No Bill, not this time. I really am mystified not that Raffaele did not give evidence but by the fact that he does not know why not. Of course LJ is right that adverse inferences cannot be drawn from that and if Nencini is doing so that would be great news for Raf's prospects in the ISC or, failing that, the ECHR but I don't get it. People may not know that the client is the boss, not the lawyer (nor the accountant, surveyor, architect, doctor etc etc). Ultimately, it was up to him whether he testified but, being young and all, he may not have understood he could assert himself if he wanted, ultimately to the point of sacking his lawyers and conducting his own defence.
I also stand by what I said that, without a lot of preparation, he would likely have made a lousy witness. He admits his naiëvety in his book and gives a horrifying account of his performance before Matteini. He also came up with the knife prick story. He was under the impression he either had to explain everything or he must be guilty.
This is what I don't get - and I am typing in the context of Nencini's (seemingly) open admission that for some reason the decision not to testify played a part (small or large) in the decision to convict him.
This is what I don't get: who really cares that Raffaele does not know why he did not get called by either his own lawyer or the other side.
It sounds to me like he actually listened to advice... which should not be taken to mean that he was led by the nose by Bongiorno. That's what people say about Raffaele isn't it: that he's easily led by strong women.
Piffle. It sounds to me like he was way, way out of his league in making these sorts of decisions - something even you imply with your remarks about what a lousy witness he would make. To me that sounds like self-awareness on his part. "Can't swim, better not jump in."
This is what I don't get. This side of Nencini Raffaele is being portrayed negatively for this decision - when it is plain no inference should be drawn. Nencini is being called on the carpet on March 11 for this very thing.
Not only is there a constant attempt to "separate AK and RS" in the courtroom, there is actually a reason for them to separate themselves from one another, with no inference being drawn by the fact of that separation. Tabloids and guilters say that this is the first sign of them turning on one another. That is simply not so.
Raffaele and Amanda faced differing perils, and needed to adopt different strategies. Indeed, the differeing strategy was that in the second trial, leading to acquittal, Bongiorno decided to actually act on, "They are after Amanda", and started to make concilatory remarks about Amanda (Jessica Rabbit).
The differing strategy Amanda's side played, even at that trial, was that they did not recorocate, adopting the same strategy of saying nice things about Raffaele. It wouldn't have mattered. They weren't after Raffaele to begin with. They would have dropped things against Raffaele in a heartbeat if he'd only rat out Amanda.
Losing in court is NOT the result of bad legal advice given to Knox or Sollecito, which is implied below the surface in all of this discussion on whether or not Raffaele should have testified.
Everyone can be baffled if they want. But it is also the adoption of a dangerous standard when people start to impugn motive to the differing strategy when it comes from one of the two choosing (with or without an articulated knowledge of why).
