Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
That doesn't equate to "two different versions". We have her entire testimony from June 2009 in which she goes into detail under cross examination about how Patrick's name came up. Then we have have Mignini in that same moment reading back a couple quotes of Amanda from her December 2007 interrogation where she states the "moment" she said Patrick's name was after they showed her the SMS. There is no contradiction. There is no "two stories" unless you can provide the full transcript of the December 2007 interrogation - not just Mignini's cherry-picked quotes.
But, Malkmus, it is illegal to provide the entire interrogation and bring it in to read it for comparison. The Public Minister is doing what he is paid to do: when he thinks a defendant gives an untrue statement based on previous declaration, he "cherry-picks" the part where he sees a contradiction and submits it to question the defendant, the court would judge after this confrontation. If you conclude there is no contradiction, this is jour judgement based on this point (a conclusion cannot be "give me the full interrogation"). I see different stories. I can't see how these two accounts on timings of the sms discussion can be reconcilable.
Last edited: