Machiavelli, I believe you and I may be referring to two separate responses by Rafaelle's father in Italy. I was referring in my comment above to Rafaelle's father's response to Italian news reports about what Rafaelle said in a US TV interview. I describe the father's response which I read online (in English) as damage control. You may be referring to the father's statements about what Rafaelle wrote in his book.
The subject Rafaelle referred to in both cases is the same, but in one instance the father is responding to what Italian media reported Rafaelle had said in a US TV interview. The other is what the father said regarding what Rafaelle wrote in his book
.
Well but that's what he said on TV, on the Porta a Porta talk show.
This is the main thing th public may remember about what Sllecito said about her son's book.
Raffaele's book is called "Honour Bound" and the alleged "deal", and its refusal, is a key element of the narrative: it tells a story about a "refusal" of a deal, about being not pliant to some "proposal", compromise or deal.
Then Francesco Sollecito claims that this element is false, that no deal was ever proposed. It's a bit damaging to the narrative.
Would you agree with me that the PLE has the will and the resources to not only prosecute someone but also to do so in such a way as to persecute the person they target?
Take, for example, the animation that Mignini commissioned to try to persuade the jury to his version of the murder (which I understand he budgeted at more than 100,000 euros to make). In the animation the cartoon character portraying Amanda is drawn to resemble Amanda physically and is also depicted wearing a distinctive sweater with brown and white horizontal stripes - just like the sweater that Amanda once wore to court. The distinctive horizontal-stripped sweater is used to visual effect. It is used to visually sear together in the jurors minds the cartoon character with the real person. Would you agree that that animation is prejudicial? This is just one example of the prosecution's ability and willingness to use manipulative techniques to persecute.
No, I disagree.
First, the "PLE" and the prosecution are at least two, entirely separate entities; this yould never be forgotten, as a rule.
[Actually not even the "PLE" is a unique entity; also the prosecution is actualy two different offices (without counting the Supreme Court Rome office, that makes three). But this is another story.]
I disagree that the animation would be "prejudicial" to a defendant - actually the concept does not even belong to the Italian justice system. We don't have the typical question/objection of the US system "should this piece of evidence/statement be admitted, or is this prejudicial?". This question does not belong to this system.
The prosecution brings evidence through a chain of preliminary judges and by entering excerpts of investigation files. Then they need to make arguments; they are supposed to persuade the court about their evidence, scenarios, theories. Now, the purpose of animation could be that of making the scenario/dynamic look realistic, it is exactly to allow the court to visualize it. The courts should exactly memorize the scenario together with the identity of the persons they are judgeing, in order to assess it. I don't see why this should be regarded as a "manipulative" technique.
"Manipulation" - in terms of human feelings, behavior and psychology - has to do with conveying false information and pretending; is the act of deceiving, lying, attempt to convey fraudulent or bogus feelings/behaviours and use other people as instruments, having them "do" what we want by feeding them information we know to be false.
