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

[platonov]

More time travel

Ahhh I see the problem here!

You neglected to carry on to post the question & answer that immediately followed the one you selectively quoted (ignorance or deliberate attempt to deceive?).

Anyhow, for your education and enlightenment, here are the two Q&As together (my parentheses for clarity):





I think perhaps you can see that it is Nencini's answer to the second question here that is relevant to this specific argument. The Q&A that you neglected to include. It's a shame that you didn't read the entire Nencini interview before commenting on my post.

I did read it all obviously [how else could I have extracted the salient point] - its a short piece and the follow on is just that - a follow on.
You seem not to have noticed my quoted post was several days old ?

I can see why RS or his defense would try to make something of it but its a statement of the bleedin' obvious. About as compelling as RS's whine that he wasn't called to testify.

I was (and am) more interested in the splitting of the defense.

Still no comment on that , so we will have to wait it seems !

.

 

[Planigale]

Oh right I see. I think JAQing off probably works better if you are American? It is not really an English (British) phrase, or it may be just my sheltered upbringing.

 

[platonov]

A new approach to debate discovered

I am very happy to admit my arguments lack sophistry. I shall leave that to you.

I do not wish to attack the Kercher family, directly or indirectly. I do not wish to attack the Knox family directly or indirectly.

I am pleased you admit that I made my point; I note you are unable to refute it. I note that you accept I was precise in the charges that AK and RS were charged with including the particular article under the Italian Criminal code so there could be no uncertainty or weaselling by claiming to talk about sexually aggravated homicide having written sexual assault. I must say I assumed that everyone here knew that RG, RS and AK were all charged with murder this is a sort of common factor so this was a given. What was being discussed was the differences between the charges.

It is because you are evasive that I asked what your view was about the broken window; I know what the prosecution argued but like many people who argue for the guilt of AK and RS you prefer not to commit to details that may be refuted.

I am very happy that you accept my point entirely & also whatever else it is I claim you accept

 

[acbytesla]

One of the many baffling things to this case has been people taking these witnesses so seriously.

Is it possible for anyone, regardless of heroin, to remember what Curatolo is supposed to have remembered? He apparently notices from some distance and at night, two people that he has never met - he then somehow recalls a year later that these two people are in fact the two people who have been charged with murder. It's not even that he had to pick them out of a line-up - all he had to do was say that he had seen the two people whose photo had been on the front of every paper for the last year and he couldn't even do that without getting confused about the dates :bangsheadonwall:

This whole case does make you bang your head on the wall. Curatolo is just plain bizarre, yet somehow he's credible? The Supreme Court says that you have to view it osmotically? What does that mean? That an 3 not credible witnesses means they must be credible. That they can ignore the negative TMB evidence?

That a pile of dengue is no longer feces? That is how I see their reasoning.

 

[Bill Williams]

There are two separate issues here - which Coulsdon was conflating. The first is whether Sollecito was strategically "correct" not to testify and subject himself to cross-examination. The second is whether he could/should have been penalised by the court for his decision not to testify.

To answer the first question is very difficult, and requires a whole host of intangible analyses and cost/benefit equations. For example, how much could Sollecito have risked harming his position by testifying, versus how much could he potentially benefit from putting himself forward to be questioned. As others have said, to figure this out would require an analysis of Sollecito's character and reaction to accusatory questions, an analysis of the skill and tenacity of the prosecutors, civil party lawyers and judges, a determination of how the trial was going up to that point. It's a difficult question to address.

On the other hand, the answer to the second question is laughably simple. It's "No".

And it was this second question that was entirely the issue related to Nencini's ill-judged post-verdict interview. And it was entirely the issue behind Sollecito's legal team's outrage. Not the first issue, which is an entirely different debate.


Incidentally, I believe that most criminal defence lawyers would tend towards keeping the majority of their clients off the stands (for reasons I've discussed here before), regardless of the factual innocence or otherwise of the client. And regardless of how accurate this maxim is, another maxim is undeniably true: the defendant should never testify unless the calculation is that such an action is likely to assist his/her defence more than it is likely to harm it. A decision not to testify should neither harm nor help a defence.

(Incidentally, Coulsdon might have received more calm responses to his questions if he hadn't kept repeating the incorrect and inflammatory mantra that some people were trying to "spin" this issue in favour of Sollecito. Just sayin'........)

I am having a different conversation to everyone else, I think. I am not suggesting Raf was badly advised or to blame for not giving evidence etc. I frankly don't know. I am just trying to understand their system better. There seems to be no principle of confrontation (which would have obliged Mignini to put his case to Amanda on the stand - 'I suggest you have told us a tissue of lies. You used the lamp to look for something, didn't you? You tried to clean away your bloody footprints, did you not? You went to Quintavalle's to buy something - west was it? etc etc). Defendants may lie (ridiculous). The prosecutor can schedule the defendant for examination. Defendants can make statements on which they can avoid being cross examined. And so on.

This latter is also Mary_H's point it seems.

So when CoulsdonUK says he's "baffled" that Raffaele did not testify, but that Amanda did, which nuance of this are we arguing....

.... in the context of other posters trying to suggest there's now a wedge between Knox and Sollecito for having differing legal interests at trial. And for me, the context that Nencini is being investigated as to how his comments that Raffaele's "refusal to testify" went against him at verdict-time.

Why is any of this "baffling'?

 

[Dan O.]

Tapping his phone? Checking out people he called or texted or who called or texted him? Pretty easy I would have thought.

You skipped a bit there. You are saying that Patrick was a suspect because he exchanged texts with Amanda before Meredith was murdered. And even though they didn't know what that text said it was enough for Mignini to develop a conspiracy theory involving Patrick and have his bar bugged. By the 5:45 Amanda has broken down and confirmed what they already knew to be the truth, not just that the perp was a "black boy" but specifically Patrick Lumumba whose bar they already had bugged.

There should be records of this environmental intercept. I wonder if Patrick knows that his bar had been bugged? Would this information help him see the truth or is he still suffering from prosecution blindness?

 

[acbytesla]

It's entirely clear to me that the reason why Sollecito was remarking about this issue was solely because Nencini had specifically brought it up in his ill-judged press comments after the verdicts. Nencini essentially implied that he found it hard to find Sollecito's story accurate or reliable on account of the fact that Sollecito had never subjected himself to cross-examination in the courtroom.

Sollecito basically replied - correctly - that nobody had ASKED to cross-examine him. The prosecutors and the courts had the right to ask. Neither party did so. So he was trying to make the point that it was hard to reconcile Nencini's implied criticism with the fact that neither Nencini nor any other judge or prosecutor had ever requested Sollecito to testify and be cross-examined.

And this whole issue speaks once more to the intrinsic structural problem that very clearly exists within the Italian criminal justice system: the uneasy amalgam of inquisitorial and adversarial systems. Under the old inquisitorial system, accused persons were supposed to "put their case", and in the absence of them doing so, the court was essentially entitled to take the prosecutor's case at face value (remember, the prosecutor in this system was supposed - in theory - to have no dog in the fight, to be purely concerned with finding the judicial truth).

But in a properly-functioning adversarial system, the entire onus is on the prosecution (and the court, by extension) to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's therefore entirely possible for a defendant to say not a word during the trial process without harming his/her defence in any way. And it's also entirely possible for the defendant to offer no defence whatsoever, save for claiming to the court that the prosecution has not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and be acquitted. There are certain circumstances in which a court can reasonably infer a defendant's silence to be a factor in favour of guilt, but those are narrowly-defined and specific.

In Sollecito's case, therefore, his failure to testify and subject himself to cross-examination should in no way have been taken as a pointer towards guilt. Indeed, it was probably a good option on his (and his lawyers') behalf. It has been shown over and over again that factually-innocent defendants can actually do their defence a great deal of harm by testifying in court and subjecting themselves to cross-examination. It's extremely simplistic and ignorant to suggest that all innocent people should testify in their own trials on the basis that they should have nothing to hide if they are innocent.

It's like the old witch trials. If they hang you and you live, you're guilty of being a witch and then they burn you at the stake. But if you die...well they got it wrong..You're innocent.

 

[anglolawyer]

You skipped a bit there. You are saying that Patrick was a suspect because he exchanged texts with Amanda before Meredith was murdered. And even though they didn't know what that text said it was enough for Mignini to develop a conspiracy theory involving Patrick and have his bar bugged. By the 5:45 Amanda has broken down and confirmed what they already knew to be the truth, not just that the perp was a "black boy" but specifically Patrick Lumumba whose bar they already had bugged.

There should be records of this environmental intercept. I wonder if Patrick knows that his bar had been bugged? Would this information help him see the truth or is he still suffering from prosecution blindness?

This is exactly what I am saying. I set out the reasoning already. The burglary was staged, the crap belonged to an outsider, no sign of violence outside the bedroom. Therefore, she knew her attacker and let him in or someone else did. Hence the interest in promiscuity and relative degeneracy. Amanda was very suspect first because of her odd story and second because of her behaviour. Check her phone - exchange of texts the night before at the material time. That's it. Find out who she texted. That'll be the guy.

 

[Grinder]

It's like the old witch trials. If they hang you and you live, you're guilty of being a witch and then they burn you at the stake. But if you die...well they got it wrong..You're innocent.

I thought it was the dunking stool.

 

[LondonJohn]

This latter is also Mary_H's point it seems.

So when CoulsdonUK says he's "baffled" that Raffaele did not testify, but that Amanda did, which nuance of this are we arguing....

.... in the context of other posters trying to suggest there's now a wedge between Knox and Sollecito for having differing legal interests at trial. And for me, the context that Nencini is being investigated as to how his comments that Raffaele's "refusal to testify" went against him at verdict-time.

Why is any of this "baffling'?

Yes. There is absolutely nothing strange (or sinister, or "revealing") about the separation of Knox's and Sollecito's defence.

In fact, I'm surprised that they didn't formally separate their defences long ago. After all, this is not a case where they are by necessity either both guilty beyond a reasonable or both not guilty.

 

[acbytesla]

I thought it was the dunking stool.

Something like that Major Major.

 

[Grinder]

Something like that Major Major.

Catch 22?

 

[Planigale]

I am very happy that you accept my point entirely & also whatever else it is I claim you accept

This is a bit like having an argument with my girlfriend, no matter how often she says "I'm not going to discuss this any longer" she still has to have the last word.

 

[acbytesla]

This is exactly what I am saying. I set out the reasoning already. The burglary was staged, the crap belonged to an outsider, no sign of violence outside the bedroom. Therefore, she knew her attacker and let him in or someone else did. Hence the interest in promiscuity and relative degeneracy. Amanda was very suspect first because of her odd story and second because of her behaviour. Check her phone - exchange of texts the night before at the material time. That's it. Find out who she texted. That'll be the guy.

I think the combination of coincidences or minor trivia made them think that there was a conspiracy between the three almost immediately. Amanda said she didn't have to go work. Patrick was black. My guess is that someone actually told them that Patrick's bar was closed that night. Patrick shows up at Amanda's college after the murder...why? And they just misread Amanda being uncomfortable and different as being deceptive. They just kept on thinking.."this wasn't a burglary". That got the ball rolling and little misread coincidences led to it picking up speed.

 

[acbytesla]

Catch 22?

Good catch... I loved that book...one of my favorites in high school. Beats the hell out of Death of a Salesman.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes. There is absolutely nothing strange (or sinister, or "revealing") about the separation of Knox's and Sollecito's defence.

In fact, I'm surprised that they didn't formally separate their defences long ago. After all, this is not a case where they are by necessity either both guilty beyond a reasonable or both not guilty.

The judge denied the splitting. A potential legal error that I am sure Raffaele's defense will bring up when the case gets back to the ISC.

 

[RoseMontague]

The times are for the time that the suspect witness signed the statement at the end of the interrogation interview. It's helpful to establish the routine of talk to the police -- sign statement. That way the peeps don't even look when you later hand them a confession to sign.

As for the earlier naming of Patrick, I thought I did see a mention of gathering contact information on November 2 that included Patrick. However, the statement above by Mignini may have been perverted by google-fish to negate parts of the statement.

ETA: In the defense questioning of Ficarra:

​

Patrick had been named earlier but I believe this earlier is the same night when Amanda was listing the names in her phone address book of people that knew Meredith.

Makes, sense. Thanks Dan O. Where are these other statements?

 

[acbytesla]

Oh right I see. I think JAQing off probably works better if you are American? It is not really an English (British) phrase, or it may be just my sheltered upbringing.

I changed it....hmmmmm rofl

 

[acbytesla]

This is a bit like having an argument with my girlfriend, no matter how often she says "I'm not going to discuss this any longer" she still has to have the last word.

Someone has to get it. In your case it is her.

 

[acbytesla]

You mean because the ECtHR might require Italy to conduct a new trial? Yes, I agree that that could be a part of the decision. Either that or she just decided "no way am I ever going back to Crazyland".

There are lots of miscarriages of justice in this case. First and foremost is that
Meredith was murdered
that her parents are heartbroken
that Amanda and Raffaele had to go to prison.
That the taxpayers of Italy had to pay for this farce.
The Amanda and Raffaele's family had to suffer through this farce.
That Amanda probably learned how to speak "excellent Italian" and she probably can never go back and practice her skill.

Maybe Perugia can promote "Amanda" immersion Italian? Spend 4 years in our prison and you will have mastered a new language!!!!