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

[RoseMontague]

Uh... of course they were bombarded with information.They were not sequestered. You would have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

Nencini mentions this (the media bombardment) was recognized and dealt with.

IMO it makes more sense to deal directly with questions a juror might have about the media then have them "on their honor" and hoping they don't peek.

Perhaps you should thank those that took a few precious seconds to find the cite you asked for. Not only did Vogt leave out the relevant part but so did you.

What are the normal jury instructions where you live regarding following media and internet reports and researching a case if you are on a jury?

 

[Vibio]

It's the fact that they boasted about it to the judge that is worrying.

Boasted?

 

[Grinder]

Uh... of course they were bombarded with information.They were not sequestered. You would have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

Nencini mentions this (the media bombardment) was recognized and dealt with.

IMO it makes more sense to deal directly with questions a juror might have about the media then have them "on their honor" and hoping they don't peek.

It is idiotic to think that after giving carte blanche to watching, listening and reading anything and everything that complete misinformation isn't carried into the jury room. There is no requirement or even suggestion that the juror must bring the information garnered into the court and discuss it with the judge.

You like to hammer on honor which makes sense coming from the PG side because those sites show no honor or honesty.

He doesn't exactly say it was dealt with at least not all the bombardment, only that which some jurors made him aware of.

Perhaps you've never been on a jury in the US or UK but it is duty and taken seriously by the vast majority of those that serve. I followed every rule including not looking up the details of the murder case until I was excused as a juror.

Can you cite other Italian cases where the judge felt the need to make a similar statement.

 

[Machiavelli]

I cannot believe you said this. You've misplaced where the problem is. Mignini specficially says that he can ask her no questions, because if he does she needs a lawyer.

His question is, "Do you want to continue?"

No. Knox was not undergoing any interrogation. Her interrogation was over since hours, there was nothing to "continue".
Mignini does not ask if she wants to "continue" anything. There is nothing ongoing. Mignini tells her that she needs to appoint a lawyer and her rights, explains he cannot will not ask her questions, but says that if she has something to say and wants to make a declaration, she can do it and he would collect it under art. 350 § 7.
And Knox decides to release a statement.

 

[Diocletus]

In a 6 month long trial to pretend (Scouts honor!) that a juror not going to see a news report at home or in a waiting room...or even have a conversation with his/her partner or family members, is wishful thinking.

Yeah, probably happens, although not as systematically as I fear it happened in this case. But on the other hand, at least the system cares enough about the appearance of legitimacy not to have judges bragging about jurors watching the case on the boob tube.

 

[Vibio]

Perhaps you should thank those that took a few precious seconds to find the cite you asked for. Not only did Vogt leave out the relevant part but so did you.

There were 2 different interviews. Il Corrieri and Il Mattino. Il Corrieri was the longer of the 2 and was the one that was most quoted. I was not aware that there were 2 interviews. Vogt only posted the Corrieri interview the one that was considered the incriminatinfg one. She did not leave out anything.

 

[Matthew Best]

No. Knox was not undergoing any interrogation. Her interrogation was over since hours, there was nothing to "continue".
Mignini does not ask if she wants to "continue" anything. There is nothing ongoing. Mignini tells her that she needs to appoint a lawyer and her rights, explains he cannot will not ask her questions, but says that if she has something to say and wants to make a declaration, she can do it and he would collect it under art. 350 § 7.
And Knox decides to release a statement.

And you believe him?

Bwahahahahahahahah!

Of course, he could prove it, if only he had remembered to turn on the tape recorder. Maybe he was still a bit sleepy?

 

[Mary_H]

Uh... of course they were bombarded with information.They were not sequestered. You would have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

Nencini mentions this (the media bombardment) was recognized and dealt with.

IMO it makes more sense to deal directly with questions a juror might have about the media then have them "on their honor" and hoping they don't peek.

In a 6 month long trial to pretend (Scouts honor!) that a juror not going to see a news report at home or in a waiting room...or even have a conversation with his/her partner or family members, is wishful thinking.

Your attempt to show that the American system (your system) is equally as unprotected as the Italian system has been antagonistic and graceless. Moreover, you haven't proven your point. Most Americans have more important things to be interested in than breaking the law for the sake of a court case in which they have no investment. In Italy, where there is no law against researching the trial one is judging, there is no such compunction.

By the way, the jurors in Italy are professional, repeat judges; they are not chosen at random.

As I stated earlier, the fact that the Italian prosecution so shamelessly exploited private and personal information about the defendants in the press emphasizes the value they place on fighting their cases in the media.

 

[AmyStrange]

Charles Manson

-

So practically speaking: no one can stop them from watching the news... but if they do, they must keep quiet about it.

Well, that's reassuring.

------------

I am trying to find the exact quote (in Italian) where Nencini mentions the jurors + TV. If anyone has it, could you please post a link? Thanks.

-

in answer to your question about sequestered juries in the US (I think it was about the US), I believe when they are sequestered here most times they are put up in a hotel (that is not always the case though) during the duration of the trial and in that way it's a little easier to monitor. Doesn't make it impossible, but easier to monitor.

As an aside, I remember while the Charles Manson trial was going on and Nixon had stated he thought they were guilty. Manson made a point to show the newspaper headline to the jury in court, and there was a motion for the judge to call it a mistrial, but the judge ruled that since the defendant was the ones who had done it, it was their problem.

Now THAT is a common sense ruling,

d

-

 

[Diocletus]

Mignini tells her that she needs to appoint a lawyer and her rights

Wait, he said that . . . but then he said that she can't have a lawyer under art. 104 cp? Was he lying when he told her she needed to appoint a lawyer or when he said that she couldn't have a lawyer.

Unfortunately for Mignini, he wrote out a record of the interrogations at 1:45 and 5:45 and he forgot to say anything about this lawyer advice and her knowing and intentional waiver of it. So he violated Art. 6 ECHR, and no one cares about Mignini's lies or Italy's illegal you-can't-have-a-lawyer laws.

 

[Machiavelli]

The ECtHR doesn't care about these Italian laws. These laws are illegal to the extent that they are being used to justify a deprivation of counsel in violation of Article 6, which they clearly have been. (...)

I will leave you lullying in your dreams.
As for the records, we may recall the ECHR does not establish whether a defandant is guilty or innocent, usually does not make guilty perps become innocent and does not nullify trials.

 

[RoseMontague]

But 1. the palm print is from balancing on the pillow, not grabbing it, it's an open palm; 2. in order to place the pillow under the body, grabbing the pillow would not be enough, he would need to also grab her legs and partly lift the body. Where are the other prints from this grabbing?

Do you understand that this evidence is consistent with a 3 perpetrators scenario, or not?

The print to me looks consistent with Rudy grabbing it with his bloody hand, not balancing on it with an open palm.

Are we back to it takes more than one person to remove a woman's jeans? Now it takes more than one person to place a pillow under her?

The evidence is consistent with a lone attacker.

 

[Kestrel]

Not only that but the police leaked all sorts of stuff to the tabs and other media. The top example in this case is the bloody bathroom.

There is a reason that jurors in our systems are not allowed to even be shown certain things because of the prejudicial nature of the item. Showing the jury the bloody bathroom and then saying it really didn't look that way doesn't undo the impression.

The bloody bathroom photo was just one of many falsehoods released to the press by the prosecutors and police. I don't recall any of these ever being officially or even informally retracted.

Italy seems to have a double standard in this regard. Defaming the prosecution or police is a crime, defaming a suspect with complete fabrications is allowed. Expected behavior for a third world hellhole, but isn't Italy supposed to be a modern democratic nation?

 

[Mary_H]

Perhaps you should thank those that took a few precious seconds to find the cite you asked for. Not only did Vogt leave out the relevant part but so did you.<snip>

I was thinking the same thing, Rose. I love his excuse for not following your suggestion.

There were 2 different interviews. Il Corrieri and Il Mattino. Il Corrieri was the longer of the 2 and was the one that was most quoted. I was not aware that there were 2 interviews. Vogt only posted the Corrieri interview the one that was considered the incriminatinfg one. She did not leave out anything.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wait, he said that . . . but then he said that she can't have a lawyer under art. 104 cp? Was he lying when he told her she needed to appoint a lawyer or when he said that she couldn't have a lawyer.

Already said: she needed to appoint one, but could not confer.

Unfortunately for Mignini, he wrote out a record of the interrogations at 1:45 and 5:45 and he forgot to say anything about this lawyer advice and her knowing and intentional waiver of it.

He remembered very well to tell her about the need to apoint a lawyer, and also said she could not confer with him, he wrote this prohibition on the decree of arrest declaring Knox a formal suspect.

 

[Vibio]

Your attempt to show that the American system (your system) is equally as unprotected as the Italian system has been antagonistic and graceless.

Oh gosh... and I've been holding back.

 

[Machiavelli]

The print to me looks consistent with Rudy grabbing it with his bloody hand, not balancing on it with an open palm.

Are we back to it takes more than one person to remove a woman's jeans? Now it takes more than one person to place a pillow under her? (...)

It takes more than one hand, and more than one bloody palm print, if the man has bloody hands.

 

[Machiavelli]

And you believe him?

I believe him, Anna Donnino, Edgardo Giobbi...
Do you think I should believe instead a girl who, about what she did and witnessed, she only knows one thing, that is she doesn't know what the truth is... ?

 

[Kestrel]

It's the fact that they boasted about it to the judge that is worrying.

But you are correct - the fact that this trial lasted six months is yet another terrible problem with the Italian justice system.

In all fairness, it takes a long time to prosecute people for a grand conspiracy based on testimony from coached witnesses and misinterpreted evidence. The McMartin Preschool Trial for example lasted two and a half years.

 

[RoseMontague]

It takes more than one hand, and more than one bloody palm print, if the man has bloody hands.

It takes more than one hand to lift a pillow?