Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

It’s painfully obvious that there is some confusion here between the role of a PM interviewing a suspect and Mignini’s claim that he was acting as a notary in the case of AK’s 5.45 SD.

Seriously is this stuff really that confusing?

I don’t see it!

Finally - something we agree upon!

There is no confusion. Mignini violated the Italian code of criminal procedure by continuing in **ANY** fashion, once it was determined that Knox was a suspect. Yes, that includes a claim that he was "acting as if only a notary", because no one believes that.

Pair this with the other violation - failure to flip the switch to record what had happened - and it becomes clear.

The issue is this: if there is a conflicting account of testimony, the courts believe the PMs and their acolytes just because. It is part of the reversal of the burden of proof endemic in inquisatorial systems. If a PM says it, it must be true, and it is up to the defence to provide evidence (that is never provided to them) that the truth might be something other than what the PM can claim.

 

[platonov]

Finally - something we agree upon!

There is no confusion. Mignini violated the Italian code of criminal procedure by continuing in **ANY** fashion, once it was determined that Knox was a suspect. Yes, that includes a claim that he was "acting as if only a notary", because no one believes that.

Pair this with the other violation - failure to flip the switch to record what had happened - and it becomes clear.

The issue is this: if there is a conflicting account of testimony, the courts believe the PMs and their acolytes just because. It is part of the reversal of the burden of proof endemic in inquisatorial systems. If a PM says it, it must be true, and it is up to the defence to provide evidence (that is never provided to them) that the truth might be something other than what the PM can claim.

Oh Bill.
It’s happened again, hasn’t it

No – I was endeavoring to clear up Dan O’s confusion w.r.t. the role of a PM when questioning a suspect, in this case RG.

Do you see? Please say you do.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh Bill.
It’s happened again, hasn’t it

No – I was endeavoring to clear up Dan O’s confusion w.r.t. the role of a PM when questioning a suspect, in this case RG.

Do you see? Please say you do.

No, I don't. Dan O. had no confusion. The "clearing up" since seemed to me to be a series of non sequitors.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not sure leading a witness to implicate someone else who is not part of the trial (and thus, whose lawyers cannot cross-examine the witness) is, or should be, Mignini's role when questioning a suspect?

By the way, what is with all the subtly condescending questions and statements in all your posts?











These are from your last 5 posts. Seriously -- you are 5 for 5. Is your intent with posting in this thread to troll, derail discussion, and annoy people, then report their posts when they call you out on it? (Sometimes in a not so nice way because you do this in every single one of your posts, as I just showed.) I honestly cannot find a single post where you do not do this, and you legitimately add value and contribute to the discussion. How far back would I have to look to find something of substance?

Can you please stop trolling and trying to deliberately annoy people? This kind of behavior ruins discussion forums.

That's what I was trying to communicate to platonov. I would hope the moderators would see this as trolling behaviour, too. Going back through the thread platonov claims is clearing things up, one finds simply a series of non sequitors which contributes nothing.....

... not even to the pro-guilt lobby!

 

[Dougm]

OK

What permission were you talking about? Your argument is rather confused.
Best to drop it maybe unless you wish to explain what you meant.

Do you?

I don't think anyone finds it confusing but you.

 

[Desert Fox]

Finally - something we agree upon!

There is no confusion. Mignini violated the Italian code of criminal procedure by continuing in **ANY** fashion, once it was determined that Knox was a suspect. Yes, that includes a claim that he was "acting as if only a notary", because no one believes that.

Pair this with the other violation - failure to flip the switch to record what had happened - and it becomes clear.

The issue is this: if there is a conflicting account of testimony, the courts believe the PMs and their acolytes just because. It is part of the reversal of the burden of proof endemic in inquisatorial systems. If a PM says it, it must be true, and it is up to the defence to provide evidence (that is never provided to them) that the truth might be something other than what the PM can claim.

One thing the pro guilt does not understand is that if the rules are broken by the prosecution or detectives, whatever evidence is generated is unable to be used and it does not matter if the defendant is guilty or not.

The idea is not to convict at all costs but to convict by playing by the rules. There are a number of cases where the prosecution did not play by the rules where I am not convinced that the defendant is innocent but it does not matter.

 

[Dan O.]

That's what I was trying to communicate.

Some time back in this thread there was a link to an article or video of a US prosecutor that was making the same mistake by leading the suspect with specific details. In that case the suspect was tried and found guilty because he had knowledge that only the perpetrator would know. That prosecutor eventually reviewed his own transcripts and videos and saw where every detail had been fed to the suspect in much the way that Mignini does.

There is no excuse for the prosecutor to ever lead the suspect in the way Mignini does. Mignini has learned to do this because he gets convictions by doing so and he is too ignorant to see that these convictions are false. The rest of his team are simply too stupid to see what's going on or they blindly support Mignini to stay on the winning side.

 

[Desert Fox]

Some time back in this thread there was a link to an article or video of a US prosecutor that was making the same mistake by leading the suspect with specific details. In that case the suspect was tried and found guilty because he had knowledge that only the perpetrator would know. That prosecutor eventually reviewed his own transcripts and videos and saw where every detail had been fed to the suspect in much the way that Mignini does.

There is no excuse for the prosecutor to ever lead the suspect in the way Mignini does. Mignini has learned to do this because he gets convictions by doing so and he is too ignorant to see that these convictions are false. The rest of his team are simply too stupid to see what's going on or they blindly support Mignini to stay on the winning side.

This is why all interviews need to be completely recorded although even then it seems like the jury has a hard time catching on. The recorded confession of Jessie Misskelley shows him being led by the nose yet the jury still convicted him based on the confession.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Addict or not, Curatolo's memory is reliable."

Here is a post-2014 conviction account of Raffaele's side of the story, including video of Prosecutor Crini's opening statement. Here Crini simply asserts that Curatolo, addict or not, is reliable. One would have hoped that during the trial itself, Crini would have bolstered this claim with evidence.

Did he? No.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2i32su_linea-gialla-06_school

One of the better things about this Italian program covering the wrongful conviction of Raffaele Sollecito, is that there is very little mention of Amanda Knox.

For me, it underlines that the ONLY reason to even include Raffaele in this case, is to get at Knox.

Other Crini brilliances: "The DNA of Sollecito and Knox are mixed on that footprint." Huh!?

"Sure she lived in the same house, I get that, pretty Miss. But how did that DNA get there? It didn't pop out of a magic hat."

When discussing Raffaele's alleged DNA on the clasp, Crini says: "(His DNA) was not roaming around the house," as a way of suggesting that the only reaso it wound up on the clasp was incriminating. Incredibly NO mention of the clasp collected 46 days after the murder itself, in a manner that even Machiavelli on this board admits made it dirty.

Holy cow. This prosecutor is dumber than Mignini. But even worse, Crini entered NO evidence to support these claims at trial.

On what basis, then, did Judge Nencini convict?

And for those who keep saying that Raffaele is throwing Amanda under a bus.... they have to explain Raffaele's own vigorous self-defence on this program, without once mentioning her!

Please note the disrepute the Italian system is referred to here, IN ITALY!!

 

[Dan O.]

A lesser man would have thrown Amanda under the bus and walked away from this mess.

I was going through the phone taps and found one where Raffaele is complaining to a friend that he was hoping for a long term relationship but Amanda is talking about still having an attraction to a former boyfriend. This was only days/hours before Raffaele was imprisoned because of his relationship with Amanda. It would have been so easy to roll over and be free. But Raffaele endured 4 years in prison because his honor would not permit him to condemn an innocent person.

Bravo Raffaele.

 

[Bill Williams]

A lesser man would have thrown Amanda under the bus and walked away from this mess.

I was going through the phone taps and found one where Raffaele is complaining to a friend that he was hoping for a long term relationship but Amanda is talking about still having an attraction to a former boyfriend. This was only days/hours before Raffaele was imprisoned because of his relationship with Amanda. It would have been so easy to roll over and be free. But Raffaele endured 4 years in prison because his honor would not permit him to condemn an innocent person.

Bravo Raffaele.

That Raffaele was dragged into this at all is one of the greatest injustices of the whole thing. That he has steadfastly not continued the injury to Amanda is remarkable.

 

[Numbers]

Some time back in this thread there was a link to an article or video of a US prosecutor that was making the same mistake by leading the suspect with specific details. In that case the suspect was tried and found guilty because he had knowledge that only the perpetrator would know. That prosecutor eventually reviewed his own transcripts and videos and saw where every detail had been fed to the suspect in much the way that Mignini does.

There is no excuse for the prosecutor to ever lead the suspect in the way Mignini does. Mignini has learned to do this because he gets convictions by doing so and he is too ignorant to see that these convictions are false. The rest of his team are simply too stupid to see what's going on or they blindly support Mignini to stay on the winning side.

{highlighting and italics added to quote.}

I disagree with your assumption of "ignorance" of the falseness of the convictions. Do you have evidence to support the prosecutor being "ignorant" rather than, for example "malicious" or "pathological"?

 

[Numbers]

A lesser man would have thrown Amanda under the bus and walked away from this mess.

I was going through the phone taps and found one where Raffaele is complaining to a friend that he was hoping for a long term relationship but Amanda is talking about still having an attraction to a former boyfriend. This was only days/hours before Raffaele was imprisoned because of his relationship with Amanda. It would have been so easy to roll over and be free. But Raffaele endured 4 years in prison because his honor would not permit him to condemn an innocent person.

Bravo Raffaele.

That Raffaele was dragged into this at all is one of the greatest injustices of the whole thing. That he has steadfastly not continued the injury to Amanda is remarkable.

I think Raffaele has shown himself to be an incredibly brave and honorable person.

 

[JREF2010]

A lesser man would have thrown Amanda under the bus and walked away from this mess.
.

You mean Rudy Guede?

 

[kwill]

Some time back in this thread there was a link to an article or video of a US prosecutor that was making the same mistake by leading the suspect with specific details. In that case the suspect was tried and found guilty because he had knowledge that only the perpetrator would know. That prosecutor eventually reviewed his own transcripts and videos and saw where every detail had been fed to the suspect in much the way that Mignini does.

That came from a podcast called This American Life in an episode called Confessions. The detective's name is Jim Trainum. To his credit, he recognized what he'd done and at least tried to make it right. The whole thing is worth listening to.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/507/confessions

 

[Dan O.]

You mean Rudy Guede?

When Rudy was on his own, in a private Skype chat with Giacomo Benedetti:

Time | Giacomo Benedetti | Rudy Guede
7:10:21PM|Listen, you have to tell me|
7:10:25PM|who was there.|
7:10:25PM||Do you understand where I am?
7:10:32PM|No. Tell me what city.|
7:10:53PM|That way I can send you some money.|
7:11:19PM||I was in the bathroom when it happened. I tried to stop it but I couldn't do anything. Amanda had nothing to do with it. 7:11:19PM|You have to tell me who was there.|
7:11:31PM||Because I fought with a male.
7:11:36PM|| And she wasn't there.

And shortly afterwards in the Skype call:

| Giacomo Benedetti | Rudy Guede
||Let me get you to understand better, well, it's been said...well, okay, so something that hasn't come out yet, it hasn't come out that...Amanda hasn't talked about umm...money, Raffaele hasn't talked about the money. So only I know this, that she told me her money was missing, that was hidden in the drawer where she kept her underwear.
|I see.|
||She told me this. And after that I went to the bathroom. I really had to go take a ****. And I heard the doorbell. For me, that must have been one of the girls who lived with her. So, I was calmly in the bathroom, like that. And at a certain point...
|So you thought it was someone from upstairs?|
||Yes, no, I thought that, well clearly someone rang the doorbell, they rang and she went and opened it.
|Okay|
||so for me it was...it could have been anyone for me, see?
|Sure, sure.|
|| It could have been Amanda, it could have been... anyone. |So you were calmly taking a ****, I get it.|

But once Rudy's lawyer gets involved, Rudy starts seeing shadows that look like Amanda and his visions become progressively clearer.

 

[Dan O.]

That came from a podcast called This American Life in an episode called Confessions. The detective's name is Jim Trainum. To his credit, he recognized what he'd done and at least tried to make it right. The whole thing is worth listening to.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/507/confessions

Yes, that's the one.


But it's not the only one. I have a thread here that links to the Chuck Erickson interrogation where the cop is doing exactly the same thing. He is telling Chuck details of the crime that Chuck clearly doesn't know. Then we flash forward to the trial and Chuck is repeating those details. He and his friend are convicted because they "knew details of the crime that only the murderers could know.

 

[Kauffer]

It’s painfully obvious that there is some confusion here between the role of a PM interviewing a suspect and Mignini’s claim that he was acting as a notary in the case of AK’s 5.45 SD.

Seriously is this stuff really that confusing?

I don’t see it!

There is only confusion in your mind. Mignini's modus operandi is to inject himself and his bias into any process he is involved in.

And you think he sat there and took dictation from Ms Knox? Utterly incredible. That the resulting fake voluntary statement was used against her, despite the illegality of doing so in Italian law and Convention law is not something that any of the pro guilt community is prepared to acknowledge.

This matter is shameful.

 

[RWVBWL]

Re: To Dress for Court

...or that they are both police informers?

Another possibility is that they both would like to keep from being photographed. I think that most people who find themselves ancillary figures to a murder would want to keep out of the public eye.

Hi Jungle Jim,
You brought up a point that I had considered years ago when I saw these 2 images.

But both of these guys were dressed to hide, while testifying in court.
I'm sure that there are more than a few here on ISF who have been inside a courtroom, so I'll ask: have you ever seen a person testify in court dressed like this? I never have, be it civil or criminal court here in Los Angeles.

I know that there are a few law professionals who participate here,
have you ever seen someone dressed like this to give courtroom testimony?

It's Stefano Bonassi's appearance that has me wondering.

I'd think that Giacomo Silenzi would have been the 1,
if any, of the boyz downstairs or the girlz upstairs to cover up, trying to escape the media coverage. Giacomo was Meredith last luver, he might have wanted to keep out of the public eye. But Stefano?

I wonder what Giacomo, Marco, Riccardo, Laura and Filomena wore when they testified. Did they too disguise their appearance by wearing a hoody and sunglasses to The Massei Court?

There's something odd about Stefano's dress, that's all I'm pointing out, well that and the fact that 6 years after he testified in Amanda and Raffaele's 1st Trial, there still does not seem to be a definite answer from Stefano Bonassi himself regarding how he left his bed, was it made, was there blood on it when he left?
RW


Oh wait a sec,
a question for you folks:
Laura and Filomena lawyered up immediately, right?

Did Giacomo and Stefano and the other boyz lawyer up immediately too?
Giacomo was growing pot...

 

[AmyStrange]

-

When Rudy was on his own, in a private Skype chat with Giacomo Benedetti:

Time | Giacomo Benedetti | Rudy Guede
7:10:21PM|Listen, you have to tell me|
7:10:25PM|who was there.|
7:10:25PM||Do you understand where I am?
7:10:32PM|No. Tell me what city.|
7:10:53PM|That way I can send you some money.|
7:11:19PM||I was in the bathroom when it happened. I tried to stop it but I couldn't do anything. Amanda had nothing to do with it. 7:11:19PM|You have to tell me who was there.|
7:11:31PM||Because I fought with a male.
7:11:36PM|| And she wasn't there.

And shortly afterwards in the Skype call:

| Giacomo Benedetti | Rudy Guede
||Let me get you to understand better, well, it's been said...well, okay, so something that hasn't come out yet, it hasn't come out that...Amanda hasn't talked about umm...money, Raffaele hasn't talked about the money. So only I know this, that she told me her money was missing, that was hidden in the drawer where she kept her underwear.
|I see.|
||She told me this. And after that I went to the bathroom. I really had to go take a ****. And I heard the doorbell. For me, that must have been one of the girls who lived with her. So, I was calmly in the bathroom, like that. And at a certain point...
|So you thought it was someone from upstairs?|
||Yes, no, I thought that, well clearly someone rang the doorbell, they rang and she went and opened it.
|Okay|
||so for me it was...it could have been anyone for me, see?
|Sure, sure.|
|| It could have been Amanda, it could have been... anyone. |So you were calmly taking a ****, I get it.|

But once Rudy's lawyer gets involved, Rudy starts seeing shadows that look like Amanda and his visions become progressively clearer.

-

Very interesting. Thanx Dan.

Why would Raffaele or Amanda ring the doorbell?

d

-
ETA: Raffaele might ring it if he's there alone.

-