raise concerns over George's conviction prior to any of his appeals. Yet many people did raise concerns - some of which turned out to have legal validity. And I'm sure that some people raised such concerns on forums very similar to this one.

Why would they have been wrong to do so? Why should everyone have accepted - without question - the finding of guilt against Barry George, and why should everyone have clung to that acceptance of guilt right up until the very day when he was actually acquitted in a retrial? I'm not sure you could answer those questions, but I look forward to a reply nonetheless......

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, call me a fool, but in the U.S. we would assume that a "judge" is an impartial participant in the process. Police arrest and charge a defendant, and the prosecutor (part of the executive branch of government) takes him before a judge or magistrate (part of the judicial branch) who decides whether there is sufficient evidence to hold him, sets bail, etc. A judge plays no role in the investigation of a crime before it comes before him as part of a public proceeding, and can throw out the charge and set the defendant free if he wants to. If a "judge" in Italy is part of the prosecution team, that is a very different role. An American college student would not be likely to understand that, or to understand her rights more broadly in a foreign system. There also appears to be a strong incentive to question someone as a "witness" as long as possible and even extract a signed statement from them before formally naming them a "suspect." Questions about the Italian system really are about whether the system is structured to reach the correct result, meaning convict the guilty and free the innocent (and yes, the U.S. system makes plenty of mistakes too).

I agree with both the content and the tone of your post. Unfortunately, others seem wedded to different interpretations.....

 

[LondonJohn]

You should take a break. You have made no sense for two days now.

Gosh, I sure hope Marriott doesn't shoot me!

You obviously haven't yet read "Executive Order 37355: The termination of Bruce Fisher with immediate effect and with extreme prejudice". It was issued at 19.33 BST (11.33 PDT) by the Supreme Council of the Office of David Marriott. I'd grab some tinned food and a sleeping bag and head to the hills if I were you.

Right, I'm off for an evening out. Happy "arguing" everyone

 

[Fiona]

I find the highlighted part quite difficult to reconcile in logical terms. Are you saying that it is invalid or inappropriate to question a court's verdict in the UK unless or until that verdict is overturned at appeal? That certainly seems to me to be what you are suggesting.

Are you suggesting that the court's verdict does not stand as correct unless and until it is overturned at apeal? That certainly seems to be what you are suggesting

The rest of your post makes no sense to me. There could be no appeal if I was saying what you are suggesting.

And for the avoidance of doubt: Nobody denies that miscarriages of justice occur: nobody denies that sometimes they are not uncovered at appeal either. That is a separate issue

 

[RoseMontague]

You should take a break. You have made no sense for two days now.

Gosh, I sure hope Marriott doesn't shoot me!

LOL, Bruce. No, let's hope you find your way back to Kansas.

► □□□□□□□□

 

[RoseMontague]

LOL, Bruce. No, let's hope you find your way back to Kansas.

► □□□□□□□□

Rose, it looks like they have all taken that yellow brick road and left you to finish the debate.