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

[anglolawyer]

Oh, I do: it's called "lying"

I think it's in Follain's book, or possibly in Barbie's, that Bongiorno tore Mignini off a strip for not calling Raf to give evidence.

Oh dear. Try harder.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[Bob001]

I agree, it was like watching a Nazi propaganda movie for WW2.

It was mainly Vomit and the Pignini, with Commode spewing her biased bs, shes an insult to intelligence.
,,,,

Re the BBC show: 1/ How long was it? An hour would be expected to cover more ground more thoroughly than, say, 10 minutes. 2/ It sounds like it was basically a summary of the prosecution case. Did it include any commentary or response from anyone on Amanda's side? Even a few choice quotes from the Hellman decision would have helped provide balance. 3/ Is this show accessible to American viewers as streaming video?

 

[anglolawyer]

Re the BBC show: 1/ How long was it? An hour would be expected to cover more ground more thoroughly than, say, 10 minutes. 2/ It sounds like it was basically a summary of the prosecution case. Did it include any commentary or response from anyone on Amanda's side? Even a few choice quotes from the Hellman decision would have helped provide balance. 3/ Is this show accessible to American viewers as streaming video?

1 One hour
2 Ann Bremner
3 No idea

It was strongly pro-guilt. Many refuted points were presented as fact (Amanda walked around barefoot in Meredith's blood, for example)

 

[Grinder]

We need the bigger guns if possible. . . .Frontline

Edit: As they usual do bigger issues, problems with the Italian legal system.

How about a documentary on extradition treaties? Should we require standards for evidence? Should we insist that one innocent finding is the end?

Other countries require that no death penalty can be used on people they return. I believe with Einhorn this was even true of an American citizen.

Checked quickly on wiki and there pictures of Ira but not the victim Maddux.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have no theory that explains why Raffaele is complaining that no one wanted to question him.

Oh, I do: it's called "lying"

An evidenceless assertion from Vibio.... an assertion based on confirmation bias. May as well name the reasoning for what it is.

My own "theory" is that there was no upside for either side of the prosecution/defence to call Raffaele.

From the defence side, why would they call Raffaele? He would only repeat what he's said in his spontaneous statements to the court. "I don't know what this has to do with me. The Nike prints were not mine, the knife was from my apartment, but from a DNA point fo view has nothing to do with the crime. I remembered that Amanda could not have gone out, because I would have had to have known if she'd tried to get back in to my apartment." Etc. Etc.

It's especially that last one which is the reason why the prosecution would not ask him a single question either. All he would do is protest his own innocence, and repeat: "Knox could not have gone out that night, even if I had been asleep. At interrogation that's all they seemed to want from me - to misremember this fact. Once they confused me by denying a calendar, I've been the forgotten man ever since. My family wanted me to turn on Knox, but it was that - I simply could not bear to think I'd put someone in prison for lying."

All cross examination would accomplish is allowing him to get onto the record one more time his innocence. So why would the prosecution call him?

Can you, AnlgoLayer or Vibio, think of a reason why either side would want Raffaele to testify? What would he say which was different from his spontaneous statements?

Could they show him the Scientific Police's video of the collection of the bra-clasp? As for comment on that? All he would say is, "Well, I heard Stefanoni unable to confirm or deny that she, herself, had contaminated the hook with her obviously dirty glove."

For Sollecito that would not be an expert opinion, so would be irrelevant.

What could he possibly say that he hasn't said in spontaneous statements, even under cross examination?

This is esp. a question for Vibio. From the confirmation biased point of view - ie. he's guilty and lying - what could he say? You see on this point, liar or not, Sollecito is right. No one was interested in what he had to say.

Vibio - you avoided the question by an urge to hurl invective and deliver ad hominem.

 

[Grinder]

Re the BBC show: 1/ How long was it? An hour would be expected to cover more ground more thoroughly than, say, 10 minutes. 2/ It sounds like it was basically a summary of the prosecution case. Did it include any commentary or response from anyone on Amanda's side? Even a few choice quotes from the Hellman decision would have helped provide balance. 3/ Is this show accessible to American viewers as streaming video?

This link works for me

ETA - go with Coulsdon's mine is still loaded on my computer and works but not when I try copying the address to another window.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Re the BBC show: 1/ How long was it? An hour would be expected to cover more ground more thoroughly than, say, 10 minutes. 2/ It sounds like it was basically a summary of the prosecution case. Did it include any commentary or response from anyone on Amanda's side? Even a few choice quotes from the Hellman decision would have helped provide balance. 3/ Is this show accessible to American viewers as streaming video?

There you go. BBC 3 Documentary

 

[Bob001]

Yes. It was like a $6 hour job while she was working at Le Chic,...but it was understood that she needed to spend hours in the city center Piazza passing out leaflets...this latter part was just to work.

Amanda was afraid she was going to get fired...but she also didn't like the job and had feelers to get a different job.

Did Amanda need a job, in the sense that most of us need our jobs? Did most American students, or even Italian students, work at jobs? How hard would it have been for her to find another job waiting tables, clerking at a store, etc.? It reinforces my impression of her as naive and easily manipulated if she was expected to "work" without pay just to keep a crappy job. Most Americans would be out the door as fast as they could get to it. (On the other hand, maybe she saw it as a chance to meet people and practice her Italian. But there were other ways to do that, especially for a student.)

 

[anglolawyer]

Bill

I cannot get my head around American criminal defence tactics, let alone Italian ones. When we had innocent clients we almost always put them on the stand. Most of the time it does more good than harm. Someone like Raf would need a lot of preparation though because you would have to knock out of him his tendency to invent answers in preference to saying he doesn't know or remember something. It's impossible with some people though and I fear he may be one of them.

 

[Dan O.]

Platonov, I've read a lot of posts here, yours are the most incomprehensible. Keep up the dodgy work. Are your children imperilled?

The only posts of Platonov's I see are the ones that get quoted by others. I wish posters would show more discretion in what they quote. That last one is probably reportable but I'm not going to open the original.

 

[Bill Williams]

1 One hour
2 Ann Bremner
3 No idea

It was strongly pro-guilt. Many refuted points were presented as fact (Amanda walked around barefoot in Meredith's blood, for example)

I'm a broken record on this... it relied almost solely on the Mignini/Comodi prosecution... the Crini prosecution from late 2013 relied on a very different scenario and a different set of facts - essentially they were prosecuted for a different crime.

Key was that the escalation of tensions which led to murder (acc. to Crini) did not happen over at Raffaele's once they found they had a free night. For some inexplicable reason, Crini has then going back to the cottage with that kitchen knife.

Mignini/Comodi solved that question by calling it premeditation. They went over with evil intent, and took the kitchen knife as "back-up".

So, Vogt continues to try to sell the Mignini-prosecution, even though the Italian courts have abandoned it, even in finding them guilty in Florence.

That's what the Vogt documentary reveals.... for some reason, someone somewhere is trying to keep the Mignini prosecution alive. Why? The prosecution, although eventually successful, is trying to distance itself from Mignini - most certainly that's what Massei did... and for certain what Crini did in Florence.

Massei (even in convicting them in 2009) found no mixed blood, no premeditation, friendly relations between Meredith/Amanda, no psychopathology, that the entry through Filomena's window was doable, that the lamp was in Meredith's room for no discernable reason (contrary to the insinuations Mignini made at trial).... etc. etc.

Why is not Vogt just celebrating that the right people have been convicted, as per her bias? Her agenda is different. She keeps wanting to vindicate Mignini on specifics!

What the UK viewership saw was not so much hatred of Amanda ( and ignoring Raffaele), but a virtual love affair with Mignini. Why is that?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

An evidenceless assertion from Vibio.... an assertion based on confirmation bias. May as well name the reasoning for what it is.

My own "theory" is that there was no upside for either side of the prosecution/defence to call Raffaele.

From the defence side, why would they call Raffaele? He would only repeat what he's said in his spontaneous statements to the court. "I don't know what this has to do with me. The Nike prints were not mine, the knife was from my apartment, but from a DNA point fo view has nothing to do with the crime. I remembered that Amanda could not have gone out, because I would have had to have known if she'd tried to get back in to my apartment." Etc. Etc.

It's especially that last one which is the reason why the prosecution would not ask him a single question either. All he would do is protest his own innocence, and repeat: "Knox could not have gone out that night, even if I had been asleep. At interrogation that's all they seemed to want from me - to misremember this fact. Once they confused me by denying a calendar, I've been the forgotten man ever since. My family wanted me to turn on Knox, but it was that - I simply could not bear to think I'd put someone in prison for lying."

All cross examination would accomplish is allowing him to get onto the record one more time his innocence. So why would the prosecution call him?

Can you, AnlgoLayer or Vibio, think of a reason why either side would want Raffaele to testify? What would he say which was different from his spontaneous statements?
Could they show him the Scientific Police's video of the collection of the bra-clasp? As for comment on that? All he would say is, "Well, I heard Stefanoni unable to confirm or deny that she, herself, had contaminated the hook with her obviously dirty glove."

For Sollecito that would not be an expert opinion, so would be irrelevant.

What could he possibly say that he hasn't said in spontaneous statements, even under cross examination?

This is esp. a question for Vibio. From the confirmation biased point of view - ie. he's guilty and lying - what could he say? You see on this point, liar or not, Sollecito is right. No one was interested in what he had to say.

Vibio - you avoided the question by an urge to hurl invective and deliver ad hominem.

Much of you what you assert is kind of undermined by the simple fact that Amanda testified, she had as much reason as Raffaele not to testify?

 

[Desert Fox]

How about a documentary on extradition treaties? Should we require standards for evidence? Should we insist that one innocent finding is the end?

Other countries require that no death penalty can be used on people they return. I believe with Einhorn this was even true of an American citizen.

Checked quickly on wiki and there pictures of Ira but not the victim Maddux.

One of the problems with extraditing Einhorn was that France does not allow trials in absentia as well. Looking at Holly Maddux, she is a pretty attractive lady.

Need to understand that I don't support the death penalty

 

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by AK evidence transcript p.137
2 MIGNINI: Why did you speak about Patrick only in the
3 interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45? Why didn't you mention him
4 before? You never mentioned him before.
5 AK: Before when?
6 MIGNINI: In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on
7 Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and
8 then there's Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in 9 the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name 10 of Patrick. Why hadn't you ever mentioned him before?
11 AK: Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name
12 to me.

So it is stated here that Amanda mentioned Patrick only in these dates and times - Nov 2 at 15:30, on 7 Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and 8 then there's Nov 6, 1:45.

I'm sure that Mignini erased the record of her mentioning Patrick.

 

[Grinder]

One of the problems with extraditing Einhorn was that France does not allow trials in absentia as well. Looking at Holly Maddux, she is a pretty attractive lady.

Need to understand that I don't support the death penalty

Neither do I, but my point is that the extradition treaty put conditions on our getting him back. Perhaps a case could be made for having certain restrictions with, say, Italy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill

I cannot get my head around American criminal defence tactics, let alone Italian ones. When we had innocent clients we almost always put them on the stand. Most of the time it does more good than harm. Someone like Raf would need a lot of preparation though because you would have to knock out of him his tendency to invent answers in preference to saying he doesn't know or remember something. It's impossible with some people though and I fear he may be one of them.

All it would take is for Raffaele, being Italian, to engage in the inevitable, "well, it is compatible with...." and then go off on some evidenceless wondering of what could have been possible. "She could have pricked her finger on the kinfe," is Raffaele's way of doing what Machiavelli does, "Perugian student life makes it compatible to consider that Knox traded sex for drugs, and this would make Guede her pimp."

That seems to be the Italian thing which is allowed in courts. At the first trial, Mignini was allowed to go off on all these possibilities, even admitting, in court, that his invented dialogue for Knox, "We are going to make you have sex," is, in fact, invented by him. Mignini admitted that on the spot and no one blinked an eye.

Mignini went after Knox on the lamp issue, it was the only way Mignini could, without blushing, bring it up. Have the lamps owner confusedly speculate on how the lamp might have got there. Mignini was fishing for similar success as he'd got at interrogation back in Nov 2007 when she was asked to similarly speculate on what Lumumba might have done if she had been at the cottage.

With all the criticisms of the defence lawyers, I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and how far they could push this system so heavily slanted towards the PMs.... as Hellmann said.

Putting Raffaele on the stand risks at cross-examination all sorts of invented compatibilities to be read into the record. If a PM invents things, it's called evidence. If Raffaele invents things, it's called "lying."

Or worse.... they just say, no questions, and Raffaele continues to be forgotten.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

for example, nothing of the second memoriale

1 One hour
2 Ann Bremner
3 No idea

It was strongly pro-guilt. Many refuted points were presented as fact (Amanda walked around barefoot in Meredith's blood, for example)

There was also a short clip of Sarah Gino and a brief mention of the computer damage. The exculpatory material that they left out was as significant as the material that they included. Truly a wretched "documentary."

 

[Desert Fox]

Bill

I cannot get my head around American criminal defence tactics, let alone Italian ones. When we had innocent clients we almost always put them on the stand. Most of the time it does more good than harm. Someone like Raf would need a lot of preparation though because you would have to knock out of him his tendency to invent answers in preference to saying he doesn't know or remember something. It's impossible with some people though and I fear he may be one of them.

I live in southeastern Virginia. I was a juror in a trial a number of years ago.
Cannot remember the name of the defendant and will not say what city. As a result, I think it is safe discussing it.

It was a teenager (maybe 18 or so) who was a felon who was caught with a firearm. In Virginia, there is a law that there is an automatic 5 year sentence in such cases.

The cops' story was full of holes. By the police story, it could just have easily been that gun was found by the police and have nothing to do with him. There were no fingerprints reported on the gun for example.

The defendant took the stand. All he would have to have said is "I don't know where the gun came from" and I would have likely seen reasonable doubt. Instead, he said that it was his friend's gun. He put the gun in his own hand in effect.

 

[Bob001]

Bill

I cannot get my head around American criminal defence tactics, let alone Italian ones. When we had innocent clients we almost always put them on the stand. Most of the time it does more good than harm. Someone like Raf would need a lot of preparation though because you would have to knock out of him his tendency to invent answers in preference to saying he doesn't know or remember something. It's impossible with some people though and I fear he may be one of them.

I think in the U.S. the defense typically argues that the prosecution failed to prove its case by attempting to challenge its evidence and raise doubts about its witnesses. All the defendant can do on the stand is say "I didn't do it," but that opens him up to aggressive and potentially confusing cross-examination that allows the jurors to see not only his answers but his attitude, his body language, etc. Even in, say, a legitimate self-defense case, you don't want your guy blurting out "Yeah, I'm glad I killed that scumbag and I'd do it again!" One commentator says putting the defendant on the stand shifts the jury's deliberations from "Did the prosecutor prove his case?" to "Do I believe the defendant?" On the other hand, if it looks bad for the defendant, he might not have anything to lose by telling his side himself.

Question: How aggressively can opposing counsel question witnesses or defendants on the stand ("in the dock?")? My impression is that in the U.S. the goal is to make the other side's witnesses look like a liars or a fools.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not enough to float a PR supertanker but enough to get by IMO

Did Amanda need a job, in the sense that most of us need our jobs? Did most American students, or even Italian students, work at jobs? How hard would it have been for her to find another job waiting tables, clerking at a store, etc.? It reinforces my impression of her as naive and easily manipulated if she was expected to "work" without pay just to keep a crappy job. Most Americans would be out the door as fast as they could get to it. (On the other hand, maybe she saw it as a chance to meet people and practice her Italian. But there were other ways to do that, especially for a student.)

Bob001,

She had roughly $4000 and her mother held a much greater sum in a bank account in the U.S. as a reserve. She implies in WTBH that she was not particularly good at being a waitress. However, at least one U.S. employer is on record as praising her work ethic.