Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Supernaut]

"Sherlock Holmes".

Should be funny, but it isn't.

 

[acbytesla]

The point I was trying to make was, if she is innocent, then sure, those could be her cloths she wore that night and testing would who up nothing, but if she were guilty, then no way is she going to leave those cloths out, she could put any she wanted onto the bed and testing would be a waist of time again. I'm just thinking, the cloths are pretty useless either way.

I agree with this Sherlock on this point. However, those were the clothes Amanda was wearing when Filomena left the previous day and those were the clothes that Amada was wearing when seen by Popovic twice November 1st including at 8:45 the evening of the murder. Yes it is possible that Amanda has removed those clothes the night before and was wearing something else that no one saw and then after getting rid of the fantasy bloody clothes and then put the previous days clothes back on to go into the store next morning and then went back to the cottage and removed the clothes again and put them on the bed. But then, if Amanda went into the store to make a show of wearing the non bloody clothes of the night before, why would she lie about going into the store?

This is the problem with these so called "super witnesses" like Quintavalle and Curatolo. You have to tie yourself in knots trying to make some kind of logical sense of their testimonies.

 

[acbytesla]

It is much simpler than this. Your client tells they are not guilty, or involved in any way in our case, and your moves and advice follow from your instructions. No need to believe anything.

No, with all due respect I don't think so Anglo. Clients lie to their own lawyers all the time. If a lawyer is trying to win, that part is irrelevant.

American lawyers NEVER ask their client if they did it. If the client tells them they did it, it then becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to argue their innocence because of the rules governing their behavior. You are left arguing mitigating circumstances.

 

[anglolawyer]

No, with all due respect I don't think so Anglo. Clients lie to their own lawyers all the time. If a lawyer is trying to win, that part is irrelevant.

American lawyers NEVER ask their client if they did it. If the client tells them they did it, it then becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to argue their innocence because of the rules governing their behavior. You are left arguing mitigating circumstances.

Well, I didn't say anything about 'did you do it?' but at some point the client must tell you the story. That's where you get your instructions and strategy from. Most criminal work is banal - just about mitigation of sentence. All my Christmases would have come at once if I ever had a case like Amanda's. Once in a career, if lucky. But her case is she was with Raf all night. That's it. So you ask her: fine, why did you accuse Patrick? and she explains what went down. OK, the bastards! And off you go. Pitch curve balls at the client and see how they handle them. Tell them the jury will struggle to believe X or Y etc. But you don't need to believe anything to do the job.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, I didn't say anything about 'did you do it?' but at some point the client must tell you the story. That's where you get your instructions and strategy from. Most criminal work is banal - just about mitigation of sentence. All my Christmases would have come at once if I ever had a case like Amanda's. Once in a career, if lucky. But her case is she was with Raf all night. That's it. So you ask her: fine, why did you accuse Patrick? and she explains what went down. OK, the bastards! And off you go. Pitch curve balls at the client and see how they handle them. Tell them the jury will struggle to believe X or Y etc. But you don't need to believe anything to do the job.

I didn't say you needed to believe them, but I would imagine it helps and a lot. But I get your point. Lawyers get paid either way. Having said that, the goal is to win, but there are a lot of moral dilemmas for lawyers particularly defense lawyers. That's the flaw in an adversarial system.

I guess I understand that you have to follow the story your defendants give you and do everything to prove that story. So I guess on this one I have the fence pole up my keister.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I agree with this Sherlock on this point. However, those were the clothes Amanda was wearing when Filomena left the previous day and those were the clothes that Amada was wearing when seen by Popovic twice November 1st including at 8:45 the evening of the murder. Yes it is possible that Amanda has removed those clothes the night before and was wearing something else that no one saw and then after getting rid of the fantasy bloody clothes and then put the previous days clothes back on to go into the store next morning and then went back to the cottage and removed the clothes again and put them on the bed. But then, if Amanda went into the store to make a show of wearing the non bloody clothes of the night before, why would she lie about going into the store?

This is the problem with these so called "super witnesses" like Quintavalle and Curatolo. You have to tie yourself in knots trying to make some kind of logical sense of their testimonies.

Who calls Quintavalle a super witness? Filomena and Joanne can not be used to say what Amanda wore that night, Filomena only saw Amanda in the morning and Joanne did not enter the house at 8:45, Amanda only stuck her head out the window, I believe. Anyway, Amanda could have changed at any time, perhaps before she went to work, (before she knew she didn't have to go), perhaps after the 8:45 Joanne meeting because now her and Raff were both free for the night, she goes home, changes for a night out on the town, let's Rudi in maybe at that time, no one knows, therefore the cloths on the bed have little meaning.

 

[Machiavelli]

If this is meant to justify your obfuscation and excuses for the irregularities of the investigation and the judicial process, then it's a pretty lame way of doing it. When you have brought in points of "law" in your comments, it's obvious you are making it up as you go along - if not, then you need to cite the article of law and the section that covers the point you're making.

So much that I could told in advance almost all points of the SC ruling/discussions.

An example is your claim that the bra clasp was so-called "non-retainable" evidence, that the police were obliged to dispose of it after the first trial. Just in case we didn't find this believable, you claimed at the same time that the police lab had no way of preserving it from rusting without an expensive coating that would have destroyed the DNA evidence. Of course that excuse isn't credible either.

You are falsely reporting what I said.
First, I said the test was non-repeateble (not that the item was "non-retainable).
Second, I said the police force are authorized to dispose of pieces of evidence - actually there was also law project that would make that procedure more systematic - not that they are obligated to do so.
What you find believable has no importance.

Stefanoni explained in her testimony why it wouldn't be easy for them to preserve it from rusting. I answered to some people who made the absurd claim that it should be kept in an "isolated" environment in a paper bag. For the rest, I don't need to add anything myself to what Stefanoni explained. You just need to read the testimony.

Then there was your claim that Guede couldn't be arrested after being caught with a stolen knife in a nursery school, while Raffaele was arrested merely for being in possession of a knife in a police station - as if there is any crime of carrying a pocket knife in a public place. Why do you think anyone here would regard you as an authority on Italian law after these pieces of nonsense?

I did actually did not claim it - I think proved it. I had detailed the thing with law articles and precise information.
But whatever you think about the proof of it, the claim that he should have been arrested is pure nonsense, this is obvious for any Italian who has a basic grasp of legal practice.
You don't believe me? Your buisness. Go an follow Frank Sfarzo.

On the subject of law: is it not the case that the Supreme Court is entitled to review the verdict on grounds of procedure only?

No. The Supremce Court assesses legitimacy, not 'procedure'.

The fact that they have imposed their interpretation of the evidence over that of the Hellman court means they have broken their own laws - what do you have to say about that?

It is obvious that you never read a SC ruling from the Italian Cassazione before; it is also obvious that you don't have any knowledge about Italian criminal procedure, nor about what a lower court's judge's work is.
In other words: your statements are delusion.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Well, I didn't say anything about 'did you do it?' but at some point the client must tell you the story...

I didn't say you needed to believe them, but I would imagine it helps and a lot. But I get your point. Lawyers get paid either way. Having said that, the goal is to win, but there are a lot of moral dilemmas for lawyers particularly defense lawyers. That's the flaw in an adversarial system.

I guess I understand that you have to follow the story your defendants give you and do everything to prove that story. So I guess on this one I have the fence pole up my keister.

I don't think you do, acbytesla. You cannot put a witness on the stand if you know s/he is going to lie (in America, anyway). So if you know your client did it and you have a witness who is going to testify s/he was with your client the whole night and it wasn't him who committed the crime, you are in a pickle. Because of this, I believe most lawyers do not want their guilty clients to tell them the full story.

It is my understanding, and IANAL, that to defend a guilty client, one must leave some things unsaid. Of course I come from a land of complete ethics, so perhaps I am seriously deluded.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

So much that I could told in advance almost all points of the SC ruling/discussions.

Yeah, but we all know why you could have done that.

Stefanoni explained in her testimony why it wouldn't be easy for them to preserve it from rusting. I answered to some people who made the absurd claim that it should be kept in an "isolated" environment in a paper bag. For the rest, I don't need to add anything myself to what Stefanoni explained. You just need to read the testimony.

Somehow I suspect evidential bra clasps in other jurisdictions have been stored just fine for many years.

I did actually did not claim it - I think proved it. I had detailed the thing with law articles and precise information.
But whatever you think about the proof of it, the claim that he should have been arrested is pure nonsense, this is obvious for any Italian who has a basic grasp of legal practice.

So you are permitted to break into commercial properties and steal laptops in Italy without getting arrested?

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think you do, acbytesla. You cannot put a witness on the stand if you know s/he is going to lie (in America, anyway). So if you know your client did it and you have a witness who is going to testify s/he was with your client the whole night and it wasn't him who committed the crime, you are in a pickle. Because of this, I believe most lawyers do not want their guilty clients to tell them the full story.

It is my understanding, and IANAL, that to defend a guilty client, one must leave some things unsaid. Of course I come from a land of complete ethics, so perhaps I am seriously deluded.

Actually Ampulla, that was exactly my point. Go back and read my posts. Lawyers don't want that truth because they can play the plausible deniability game.

 

[Dan O.]

Who calls Quintavalle a super witness? Filomena and Joanne can not be used to say what Amanda wore that night, Filomena only saw Amanda in the morning and Joanne did not enter the house at 8:45, Amanda only stuck her head out the window, I believe. Anyway, Amanda could have changed at any time, perhaps before she went to work, (before she knew she didn't have to go), perhaps after the 8:45 Joanne meeting because now her and Raff were both free for the night, she goes home, changes for a night out on the town, let's Rudi in maybe at that time, no one knows, therefore the cloths on the bed have little meaning.

What a wonderfully reverse ferret you display there. Before you knew the fact that Amanda had been seen that day wearing specific clothing you were proclaiming that if there were such evidence it would support the case for her innocence. But then when you learn the facts you immediately try to backtrack.


On another note, I just stumbled across a news article from about August '09 that claimed Rudy's lawyers were hiring private investigators to clear Rudy's name. This brings up a few questions. The first being: Where are they getting the money from to hire those investigators? And then: With all the evidence stacked against Rudy, what can such investigators do except try and blame the actual murder on someone else like Amanda and Raffaele. Of course, it would be too late to help Rudy in the courts, his sentence was already finalized. They would have to focus on public opinion and try to gain a more favorable mood for the eventual parol hearings.

The next question is then: Why don't we see any such effort? They would surely be more organized than the pitifully efforts we've seen to date to help Rudy.

 

[acbytesla]

What a wonderfully reverse ferret you display there. Before you knew the fact that Amanda had been seen that day wearing specific clothing you were proclaiming that if there were such evidence it would support the case for her innocence. But then when you learn the facts you immediately try to backtrack.

That was the whole point. This is why the Police 5 months later went back to the cottage because they had evidence of what Amanda was wearing on November 1st. Popovic and Filomena told them. The missing clothes were NOW FOUND!! Except they clearly weren't missing. Now according to Sherlock Popovic didn't see what she was wearing. That she never saw Amanda that day.

Sherlock says he has an open mind, but no matter how high you pile the evidence that exonerates Amanda and Raffaele, he/she refuses to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Dan O.]

That was the whole point. This is why the Police 5 months later went back to the cottage because they had evidence of what Amanda was wearing on November 1st. Popovic and Filomena told them. The missing clothes were NOW FOUND!! Except they clearly weren't missing. Now according to Sherlock Popovic didn't see what she was wearing. That she never saw Amanda that day.

Sherlock says he has an open mind, but no matter how high you pile the evidence that exonerates Amanda and Raffaele, he/she refuses to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'd be on the lookout for a Ponzi scheme

 

[Grinder]

Who calls Quintavalle a super witness? Filomena and Joanne can not be used to say what Amanda wore that night, Filomena only saw Amanda in the morning and Joanne did not enter the house at 8:45, Amanda only stuck her head out the window, I believe. Anyway, Amanda could have changed at any time, perhaps before she went to work, (before she knew she didn't have to go), perhaps after the 8:45 Joanne meeting because now her and Raff were both free for the night, she goes home, changes for a night out on the town, let's Rudi in maybe at that time, no one knows, therefore the cloths on the bed have little meaning.

John Follain cites an Italian paper calling Q a super witness.

I'm happy that you agree Q is not a credible witness.

I can't understand why she would let Rudi in unless he did have that date with Meredith, in which case she would told that story by now.

 

[Dan O.]

John Follain cites an Italian paper calling Q a super witness.

A memorible quote from grand inquisitor Mignini:

"You've no idea how hard it can be to make people talk"​

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>On another note, I just stumbled across a news article from about August '09 that claimed Rudy's lawyers were hiring private investigators to clear Rudy's name. This brings up a few questions. The first being: Where are they getting the money from to hire those investigators? And then: With all the evidence stacked against Rudy, what can such investigators do except try and blame the actual murder on someone else like Amanda and Raffaele. Of course, it would be too late to help Rudy in the courts, his sentence was already finalized. They would have to focus on public opinion and try to gain a more favorable mood for the eventual parol hearings.

The next question is then: Why don't we see any such effort? They would surely be more organized than the pitifully efforts we've seen to date to help Rudy.

I can't remember the source, but recently someone somewhere claimed that Rudy's well-to-do adoptive family in Perugia are prestigious enough that they can be looked upon as the explanation for Rudy's many get-out-of-jail-free cards, as opposed to him being a police informant.

 

[Dan O.]

I can't remember the source, but recently someone somewhere claimed that Rudy's well-to-do adoptive family in Perugia are prestigious enough that they can be looked upon as the explanation for Rudy's many get-out-of-jail-free cards, as opposed to him being a police informant.

That could explain the past. But I thought they disowned him when it became apparent that Rudy was guilty as sin and lying about it. I suppose it is possible that the family was doing the right thing and they hired the PI to find the truth before giving up on their adopted son.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Stefanoni explained in her testimony why it wouldn't be easy for them to preserve it from rusting.

What was her explanation?

 

[anglolawyer]

Actually Ampulla, that was exactly my point. Go back and read my posts. Lawyers don't want that truth because they can play the plausible deniability game.

It is perfectly OK to defend a guilty client even if they tell you they are guilty but the way you do it is controlled by ethical rules. You can't put them on the stand and elicit lies nor put to a prosecution witness suggestions you know to be false. All of which follows from the fact the burden is on the prosecution to prove the case BRD. The defence is not only not obliged to help but is entitled to obstruct, provided certain principles are observed.

 

[RandyN]

Guys rarely notice details like this, I think they are looking at other things.

I completely agree and can prove that if you will simply study this photo...



Sorry in advance to Mary ...its an adolescent joke I stole from someone on FB.