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

[Skind]

Nara Capezzali's and Antonella Monacchia's testimonies are factual elements. They carry some important information that links them to Meredith's death.

This is what you don't get. The testimonies are only factual elements in terms of determining whether they were made. They are not factual elements in determining:

whether they are the true belief of the testifier
whether the event actually happened
whether the event was actually caused by the purported primary cause.

Until there's reason to believe there's the possiblity that the testifier could have observed/heard the primary cause, there's no way to determine the testimonies as 'factual'.

The window and balcony are 40 meters away and Meredith was screaming 45 meters distant outside Nara's window (if she was in her room when she screamed), so hearing it is obviously possible

Then it should be easy to demonstrate this is so by making a series of physical sound-transmission experiments.

I'm not aware of anyone saying it is impossible, only unlikely.

The finalised version of the description of the scream was that it was very loud. A very loud shout is about 88 db, at a distance of 45 metres, it would have dropped off to under 72 db. That would be over an open distance with no obstacles whatsoever.

Now, I realise Italy is still catching up in terms of it's building regulations, but typical figures for noise reduction from double glazing is up to 30db on a expected 70db.

The witness is unlikely to have heard the scream as anything louder than a loud shout.

Amazingly, double glazing companies like to know what their products can actually do, and some scientists are interested in the properties of sound. The data is already out there, and it doesn't hold well for your arguement.

That you haven't bothered to look this all up yourself doesn't hold well for your reputation or reliability.

 

[acbytesla]

Such difference could make sense where there is a significant ambiguity inherent to the information itself. For example if Nara's testimony could be likely caused by the hearing of something else - like if the scream and noises could be confused with other, likely, non significant scream and noises.
But that was not the content of the testimonies. nara testifies of having heard a unique event, never heared before. She amphasizes this aspect, but also Antonella Monacchia says the event was unheard and unique. The rarity of the event sands out. Moreover Nara also identifies the gravel path covered with dead leaves in the cottage garden as the sure source of other noises. And the iron stairs as the sure source of others.

So? Nara heard something she hadn't heard before. Never mind she took a year to come forward.

Originally Nara described it to the media to be similar to a tire squeal and then later Nara became sure that is a scream. (sounds like coaching to me..but we'll put that aside) High frequency sounds like a tire squeal is not going to pass through multiple walls and windows and still be high pitched. If your lucky you be able hear some of the sound muffled by the walls, but the principle of absorption is going to filter out the high frequencies out so it would not sound like a woman's scream or a tire squeal.

 

[RoseMontague]

Such difference could make sense where there is a significant ambiguity inherent to the information itself. For example if Nara's testimony could be likely caused by the hearing of something else - like if the scream and noises could be confused with other, likely, non significant scream and noises.
But that was not the content of the testimonies. nara testifies of having heard a unique event, never heared before. She amphasizes this aspect, but also Antonella Monacchia says the event was unheard and unique. The rarity of the event sands out. Moreover Nara also identifies the gravel path covered with dead leaves in the cottage garden as the sure source of other noises. And the iron stairs as the sure source of others.

Personally I don't consider either Nara or Toto reliable. I don't really care what rules the judges in Italy go by, from what I have seen most of the rules seem to make it easy for the prosecution to get a conviction and the rest of them ensure lots of work for many lawyers and judges. As I have indicated before, the fair thing to do would be to allow the testing the defense requested. That should settle it.

 

[MDDVS]

I picked those years (actually I did not even remember which they were exactly) meaning to pick recent time, a recent period (like 3-5) since when the Meredith case occurred. Let's say the time closer to the events. I wanted to not include the current year (considering that incomplete).

No, there's nothing special about those years. You're just cherry picking.

Indeed, I suspected you were considering data starting from 1959, which cannot be considered meaningful. Realities (and countries) change too much over periods of time. Italy had attampts of coup d'etats in the sixties, had an underground civil war during the seventies, created a civil (not military) police only in 1981; changed the criminal procedure code in 1989, created new anti-mafia and anti-terrorism legislation in 1992 and over the ninties; reformed the State Police again in 2003-2004 and Carabinieri in 2010 (and a new reform will take place in 2014). Legislation and realities have changed dramatically several times.
Moreover, also other countries can change dramatically over time and this influences the comparison.

Sorry, but I don't agree. There were a few superficial changes but the people are essentially the same. Cultures take a long time to evolve not a few generations. Also, it doesn't matter anyway because the other countries had dramtic changes as well. The comparison is fair (as much as possible).

Take 2012:
Italy and Greece were the worst, Italy had 32 violations in 2012 (mostly for lenght of trials) and Greece had 69 violations (overall, considering all kinds).
This was a figur from 2012 (btw, the year of most dramatic crisis in Greece and Italy, while a much better economical situation was still shareb by several other countries).
But how distant were those other countirs?
Let's see some data from 2011 instead (I copy and paste this which I posted from elsewhere):
France: 33; Portugal 31; Poland: 71; Romania: 68; Germany: 41; Turkey: 174; UK: 19; Austria: 12; Bulgaria: 62

Greece is not in Western Europe. Who cares about data from a particular year? What's special about 2011? Why are you including Eastern European countries in this comparison?

It comes out that France in 2011 had the same number of violations than Italy in 2012 (when it was among the worst). Whil small Portugal has a comparatively much larger number of violations. Germany has a number almost comparable to France considering the respective populations (so, comparable to Italy's violations of 2012). In pother words, there is no dramatic nor significant difference between Italy, France and Germany when you consider short periods and contemporary times (and we are still considering only aggregated overall number of violations, not their kinds). Meaning Italy of 2012 is comparable with Germany of 2011 (France and Italy have actually a very similar population). Austria in fact looks worse because it has 1/3 of violations but less than 1/7 of population than Italy.

Yes, I agree that there's no point in comparing data from any specific year. What's important is to look a trend over a period of many years. The trend shows that Italy performs much worse than oher Western European countries. It also doesn't really help your case that most of the othe worst offenders have similar judicial systems.

Look back at your long time period since 1959. Italy has 1,687 violations found, a big number indeed, but of which 1,171 are violations for excessive lengh of proceedings. Hence, it is clear Italy has a lenght of proceedings problem.
But it is also clear that this affects most of the bulk of its violations. There is a disproportion between this single figure and the magnitude of the rest of violations, even on the long period. You don't observe such difference in magnitude in other countries which are definitely less human-rights friendly: Russia, Romania, Poland etc. In those you see violations of diverse very serious kinds all in big numbers (deprivation of life, police misconduct and so on).

I never said that Italy had a worse performance than countries form Eastern Europe, which clearly have much worse problems. However, it is also true that most cases of police misconduct in Italy (and other countries with accountability problems in their judiciaries) are not reported. This also means that it is difficult to have accurate estimates though so I won't delve into this further. Still the comparison with other western european countries holds and Italy's performance is much worse than average, and yes even worse than Asutria even after controlling for the different populations.

Violations of "fairness of the trial" (over the whole period), meaning something affecting the outcome, In Italy they are in a smaller magnitude. In total number smaller than France.

Yes, because excessive length of rpeocedding doesn't affect the outcome? Are you kidding? This will affect the outcome of proceedings even in the cases where the length is not excessive. They're not a small outcome in Italy, they're second only to France, by a very small margin.

Other interesting numbers: Italy has (in 2010) 276,256 police officers (I think the fourth highest density in Europe after Spain Turkey and Greece); while Germany has 243,625, and UK has 167,318. The US has 794,300 police overall, which means a police density a bit more than half of the Italian one. Germany has a density of 300 police per 100,000 inhabitants; France has 356; Italy has a density of 417.

The police density is a datum which statistically affects - obviously - some of the violations, namely those involving police officers. If the density of corruption/misconduct in two police corps was hypothetically "equal", but the second corp is 1.5 times the size of the first, the number of violations committed by police of the second would also be 1.5 times bigger than the first, with no implication that the second is worse than the first.

I see your point, but that's not the only factor. We return to the problem of lack of accountability of the judiciary (which may be reflected in the police as well). Please don't deny that there's a ack of accountability. It's built into the system.

If you look at your template reporting about the whole interval 1959-2012, you may compare countries on other topics besides "lenght of proceedings", and see that over this very long time interval comparisons are possible on topics like: "freedom of expression" : Italy: 3 violations; Germany: 2; UK: 11; Turkey: 215.

If you look at the topic: violation found of "right to a fair trial" you find more surprises => Italy: 249; France: 257; Germany: 18; United Kingdom: 91; Turkey: 755;
Big unexpected differences between France or Italy and Germany, and performance worse than expected for UK. But then, also you find small countries that have relatively many of them, such as Austria: 86; Belgium: 48; Finland: 37. On the same category "fairness of trial" many other numbers are comparatively much bigger (Greece, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Poland etc.).

No surprises here.

From this chart, you cannot infer that the Italian judicial system is found to be an unfair one compared to others in Europe, as for the merit of fairness of trials (with the exception of lenght of proceedings, in both civil and criminal fields): at least five countries are worse in absolute number of violation, while many others are worse in their percentage (either on the total number of trials or on number of inhabitants).

Yes, if you ignore the problem than there is no problem with Italy, although it would still rank among the worst ones, far away from the average (Western Europe). However, I don't agree that you can just ignore the violation to the right to speedy trial, and I don't agree that this won't affect the quality of the final outcomes. There's a reason why it is a human right in the first place. It's not something to laugh about or dismiss for no reason.

But in Italy there is quite a problem in failure of judiciary to effectively pretect property (322 violations), and this is an actual problem in Italy, much more than human rights, which has specific reasons, inherent to the flaws of the system. You pin these flaws on the idea that the judiciary is not accountable, but I think your guess in fact shows your poor knowledge about the system. There are other, structural and politica reasons for that; which they are related not to judges at all; they depend instead on some specific laws, which have to do with political powers, lobbies and property. I may talk about them in another post.

It's not just a guess. That accountability in the judiciary is a desirable property in a judicial system is not exactly a radical idea. It essential, as it is esential in any kind of organisation. Of course the difficult thing is to balance this with the desire to have an independent judiciary. They're both desirable properties but unfortunately you can't maximise both at the same time. When judges only have to respond to other judges, that's your accountability gone. This problem is present in other countries too, so you don't really have to have know in detail the Italian specificities.

 

[acbytesla]

This is what you don't get. The testimonies are only factual elements in terms of determining whether they were made. They are not factual elements in determining:

whether they are the true belief of the testifier
whether the event actually happened
whether the event was actually caused by the purported primary cause.

Until there's reason to believe there's the possiblity that the testifier could have observed/heard the primary cause, there's no way to determine the testimonies as 'factual'.



Then it should be easy to demonstrate this is so by making a series of physical sound-transmission experiments.

I'm not aware of anyone saying it is impossible, only unlikely.

The finalised version of the description of the scream was that it was very loud. A very loud shout is about 88 db, at a distance of 45 metres, it would have dropped off to under 72 db. That would be over an open distance with no obstacles whatsoever.

Now, I realise Italy is still catching up in terms of it's building regulations, but typical figures for noise reduction from double glazing is up to 30db on a expected 70db.

The witness is unlikely to have heard the scream as anything louder than a loud shout.

Amazingly, double glazing companies like to know what their products can actually do, and some scientists are interested in the properties of sound. The data is already out there, and it doesn't hold well for your arguement.

That you haven't bothered to look this all up yourself doesn't hold well for your reputation or reliability.

I'm saying it is IMPOSSIBLE. Not that Nara might have could have heard Meredith's scream, but that she could reliably identify it as a woman's scream.

 

[MDDVS]

No. They described very unique, very identifiable and peculiar noises.
They include a woman's scream (not just a "noise"), which is described whith fearures that make it unique, never heared before and unrepeated, and other identifiable noises.

What's peculiar about a woman's scream? What do you mean by very identifiable? Are you telling me that was the only time ever they heard a woman scream, when you say "never heard before and never repeated"?

Hmmmm...

And that nobody ever hears women screaming in Perugia?

Hmmm...

I don't believe that, sorry.

 

[acbytesla]

Personally I don't consider either Nara or Toto reliable. I don't really care what rules the judges in Italy go by, from what I have seen most of the rules seem to make it easy for the prosecution to get a conviction and the rest of them ensure lots of work for many lawyers and judges. As I have indicated before, the fair thing to do would be to allow the testing the defense requested. That should settle it.

I'd like to add Quintavalle to that list. There is no way in hell that any of these three people's vague unsubstantiated, unreliable and late testimonies would be allowed in the US. Especially when you consider the avalanche of media coverage.

I think it is very telling that the Italian courts say that these three testimonies are fine even after all that time, but they find Christian Tremantono'a testimony as somehow unreliable???? The significant difference I'm sure is that Tremantono is detrimental to their case. As the song goes.... "Things that make you go hmmmmmm"

 

[Briars]

Why did Amanda accuse Patrick if the idea was that Rudy would take the blame? What exactly did they clean up all night and what evidence of this all nighter clean up is there? What did they use to clean, the bleach still at Raffaeles's or the bleach she didn't buy the next morning? What evidence is there that Amanda wanted power and the need to humiliate for revenge? How did they convince Guede to take part?

Just to start.

Amanda was caught off guard when Sollecito withdrew her alibi at the Questura, Lumumba was on her phone, the police naturally checked and that bad man was a quick exit to stop whatever was going on with Sollecito. Naming Guede would have meant her real involvement. Lumumba was a decoy and she admitted only to being there in the kitchen and not helping Meredith , but still not responsible in her mind. She was surprised by her arrest ,but really she and her mother played along with Lumumba's possible guilt for too long after. The bathroom was cleaned for starters there is no way that washing that amount of blood off would leave just a few missed watery drips with no finger print of origin. drips would have been all over the outside of the bidet and on the floor. Drips would have come off Guede's pants in the hall . In my opinion there is something amiss with Amanda Knox, Meredith was not her friend the HOT video was a glimpse of Amanda's real feelings for Merdith and the competition she felt .No friend would ever star in a production like that.The giggling and fooling around at the Questura were not the actions of a normal friend. Random killings of teens motivated by minor slights are not unheard of. No doubt her problem what ever it is existed before Perugia, the opportunity, the drugs and unreality of a foreign country may have unleashed whatever disturbance may be there.

 

[Diocletus]

There is no jury. There is a "judge" (judges if you prefer). They must reject or accept things on legitimate reasons. Not for the reasons they want. Only for reasons that are legitimate.

I understand that you don't understand this.

Oh yes, I forgot. They get to wear a fancy ribbon across their chests. I guess they are judges, then. A ribbon is as good as law school anyway, judging by the quality of the supreme court.

So let me make sure I understand: all testimony is credible unless there is an acceptable reason to reject it. A witness being on heroin is not a good reason.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is what you don't get. The testimonies are only factual elements in terms of determining whether they were made. They are not factual elements in determining:

whether they are the true belief of the testifier
whether the event actually happened
whether the event was actually caused by the purported primary cause.

Until there's reason to believe there's the possiblity that the testifier could have observed/heard the primary cause, there's no way to determine the testimonies as 'factual'.

No, you don’t get it. The testimony is factual, in the judicial meaning of what a “fact” is.

whether they are the true belief of the testifier => this is determined by the law. The law establishes that the judge does NOT have to prove this nor to put this in doubt in principle, but must presume it. If the true belief is different from the testimony, the law says there is a primary witness’ responsibility, not a judge responsibility. The judge must decide as if presumed.
whether the event actually happened => there is a probabilistic assessment attached inherent to the content of the testimony itself and the credibility of the witness. If the testimony is realistic (possible), if no reason is found to believe the witness is unable to offer testimony (like evidence of hallucination or insanity), the testimony is to be considered linked to reality.

whether the event was actually caused by the purported primary cause. => the above two relate to the factual nature of a testimony, this is another story; it’s not about its being factual but about its significance; thee assessment on this depends on the nature of the testimony, its contents and details, in relation to the context. Nara and Monacchia’s testimonies contain very identifying information, that doesn’t leave significant probability to secondary causes. Their testimony is significant, its content is not ambiguous (ambiguity is in very small probabilities).
Hence, the testimony is factual.

Then it should be easy to demonstrate this is so by making a series of physical sound-transmission experiments.

No, you must not "demonstrate" what is already considered a factual element in judicial terms.
You might attempt to disprove it through the procedure you suggest, by making a series of experiments. An attempt to "demonstrate" a testimony would be incorrect (it would deny the status achieved by the evidence itself); while the attempt to disprove it would be correct. That would be a correct procedure. But the defence didn't do that.

 

[Machiavelli]

So let me make sure I understand: all testimony is credible unless there is an acceptable reason to reject it. A witness being on heroin is not a good reason.

Exactly.

 

[christianahannah]

I'd like to add Quintavalle to that list. There is no way in hell that any of these three people's vague unsubstantiated, unreliable and late testimonies would be allowed in the US. Especially when you consider the avalanche of media coverage.

I think it is very telling that the Italian courts say that these three testimonies are fine even after all that time, but they find Christian Tremantono'a testimony as somehow unreliable???? The significant difference I'm sure is that Tremantono is detrimental to their case. As the song goes.... "Things that make you go hmmmmmm"

Is it true that the testimony of a witness must pass a test before being allowed in an U.S. court? Who is it that determines which testimony may be heard and which may not be heard? Wouldn't this process severely hamper the defense or the prosecution?

As far as it goes for Christian's testimony I do not see it as detrimental to the prosecution's case - his testimony was not favorable to Rudy and the prosecution was definitely for having Rudy held accountable for the murder of Meredith.

 

[christianahannah]

Machiavelli and other guilters go on about what a noble man mignini is who has been unfairly attacked. I assume that the guilters would be more than happy for Mignini to be the prosecutor if they were accused of a crime. I asked the guilters if they would feel comfortable having mignini as the prosecutor if they were on trial. No one was willing to answer this question. It is strange how people who worship mignini are unwilling to have mignini as a prosecutor if they were on trial.

I cannot say that I am a guilter or a non-guilter. I do, however, know that if I were accused of a crime and innocent I would have no problem with Mignini as the prosecutor of my case. After all he was the prosecutor when Patrick was first accused and later released.

I do not worship Mignini but I believe him to be fair and just when prosecuting a case. Those are important traits for a prosecutor to have whether one is innocent or guilty of a crime.

 

[Briars]

And we have yet to fit the homeless park bench bum into this. He is asked about a dozen times what time Amanda and Raffaele left. He consistently says around midnight or shortly before and when pressed goes as far back as 11:30. Yet you have them leaving the court at 10:30 to go back for an all night clean up (and wait for Meredith's scream sometime after 11PM-even though she was dead before 10:30 according to your theory).

These are some of the problems the pro-guilt crowd have with trying to fit these witnesses as well as the cell phone evidence and stomach contents evidence into a comprehensive timeline.

Now Nara is certain without looking at the clock it was 11. No she got up to go to the bathroom and didn't check the time. She heard the scream before she heard the running on the stair that nearly resulted in a collision with Guede. So the scream and death resulting in the fatal attack probably happened after 10;15. They all ran Amanda and Sollecito either return to Sollecito's for a time or hide somewhere only to appear later in Grimana to see if the tow truck had departed. The clean up began sometime after they could gain access again to the cottage after 11:30 noted by Curatolo who said they were gone when he left.

 

[Dan O.]

LOL, If you two agree, then I am not going to dispute it. Anything else you agree on?

The 70 meter figure was an invention of the defense.

But Mach doesn't say which defense invented it.

We find the 70 meter figure promoted in 2 documents:

It has been argued, by the defense that the house of the lady is 70 meters from the one where the crime was committed

the testimony of Nara Capezzali who, at the time of the crime from her home about 70 meters away from via della Pergola heard a heart-rending scream and soon afterwards the footsteps of people going in opposite directions, towards via del Melo and along via del Bulagaio.

Does Machiavelli lie by omission? Or in this case perhaps he just didn't know.

 

[acbytesla]

Is it true that the testimony of a witness must pass a test before being allowed in an U.S. court? Who is it that determines which testimony may be heard and which may not be heard? Wouldn't this process severely hamper the defense or the prosecution?

As far as it goes for Christian's testimony I do not see it as detrimental to the prosecution's case - his testimony was not favorable to Rudy and the prosecution was definitely for having Rudy held accountable for the murder of Meredith.

During the discovery process in the US, both the defense and the prosecution submit "witness lists" to the court and each other. During this time before the trial begins that the opposing legal teams seek to understand what the witnesses are testifying to. So for example, the defense in this case would call Nara and ask her about what she is going to say to the court and when she she reported what she saw to the authorities. Then they would make pretrial motions to the judge asking that based on the lateness of the witness to report that they not be allowed to take the stand. During the pretrial period, a judge can disallow any evidence he feels would be wrong and prejudicial. If a judge makes a mistake and allows a witness such as any of these three who's testimony is questionable at best and very prejudicial, the defense would be able to use this during appeal and start the case all over again or throw it out completely. It doesn't look good on a judge's record to be overruled by an appellate court so rulings are, for the most part, very sound. Even during the trial itself, a lawyer may be able to present reasoning that a witness should be dismissed and to provide instructions to the jury to disregard the testimony that they may have already heard.

Sure, Christian's testimony is not detrimental to the case against Rudy...but Christian's testimony is definitely detrimental to the case against Amanda and Raffaele. As it clearly shows that Rudy is a repeat burglar and someone known to pull a knife on people.

 

[acbytesla]

No, you don’t get it. The testimony is factual, in the judicial meaning of what a “fact” is.

whether they are the true belief of the testifier => this is determined by the law. The law establishes that the judge does NOT have to prove this nor to put this in doubt in principle, but must presume it. If the true belief is different from the testimony, the law says there is a primary witness’ responsibility, not a judge responsibility. The judge must decide as if presumed.
whether the event actually happened => there is a probabilistic assessment attached inherent to the content of the testimony itself and the credibility of the witness. If the testimony is realistic (possible), if no reason is found to believe the witness is unable to offer testimony (like evidence of hallucination or insanity), the testimony is to be considered linked to reality.

whether the event was actually caused by the purported primary cause. => the above two relate to the factual nature of a testimony, this is another story; it’s not about its being factual but about its significance; thee assessment on this depends on the nature of the testimony, its contents and details, in relation to the context. Nara and Monacchia’s testimonies contain very identifying information, that doesn’t leave significant probability to secondary causes. Their testimony is significant, its content is not ambiguous (ambiguity is in very small probabilities).
Hence, the testimony is factual.



No, you must not "demonstrate" what is already considered a factual element in judicial terms.
You might attempt to disprove it through the procedure you suggest, by making a series of experiments. An attempt to "demonstrate" a testimony would be incorrect (it would deny the status achieved by the evidence itself); while the attempt to disprove it would be correct. That would be a correct procedure. But the defence didn't do that.

I don't think I've ever read such ridiculous nonsense reasoning. No wonder Italy is screwed up.

 

[Skind]

No, you don’t get it. The testimony is factual, in the judicial meaning of what a “fact” is.

No, I get that and have indicated as such.

What you don't get is that we are discussing whether it's actually factual, not just 'judicially' factual.

Your failure to understand this is the biggest barrier to your understanding of the contentions regarding their testimonies. How convenient that you just happened to pick the definition that allows you to make claims of 'facts' without having to do anything to back them up.

It's pretty pointless discussing such things with you if you're just going to run and hide behind pedantic applications of law.

 

[RandyN]

In the semantics of the conversation, clearly Knox is contending with someone. There are basically two possibilities, about who is the second referent (or "actant"). Either she is contending with her parents about a version her lawyers suggested her (lawyers suggested her to not lie about the fact that she was at the cottage, and she tells this to her mother that there is no reason why she should lie - but the mother disagrees), or she is contending not against a person present there but against a theory which the police (or prosecution) is suggesting (she puts forward her argument against the police theory: there is no reason why I should lie).

In the first case, her parents are asking her to lie; in the second scenario, the phrase "I have no reason to lie" is merely emphatic, she wants her parents to believe her and puts forward an argument for that.

I bear in mind that Knox comes from a hearing before a judge (Matteini) where she decided to remain silent (she refused to answer questions, she refused to make statements; so she stuck to her ambiguous hand written notes) and she is elaborating the strategy about the defensive line she needs to keep at a coming interrogation by the public minister.
Indeed, the question about what her version could be is not stupid at all. She could be thinking of putting forward a recollection where she was at the cottage but she is innocent, something similar to her 05:45 spontaneous statement (I'm sure her lawyers suggested that was the best strategy). It might be indeed stupid to lie if she actually was at the cottage, which is what her lawyers believed.
But let's say that her parents said: no! And in order to convince her, they suggested that the police was lying, that their evidence fas false. Curt and Edda Knox wanted a hard line, because they agreed to that strategy under suggestion of a PR firma. The conversation betwen Knox and hr mother might be about this. I don't think this is stupid at all. Also because this resembles to what Sollecito's parents did with Raffaele: his father pressured him to keep some defensive line rather an another.

Are you certain that AK and RS were allowed to consult their lawyers at this point yet? Or were they still subjected to Migninis illegal order to deny them lawyers until the moment of the first hearing?

Hopefully the defense will demand to see this Mignini order at this trial since it appears to be lost (likely another vision of Mignini)...like the control data sheets...

Sure I understand Mignini is not on trial here (yet) but I would argue that Mignini abused his powers to deny the defendants their Constitutional rights and therefore he made it impossible for them to get a fair trial ...which is true and is exactly what he did.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have opened a thread about Andrea Vogt on IIP. All are welcome.