Guilty as sin
Published:
April 9, 2014 at 11:13am
This was reported in Times of Malta yesterday – the behaviour of an innocent man in despair at the death of his beloved friend, indeed. Well, he was always a crap actor and it takes more than his limited gifts to act his way out of this one.
Imagine refusing to answer the police when you supposedly have nothing to hide, and then actually having to be asked by the police whether you are unhappy about your supposed friend’s death (they had to ask, because it didn’t show) and then responding ‘But I didn’t kill her’.
Who said you did, at that stage of the enquiries?
28 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Like you I believe him to be guilty as sin.
I hope he gets his just desserts and then some.
However your statement “Imagine refusing to answer the police when you supposedly have nothing to hide” is dangerous.
The right to silence is a fundamental human right, and any lawyer worth his/her salt will advise their client to keep silent when interviewed as a suspect by police, whether they are guilty or not. There are many reasons for this, that need not be explained here.
[Daphne – People who have nothing to hide, who are innocent, explain exactly what happened. They have no reason not to answer. Yes, it is your right not to reply if you feel you might incriminate yourself – but there you have it: you think you might incriminate yourself, and this is how both the police and the trial judge/jury/magistrate read it.]
You yourself have been interrogated by the police only to be found not guilty (and rightly so) in court because you were clearly innocent of the ridiculous and politically motivated charges.
[Daphne – Yes, exactly, because I answered all the police questions at great length and in precise detail, so much so they the interrogating officers (who are not touch-typists) had great difficulty keeping up.]
Human rights are there to protect the innocent.
Again, nothing to do with this slime ball.
“People who have nothing to hide, who are innocent, explain exactly what happened.”
Agreed, but it should be in court or through their lawyer. It is a big mistake to do so during a police interrogation, no matter how innocent you are.
[Daphne – If you are guilty, yes. But not if you have nothing to hide. He’s not talking because he doesn’t want to say how and why he got to the bottom of the cliffs.]
“it is your right not to reply if you feel you might incriminate yourself”
The problem is you can incriminate yourself whether you are guilty or not!
[Daphne – No, you can’t. And it’s a refusal to speak which incriminates a person most of all.]
“you think you might incriminate yourself, and this is how both the police and the trial judge/jury/magistrate read it”
The jury are always advised not to draw any inferences of the kind by the judge. Believe me, I know, the countless times I have fumed at it! They don’t always do it which is a flaw of a trial by jury!
The Judge\magistrate know better than to do so!
“[Daphne – Yes, exactly, because I answered all the police questions at great length and in precise detail, so much so they the interrogating officers (who are not touch-typists) had great difficulty keeping up.]”
Precisely, you still ended up in court! An innocent person SHOULD testify in court where the procedure is totally different to an interrogation room! For example, the prosecution can’t lie in court, interrogating officers can do so during an interrogation.
[Daphne – You will generally end up in court regardless. It’s whether you are acquitted or not that counts. And if there’s one thing that’s guaranteed to help you in court, it’s giving an exhaustively detailed statement to the police and then being consistent in court.]
I don’t want to deviate from this most serious topic of this slime ball however here are some reasons (I copied them from a website to speed things up but they are bible to defense lawyers all over the free world)
1: Even if you are innocent, it’s easy to tell some little white lie in the course of a statement.
[Daphne – No, it isn’t. The decision to tell a lie is a conscious one and a very bad idea, however white. It’s not easy at all. The solution to avoiding white lies is avoiding them, and not a refusal to speak.]
2: Even if you are innocent, and you only tell the truth, and you don’t tell any little white lies, it is possible to give the police some detail of information that can be used to convict you.
[Daphne – Yes, if you’re guilty. But if you’re not, it’s a different matter. And it’s the court which convicts you, not the police.]
3: Even if you were innocent, and you only tell the truth, and you don’t tell any little white lies, and you don’t give the police any information that can be used against you to prove motive or opportunity, you still should not talk to the police because the possibility that the police might not recall your statement with 100% accuracy.
[Daphne – Might not recall your statement? These things are not recalled, they are recorded in writing and signed by all parties present, and the person giving the statement is given a copy.]
4: Even if you’re innocent, and you only tell the truth, and your entire statement is videotaped so that the police don’t have to rely on their memory, an innocent person can still make some innocent assumption about a fact or state some detail about the case they overheard on the way to the police station, and the police will assume that they only way the suspect could have known that fact or that detail was if he was, in fact, guilty.
[Daphne – See above. The police do not rely on memory. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about and the rest of your point 4 is rubbish.]
5: Even if you’re innocent, and you only tell the truth in your statement, and you give the police no information that can be used against you, and the whole statement is videotaped, a suspect’s answers can still be used against him if the police (through no fault of their own) have any evidence that any of the suspect’s statements are false (even if they are really true).
[Daphne – You are not making sense, I’m afraid.]
6: Even for a completely honest and innocent person, it is difficult to tell the same story twice in exactly the same way.
[Daphne – It isn’t difficult at all. And that is, in fact, one of the most important reasons why those under interrogation should give a clear and detailed statement to the police, because it is recorded in writing in the immediate aftermath. Then, when the time comes to speak in court, perhaps a long time afterwards, they can read their statement and jog their memory, if their memory is really that poor.]
Last comment from me on this, I have no intention on getting into a pointless discussion on the right to silence!
[Daphne – The right to silence is not in dispute. What we are talking about here is something different: that silence indicates something to hide. Obviously.]
I think Johann Camilleri is trying to repeat some points given in this talk. I do not know if the arguments are as valid in Malta as they are in the US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Daphne, like you, I long assumed that remaining silent means you have something to hide, but Mr Camilleri is absolutely right.
Watch this talk. A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. A police officer then takes over and backs up that point of view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
I’m re-watching that don’t-talk-to-the-police talk and here’s an alarming statistic from The Innocence Project about the kind of duress police interrogation can put you under:
“In around 25% of DNA exonoration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.”
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php
This is in fact how I saw it when I was called in for jury duty. Keeping silent, while not the deciding factor, was certainly a factor as far as I was concerned.
OK
Everyone has a right to remain silent. Silence does not indicate there’s something to hide, especially when what you say can be used against you.
Historically, Christ was innocent but remained silent in front of Pilate.
[Daphne – Oh come on. Christ? Pilate? That wasn’t due process under a developed legal system. And yes, when you refuse to answer questions under our system, it is obvious that you don’t want to because, precisely, you will incriminate yourself. And that is how it is read. Ignatius Farrugia, for example, cited his right to remain silent when charged in court with harassing me in the street and encouraging others to harass me. How do you think that was seen – oh, he didn’t do it because he didn’t say so? Rather the opposite.]
Logically, and even perhaps morally you are correct.
However in court, and most people interrogated end up in court anyway, no conclusion can be drawn form one’s refusal to testify.
Jurors are instructed not to do so by the judge, even though, human nature being what it is, they don’t always obey, a major flaw of the jury system. Just ask any criminal lawyer.
There ARE a couple of exceptions to the rule, in particular circumstances, but they don’t apply in Malta, not least because you cannot yet have your lawyer with you during interrogation!
@KS as I said, I copied the points from a website.
One thing has to be put straight here. I perceive the notion that evidence is for you or against you.
Witnesses and evidence are and must never be neither for nor against you.
Witnesses and evidence are meant to testify to the facts and the truth of the facts.
In turn the facts and the truth will lead to the revelation of guilt or no guilt. The proper procedure is governed by the law of evidence and the volumes written on the subject matter.
One fleeting example from experience. The scenario a hot football match in a final of sorts.
Policeman on duty tells a person to watch his blasphemous language, but he is ignored. The policeman has no other option but to book the person.
The man was in the crowd and among a throng of friends.
In court the case is being heard. The policeman testifies to the facts. The defendant having pleaded not guilty takes the stand to confirm his innocence.
One by one the friends come in to testify on oath that their friend did not blaspheme. As one of them is kissing the cross on oath, his lips get pricked and the first thing uttered was a Haqq…… in court in full session. The magistrate took note. In comes another and as he is leaving the witness stand misses the step and slips and an prompt Haqq…… follows.
These were the witnesses “for” the accused. Soon their credibility was at stake. Before knowing it they were in what is known as the camaraderie of friends or people gathered for a common cause.
The evidence to be expected of these people is to try to get their friend Scot free. So almost invariably they will all testify that no their friend did not commit the felony.
Just a fleeting glimpse at evidence and witnesses for it will take volumes to go into detail.
WHAT I would like however to put in the proper perspective that no witnesses testifies for or against the accused and no evidence is brought forth for or against the accused.
Witnesses and evidence are meant to prove the facts beyond reasonable doubt and their testimony and evidence is for the truth of the facts as they occurred.
THIS IS OF CARDINAL IMPORTANCE in all criminal cases.
Bear in mind that judges, magistrates, public prosecutors and police officers are usually instructed in the field of evidence (which includes witnesses) and what might be lay talk far and wide at law it would take a more specific meaning.
Keep in mind that a felon is a person who has feelings, has opinions, has a psyche and therefore his behaviour can shed light on many things and this is also considered as part of the proceedings.
Mhux giddieb biss imma nqabad bi kliemu stess. Kif staqsejt int, min qallu li qatilha hu? Għallanqas sa dak il-ħin qabel ma akkużawh bil-qtil tagħha.
Biddel il-verżjoni li mhux suwiċidju kien? Verament jaf jirreċta.
After yesterday’s picture in Times of Malta I finally remembered where I knew this man – he ruined our New Years Eve at a promnent restaurant in Mdina. My impression then was what a first-class arsehole he is and I now reconfirm that impression.
What did he do ?
Most probably he brought them up the bill.
He must have loved this review:
“The slapstick failed with the constables played by Erin Stewart Palmier and Joe Depasquale in a crude take of silent movie comedy duos – a mix of Keystone cops and Laurel and Hardy. The visual mismatch worked well, but the effect was mitigated by a feeling of them trying too hard to be funny, and frankly I found the exaggerated Maltese accent facetious and too obvious, though the audience loved their scenes.”
http://bingfield.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/for-i-will-be-horribly-in-love-much-ado-about-nothing-at-san-anton-gardens/
He was impossible to take and Abela Garret made it a point to over-act in the most grotesque of manners.
I downed the Campari waiting for me at the bar and left.
Time to sift the wheat from the chavs. It’s not their place.
As Baxxter said, socio-cultural boundaries exist; it’s what makes life interesting. Venice managed to keep those in place and still propound contamination with the use of masks.
No, it won’t change. Or better, I’m not to condescend some plebeian wishful thinking which refuses the instruments to subscribe to my end.
Kevin Ellul Bonici won’t be happy seeing me do theatre reviews, but I cannot bear to see “lounge suits” or gentlemen’s attire treated badly.
In a swelteringly hot climate (The North-West Frontier, Malta, Messina), a chap is permitted to roll up his shirt sleeves. But the elbow must on no account be exposed, save in one single instance: when firing a mortar in defence of the Empire. I see no artillery on stage in that photo, so will the actor please tug his left sleeve down an inch or two?
The belt loops on trousers held with braces are pushing it, but we shall desist. Ditto for the chest pocket on the shirt.
As for the rest, jolly good show.
”The rescue footage shows Tanti wearing a pair of boxer shorts, and a T-shirt. His jeans and shoes were found under a rock in the area.”
Save for the scenario explained by staging the whole scene, how can the jeans and shoes under a rock be explained?
”Zahra was said to have jumped off the cliffs at 4am.”
”Arnaud said that Tanti had removed his jacket because of the heat of the sun as it was coming up.”
The sun came up at 7.05 that day, a whole three hours before Zahra is said to have jumped AND the temperature that night was between 10 and 14 deg. So how can some reports state that the jacket was found near Zahra?
Quotes taken from:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/court_and_police/37704/compilation_of_evidence_in_zahra_death_starts_today#.U0WnCfmSx8E
Lies can never fit in all the nooks and crannies of events, let us hope that investigators leave no stone unturned.
The more I think about this case, the stronger is my feeling that suicide was never really on Zahra’s mind. It was probably devised by Mr. Tanti as part of his alibi, as a cover of sorts for what really went on.
It is probable that he believed that forensic examination would yield the residue of pills and alcohol in Zahra’s system, thus pointing towards a suicidal leap off the cliffs with the case being closed soon after. Perhaps he hoped to be overseas shortly after that, strengthening a potential alibi where he was out of the country when Zahra ‘jumped’.
Yet, the best laid plans of mice and men do go astray and something did not go according to Tanti’s plans.
This must be connected to the evidence – Tanti’s jacket being found next to her body with his passport and car keys is a compelling enough as a reason for him to descend the cliff, injuring himself in the process, and preventing his ascent.
Hoist by his own petard, again. The inconsistencies in Erin Tanti’s declarations are unbelievable. And now, it has been confirmed in court that he landed where he was found.
“1.08 The sergeant clarifies that they jumped at 3am, not 4am.
1.07 He said that, on realizing he did not die, he tried to find another way to kill himself by jumping further down, but did not manage. When he saw people on the cliffs, he asked for help and said he needed an ambulance.
1.05 Erin Tanti told the police was about 4am when he jumped – he looked at the watch before jumping. Mr Tanti knew the details and the times and was not crying, the sergeant said. He was calm.
1.04 Then, Erin told him, he saw Lisa jump. He then closed his eyes and jumped after her. When he realised he was still alive he tried to get up but was in pain and could not walk. He tried to look for Lisa but could not see her.”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140410/local/erin-tanti-changed-his-name-to-cliff-dingli-during-drama-lesson.514395
Not only are we to believe he’s a walking miracle, but he’d probably next have his ‘audience’ believe that he is the second coming of Christ. Ziblu.
“12:52pm The Police are now recounting the moment they came across Tanti at the foot of Dingli cliffs. Sergeant Konrad Debattista said that Tanti was a “considerable distance” away from the cliff’s edge from where he was viewing him.
The Sergeant said that Tanti did not appear to be in pain, but given the distance he could not see very well.”
“1:03pm During a conversation with the same Sergeant in the ambulance, Tanti explained how they had made their way to Dingli cliffs with his car. Tanti told the PC that they both consumer 42 aspirin pills each.
Tanti told the Sergeant that they swallowed the pills because they were fed-up with life. He told the PC that “Lisa was determined to jump, but I was not so sure.”
He then explained that once he saw Zahra jump, he closed his eyes and jumped as well.
Tanti said that on surviving the fall, he tried to get up but was in too much pain.
The Sergeant noted that Tanti was very “tranquil” when recounting the story. “
People even if innocent will not always speak. At times they will even act like they are guilty – by the book. It takes a seasoned expert and a psychiatrist to tell and even they are sometimes wrong.
I have years of both psychological and teaching preparations. I am also trauma survivor and extensive knowledge and first hand experiences how people with mental illnesses can act in distress.
Erin Tanti is most likely suffering from some sort of personality disorder and that will be rather major episode – the question here is if somebody is mentally ill and their empathy levels are affected in a way or another – is lack of feeling sorry any proof of being guilty?
I mean does the person kill or is it the illness responsible for what he has done – if that makes any sense, it’s late at night and I may not sound grammatically correct.
Another thing – not from my side but from other people who like me suffer from certain conditions. Don’t you think you are pushing the case a bit too much? We have already a lot of prejudice to deal with. I have spoken with several people and we all agree that Erin is undiagnosed.
He should have received help many years ago. It may sound a bit arrogant – but we kind of recognize one of “us”.
Erin may turn out to be a real monster – but nobody is born a monster. It’s either illness or a mechanical brain injury that makes one a monster in terms of those who do not suffer from medical conditions.
My condition is PTSD – there are days I don’t feel anything and can’t even show one emotion – empty shell.
Had I been on trial I’d be guilty hands down. On a normal day I am rather emotional person. On a bad day I remind you of a terminator.
Compared to me Erin Tanti is very emotional. Also don’t forget that he has seen a person die – he will be traumatized by this either way he wanted to kill her or not. Seeing death is automatic trauma – there is no way you can stop it.
How long it will take to sink in and surface – nobody knows. It may take years. So his reaction now – numbing – may be both illness or automatic reaction to what have happened before his eyes.
I am in no way playing devil`s advocate but I had to raise the points. The illness and the person are sometimes two completely different “beings”.
People often don’t realize that. They will read that Erin is a monster and a killer and every person with any mental condition will be on target.
God forbid somebody at work will find out about my PTSD – I’d be bullied to oblivion.
If I can appeal for something – for a less harsh language until the psychiatrists will be able to diagnose.
There is provision in the law for the points you raise.
The case here involves the death of a young girl whose teacher – as he admitted himself – did not guide her and direct her to a source of help. Instead, he crossed a professional boundary and made the relationship personal.
I appreciate your empathising with someone on the grounds that you have suffered yourself, but I don’t for a moment believe that you mean to defend his actions.
Think about how it must have felt for a teenager to have spent the last few seconds of her life knowing feeling that the only person she trusted in that moment had abandoned her. Think about what it means to help a child kill herself. This much Tanti has admitted already.
He has said she wanted to kill herself and that he helped her do it. The amazing thing is he appears to believe that it somehow exculpates him, when that is one of several crimes of which he is accused.
Yes, a mentally ill or psychologically vulnerable person needs help, not condemnation. And towards help is whereTanti should have led Zahra, both as a responsible adult and as her teacher. The fact that he did the opposite is the reason he is where he is today.
Man falls down the stairs and is in danger of dying; Erin Stewart Tanti Palmier jumps off a 40-metre cliff and survives with proportionately-minor injuries. Yeah, right.
http://www.newsbook.com.mt/artikli/2014/4/11/fil-periklu-tal-mewt-wara-li-waqa'-t-tarag.16831
Although the facts do point towards his guilt I am not completely convinced as of yet. Also I don’t know if I would take silence as a sign of guilt. On the off chance that he is innocent, I can imagine how shaken up one would be in his situation and how utterly disgusted he would be at the thought of being accused himself of killing someone he supposedly loved. I don’t know if he’s innocent or not, but I wouldn’t take reluctance to cooperate with police as an admission. Maybe he just doesn’t like them?
[Daphne – What a curious definition of love you have. And love between a 15-year-old and a 23-year-old? That’s not love, but something else.]
I think in prison he is going to change his name again, from Cliff Dingli to Kay Y. Jelly.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130603/thezone-careers/a-man-walks-into-a-bar.472312
see video at 2:56mins he is clearly wearing a watch.
In court today ”The defence recalls how the sergeant yesterday claimed that Tanti’s watch had not been damaged in the fall, but points out that “the accused never in his life carried a watch.”