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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diocletus said:
Well, what's the point in making the statement if he didn't mean something by it?

I'm sure that he'll try to cover his ass on this point in his Motivations report. Should be interesting.

BTW: He never heard Amanda testify, either. In fact, Nencini never heard any meaningful live evidence of any kind. What a silly "trial." And I understand the concept of the three-level appeal process (two trials and then a ISC ruling), but the point of this whole exercise seems to have been to have the decision made by the court that knows the least about the case. How dumb is that.
Click to expand...
It just seems pretty straight forward. Amanda testified, Raffaele didn’t.

Again, why wouldn’t Raffaele’s own counsel place him on the stand?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
It just seems pretty straight forward. Amanda testified, Raffaele didn’t.

Again, why wouldn’t Raffaele’s own counsel place him on the stand?
Click to expand...

Well, I guess if you ignore all the reasons stated, like he wasn't facing the additional calunnia, then you can align their differing situations and make it sound sinister. That's your right to reinvent what each faced by claiming simplicity.
 
ETA: Perhaps a decent analogy for the way I think Nadeau was thinking could use sports teams (NFL, in order to make the comparison easier for North Americans :D).

Suppose that the Chicago Bears played the Green Bay Packers, and it was a very close game, with the final score being Bears 31 - Packers 28. I believe Nadeau's comments about the Knox appeal is tantamount to an NFL commentator saying something like: "The Bears have to play the Packers again in the playoffs in two weeks, and I think that - given the closeness of their last match - there's a good chance that the Packers might win this next match".

What Nadeau should have known was that, unlike in a sports match where finishing the match a single point ahead is sufficient for unconditional victory, in a criminal trial one side (the prosecution) has to totally and utterly annihilate its opponent (the defence) in order to claim "victory" (conviction). That's the equivalent of proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. So if the result of the match is at all close, then by definition there is reasonable doubt, and the prosecution can never call itself the "victor".
 
Bill Williams said:
Well, I guess if you ignore all the reasons stated, like he wasn't facing the additional calunnia, then you can align their differing situations and make it sound sinister. That's your right to reinvent what each faced by claiming simplicity.
Click to expand...
Nah I think AngloLawyers response makes sense. Post #10053, you guys are just spinning, fair enough.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
It just seems pretty straight forward. Amanda testified, Raffaele didn’t.

Again, why wouldn’t Raffaele’s own counsel place him on the stand?
Click to expand...

So you think he just made the comment because he wanted to state the obvious? He might have well have said: mignini is fat.

No. He was saying that rafaele could have helped himself by testifying. Which is no different than saying that rafaeles was hurt by his silence.

There could be a number of reasons not to put up rafaele for examination. First, they probably thought that the prosecution case was too weak for a conviction. Second, they probably didn't want him subjected to cross exam, which before you get too excited, is a significant issue even for innocent defendants.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Addressed in post #10092. A pretty simple question, why didn't Raffaele's counsel place him on stand. Seems like spin to me.
Click to expand...

The simple answer is there's no positive reason for the defense to do that. And the only reason we're talking about this is that Nencici is being investigated for seeming to impugn a motive for someone exercising a right.

You keep trying to make this about Raffaele or his lawyers. I find it meaningful that many rarely talk about the real issue...

... what we're witnessing with Nencini's unfortunate comments is the very mechanics of wrongful conviction, and the victim of that wrongfulness is blamed!!!!!

Like the last time I punched someone in the nose and blamed him for not ducking.

That's the simple answer to your unsimple question.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Addressed in post #10092. A pretty simple question, why didn't Raffaele's counsel place him on stand. Seems like spin to me.
Click to expand...


You still do not appear to understand this issue properly. The whole point here is as follows:

1) Nencini implied (in his post-verdict press comments)that he had drawn an adverse inference from Sollecito not testifying.

2) He had no right in law to draw these sorts of adverse inferences.

3) Had Nencini wanted to try to hear Sollecito testify, he could - and should - have requested this himself. He did not do so.

You talk of why Sollecito's counsel didn't get him to testify anyhow. The didn't (I presume) do so because they did not want to put him on the stand unless it was necessary to do so - and they would/should have known whether it was necessary, based on whether or not any of the various prosecutors or judges had requested it. In the absence of any such request, Sollecito's lawyers had the right to conclude that a) the prosecutors and judges had nothing they needed to clarify by asking Sollecito to testify, and b) the courts certainly could not draw any adverse inferences from Sollecito not testifying.

Are you suggesting that Sollecito's lawyers should somehow have had the mind-reading abilities to know that Nencini was going to (improperly) draw adverse inferences from Sollecito not testifying?

And regarding the continuation of the "spin" theme, I'm afraid that your colours are showing through a little too brightly at the moment. I repeat: this has nothing whatsoever with "spin". It has to do with the law, pure and simple.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
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."
Click to expand...

And they had Gino making what I thought was a bad point about how normal it is for people living together to get their blood all mixed up. What?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Nah I think AngloLawyers response makes sense. Post #10053, you guys are just spinning, fair enough.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to make sense out of a claim that exercising a right, is regarded as spin. Indeed, that's why Nencini is being investigated. ..

This is a lot like Machiavelli's claim that proven beyond a reasonable doubt is only a procedural guideline. Your iwn spin on this, with all due respect, is to try to make an inalienable right....

..... appear as a manipulative defense tactic.

That's what I call spin.
 
Bill Williams said:
I'm trying to make sense out of a claim that exercising a right, is regarded as spin. Indeed, that's why Nencini is being investigated. ..

This is a lot like Machiavelli's claim that proven beyond a reasonable doubt is only a procedural guideline. Your iwn spin on this, with all due respect, is to try to make an inalienable right....

..... appear as a manipulative defense tactic.

That's what I call spin.
Click to expand...
Read post #10053, makes more sense than anything else I have read on this particular exchange.

Whatever Bill, I'm done.
 
Bill Williams said:
Canada puts conditions on extradition requests to US jurisdictions all the time. If the US does agree to them, then the US can go suck eggs.
Click to expand...

I see no reason why the US cannot say "You have not proven guilt, go suck eggs" to Italy in this case.
 
Diocletus said:
Wait. France has an extradition treaty with the US, but refused a request for extradition because the person was tried in abstentia contrary to French practice?

Gee, a conviction by an empaneled jury following acquittal by an empaneled jury is contrary to US practice.

I just looked at the France-US extradition treaty, and there is no exception for in abstentia convictions (to the contrary, the Treaty anticipates extradition based on abstentia convictions). So, this resistance to extradite was not based on the Treaty (it is contrary to the Treaty), but rather, must be a condition added at the French executive level.

BTW, Einhorn was actually guilty.
Click to expand...

In 1997, Einhorn was tracked down and arrested in Champagne-Mouton, France, where he had been living under the name "Eugene Mallon." The extradition process, however, proved more complex than initially envisioned. Under the extradition treaty between France and the United States, either country may refuse extradition under certain circumstances and Einhorn used multiple avenues to avoid extradition.

Although his sentence was not the death penalty, Einhorn's defense attorneys argued that Einhorn would face the death penalty if returned to the United States. France, like many countries which have abolished the death penalty, does not extradite defendants to jurisdictions which retain the death penalty without assurance that the death penalty will be neither sought nor applied. Pennsylvania authorities pointed out that at the date of the murder, Pennsylvania did not have the death penalty and therefore Einhorn could not be executed, due to provisions in the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions regarding ex post facto law. Einhorn's next strategy involved French law and the European Court of Human Rights which require a new trial when the defendant was tried in absentia, hence was unable to present his defense. On this basis, the court of appeals of Bordeaux rejected the extradition request.​

Maybe that's why Amanda stayed home.
 
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I have no theory that explains why Raffaele is complaining that no one wanted to question him.
Click to expand...
Vibio said:
Oh, I do: it's called "lying"
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
What seems to be happening is she is collecting memories from different parts of the interrogation, dumping them on the court room floor and leaving us to sort it all out.
Click to expand...
Vibio said:
Oh dear. Try harder.
Click to expand...

Is this really the quality of your arguments? Sniping?

If you think that because people might remember something slightly differently is lying, than you must do a lot of lying. There is a huge difference between "mis-remembering" and lying. Ever hear two people describe the same event? Sometimes you wonder if it was the same event. People see and remember things differently and differently from day to day.

If Amanda answered every question exactly the same, people like you would say it's clear..they must have "rehearsed" their stories. Nobody remembers things exactly the same.

The phenomenon you are demonstrating is confirmation bias. Feel free to look it up.
 
Last edited:
CoulsdonUK said:
It just seems pretty straight forward. Amanda testified, Raffaele didn’t.

Again, why wouldn’t Raffaele’s own counsel place him on the stand?
Click to expand...

Obviously because he was guilty, right?

My guess is that they felt he couldn't really add much to defense except repeating he wasn't there but at his flat with Amanda. I don't think he is very glib and easily gets tripped up. His interview with Mansey is an example.

The point being made is that Nencini making the remark indicates he took into consideration the fact that he didn't testify which isn't proper, period. If a juror here said they decided on that basis the case would most likely be a mistrial.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
And they had Gino making what I thought was a bad point about how normal it is for people living together to get their blood all mixed up. What?
Click to expand...

Yes I saw and heard that as well. I couldn't believe she said what she said instead of saying no mixed blood was demonstrated to exist and in fact the court never agreed with the prosecution's contention. Further I would have described the collection technique and mentioned the lack of a source for Amanda's blood and that in the murder room no DNA of Amanda was found, which would be odd if she were bleeding. I don't believe Amanda's blood was anywhere except on her pillow case and the faucet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom