ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 1st January 2018, 07:29 PM   #881
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
Excellent theory, LJ.

" So when they seized Sollecito's kitchen knife, then instructed Stefanoni to find incriminating evidence on it, and then Stefanoni (owing to contamination and/or malpractice at some point in the chain of evidence and her own improper lab methods/protocols) "found" Kercher's DNA on the knife,"

It's always amazed me that Vixen, Quennell, and other PGP claim over and over again that world respected experts like Gill, Hampikian, and Douglas, who had no personal or professional stake in the case, were "bent" and "shills" for Knox. On the other hand, those (of much less renown) like Stefanoni (who worked for the cops) and the cops who fried the 3 computers were totally above board, competent, and unerringly honorable.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2018, 07:37 PM   #882
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
To add to the point that the police had orchestrated the timing of the Nov 5/6 interrogation and the media, this from Burleigh's book:

Quote:
The police and Mignini always maintained that the questioning on the night of November 5 didn’t require either videotaping or the presence of lawyers because the students were still only “persons informed about the facts,” not suspects. But the police and their contacts knew better. Erika Pontini, who covered the case in Perugia for La Nazione of Florence and who was close to Officer Napoleoni, recalled, “On the night of the fifth, we knew, journalists knew, something was going to happen. They thought Sollecito was the fragile link in the chain.”
Burleigh, Nina. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 190).
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2018, 07:43 PM   #883
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
....

2) Mignini (and a small subsection of the police in this case) had previously found themselves in the national (and lower-key international) spotlight in respect of the Monster of Florence case - and Mignini in particular had suffered professional (and some personal) humiliation over his handling of that case; IMO this made Mignini determined to show everyone that his handling of the Kercher case.

....
4) I think Mignini and Giobbi in particular thought of themselves as highly intuitive sleuths, who could figure out crimes by connecting abstract pieces of "evidence" and the behaviours of potential suspects; IMO this was a crucially important factor in the way that they decided so early on (in the total absence of any proper evidence, of course) that Knox in particular was heavily involved in the murder.

5) I believe that Mignini and the police had a well-practised system for "solving" crimes, which they employed in the Kercher case: they intuitively figured out who the culprits were, they brought the culprits in - without formally declaring them a suspect - and extracted a confession from them*, they then tried to get a trial-admissible confession by engineering a "spontaneous declaration" to the PM, and they then went searching for physical evidence to bolster their case; I'm sure that they'd secured many legitimate convictions using this method, and in Italy's unfit-for-purpose justice system where courts still acted in a quasi-inquisitorial manner where prosecutors were impartial "truth seekers" and it was effectively the defence's job to disprove the prosecution case, this would have been a highly effective method.


So what do I think most probably happened in this case? Well, I genuinely believe that Mignini and Giobbi sincerely thought they'd correctly identified Knox as a prime culprit in the Kercher murder. ....

So Mignini and the police thought this one was totally in the bag, that corroborating evidence would clearly be forthcoming, that the convictions in court would be a slam-dunk, and that their (Mignini and the senior police) reputations would be gilded and elevated by their brilliance in the way they'd solved this case.

Until

Two things happened: it turned out that Lumumba had a very strong alibi (despite the police's active attempts to frustrate the alibi - and indeed to find a "witness" to state that Lumumba had left his bar at around the time of the murder (when in fact he'd stayed in his bar all that evening), and one of Guede's friends came to them to tell them that Guede had effectively made a form of confession to being at the murder scene (and that Guede had mysteriously fled to Germany).

Now, by this time, I believe that Mignini and the police had huge amounts of professional and personal pride invested in their version of events. To have radically changed their position at that point would IMO have seemed like professional suicide to them. And (improper) physical evidence was starting to come in which apparently cemented the Knox/Sollecito link. What to do? Well, the answer was obvious: the PM and police could effectively maintain their version of events (and thus safeguard their reputations of super-sleuthing in this case) by simply swapping out Lumumba and swapping in Guede - and (darkly brilliantly) blaming the "evil and manipulative" Knox for the initial focus on Lumumba.

All of this only scratches the surface IMO, and it's before we even address the improper and unlawful ways in which the convicting lower courts heard and assessed the evidence and reached their verdicts (mistakes which, fortunately for justice, the Supreme Court was ultimately able to identify and correct). But I've already written a gargantuan post and it's getting late!


* And remember (as I've linked to several times in these threads) the European Criminal Bar Association long ago identified this institutionalised malpractice in Italy of the police/PM deliberately failing to declare as a suspect people whom they actually did view as a suspect, meaning that they could question those people without any access to a lawyer or understanding of their rights, in order to obtain confessions.
LondonJohn, I mostly agree with your post. Here are some comments:

1. Mignini, in his cases relating to the Monster of Florence, showed a propensity to charge innocent persons with crimes and to concoct wildly improbable or impossible - and complicated - theories of crimes, while ignoring simple and obvious explanations. He did the same in the Kercher / Knox - Sollecito - Lumumba case.

While some of these absurdities of illogic and unfairness may be Mignini conforming to alleged Italian cultural practice, Mignini's tendency for convolutions of logic and pathological legal misconduct remains noteworthy.

2. I hesitate to examine the mind of Mignini. He may have thought all the innocent people he accused of crimes to be guilty, simply because otherwise, why would he be arresting or accusing them? But I suggest he did not accept the ECHR's mandatory concept of "reasonable suspicion" - which is defined as a recognizable objective preliminary indication of guilt - as a requirement to arrest someone.

3. The police and Mignini would and should have known as of about Nov. 8, 2007, that Lumumba had not raped Kercher. The rape kit DNA would have been profiled by then and compared to Lumumba's DNA profile and there would have been no match. Nor did the rape kit DNA match Knox or Sollecito. What action, if any, did the police and Mignini take upon learning of this giant discrepancy between the evidence, Knox's coerced statement about Lumumba, and the police and prosecution theory of the crime? Did they initiate charges against Knox for calunnia against Lumumba then, or otherwise correct the course of the investigation base on the rape kit DNA profile? Or did they wait until Guede's friend implicated Guede? Or was there some other police/prosecution action? When were the charges of calunnia against Lumumba first issued against Knox?

4. I agree that professional pride and a desire not to admit mistakes played a role in the police and prosecution continuing their prosecution against Knox and Sollecito. But also, one should not forget that admitting their "mistakes" would imply that Knox would by free and would possibly be able, with the help of an independent prosecutor, to credibly lodge serious criminal charges against the police and possible Mignini. See the discussion of calunnia against the police and the Boninsegna motivation report for the possible criminal charges, according to Mignini and other Italian prosecutors.

Last edited by Numbers; 1st January 2018 at 07:49 PM. Reason: Added point 4.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2018, 07:49 PM   #884
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I believe that the processes and psychology driving the actions of Mignini and the State Police during November/December 2007 can all be reasonably explained with reference to the following propositions, with my suggested inferences alongside each one:

1) Mignini and the police were in the truly international spotlight from November 2nd onwards, with the whole of Perugia in uproar, the prospect of hoards of students deserting the city in panic, and the world's media rolling into town; IMO this made Mignini and the police extremely eager to be seen to be competent "super sleuths", solving the crime in quick time and basking in the glory of their achievements in doing so.

2) Mignini (and a small subsection of the police in this case) had previously found themselves in the national (and lower-key international) spotlight in respect of the Monster of Florence case - and Mignini in particular had suffered professional (and some personal) humiliation over his handling of that case; IMO this made Mignini determined to show everyone that his handling of the Kercher case.

3) The Perugia prosecutors and police had dismally failed to solve what had, in fact, almost certainly been a straightforward murder case almost exactly a year previously, when an Italian female student had been killed: the PM and police abjectly failed to investigate the woman's boyfriend properly or collect evidence in a timely/professional fashion, when he almost certainly was the culprit; IMO this also fed into the desire/need to solve the Kercher murder quickly, professionally and brilliantly.

4) I think Mignini and Giobbi in particular thought of themselves as highly intuitive sleuths, who could figure out crimes by connecting abstract pieces of "evidence" and the behaviours of potential suspects; IMO this was a crucially important factor in the way that they decided so early on (in the total absence of any proper evidence, of course) that Knox in particular was heavily involved in the murder.

5) I believe that Mignini and the police had a well-practised system for "solving" crimes, which they employed in the Kercher case: they intuitively figured out who the culprits were, they brought the culprits in - without formally declaring them a suspect - and extracted a confession from them*, they then tried to get a trial-admissible confession by engineering a "spontaneous declaration" to the PM, and they then went searching for physical evidence to bolster their case; I'm sure that they'd secured many legitimate convictions using this method, and in Italy's unfit-for-purpose justice system where courts still acted in a quasi-inquisitorial manner where prosecutors were impartial "truth seekers" and it was effectively the defence's job to disprove the prosecution case, this would have been a highly effective method.
This, particularly this.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
* And remember (as I've linked to several times in these threads) the European Criminal Bar Association long ago identified this institutionalised malpractice in Italy of the police/PM deliberately failing to declare as a suspect people whom they actually did view as a suspect, meaning that they could question those people without any access to a lawyer or understanding of their rights, in order to obtain confessions.
Don't forget Mignini's practise of upgrading the suspect's detention to include precautions against their even seeing a lawyer until minutes before their first appearance in front of a judge. Douglas Preston wrote about that in his The Atlantic article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...orence/304981/ (Scroll down to where Preston, in 2006!!! - - in 2006! - described how he'd been treated by Mignini at interrogation.)

But in discussing Mignini's vendetta against Mario Spezi:
Originally Posted by Preston in 2006
The day of (Spezi's) arrest, Mignini asked for and received a special dispensation to invoke a law that is normally used only for terrorists or Mafia dons who pose an imminent threat to the state. For a period of five days Spezi was denied access to his lawyers, kept in a tiny isolation cell under conditions of extreme deprivation, and grilled mercilessly. It was noted in the press that Spezi’s treatment was harsher than that of Bernardo Provenzano, the Mafia “boss of bosses” captured in Sicily a few days later.

Spezi spent three weeks in Capanne, one of Italy’s grimmest prisons. On April 29, a three-judge panel in Perugia surprised everyone by annulling his imprisonment and setting him free. It was a decisive slap in the face for Mignini and Giuttari. A week later, Florence hosted a demonstration for freedom of the press, and Spezi was the guest of honor. That same day our book hit the best-seller lists across Italy.
Mignini, it seems, had "go to" strategies.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 1st January 2018 at 07:51 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 08:27 AM   #885
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This, particularly this.



Don't forget Mignini's practise of upgrading the suspect's detention to include precautions against their even seeing a lawyer until minutes before their first appearance in front of a judge. Douglas Preston wrote about that in his The Atlantic article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...orence/304981/ (Scroll down to where Preston, in 2006!!! - - in 2006! - described how he'd been treated by Mignini at interrogation.)

But in discussing Mignini's vendetta against Mario Spezi:
Mignini, it seems, had "go to" strategies.
Bill, thanks for this post.

Now, some posters here have suggested that Mignini thought Amanda Knox was guilty.

Do these posters also suggest that Mignini thought Mario Spezi was guilty?

Can one reliably judge the state of mind of a prosecutor? For example, in the Kirstin Lobato case, we see this about a prosecutor's court actions:

"The state’s theory of the crime fell apart this past October, when Potkin and a team from the Innocence Project presented nearly a week’s worth of testimony from several renowned entomologists and a medical examiner, each of whom demonstrated why the state’s narrative never made any scientific sense. In short, had Bailey been slaughtered in the pre-dawn hours and his body left outside all day in the summer heat, as the state claimed, blowflies — nature’s swift and ubiquitous first responders to scenes of death — would have quickly colonized his remains, leaving visible clusters of eggs in his various wounds.

Still, the prosecution would not be bowed: At the October hearing, prosecutor Sandra DiGiacomo tried to peddle the notion that flies in Las Vegas behave unlike flies everywhere else in the world. ...."

Are we to judge that in prosecutor DiGiacomo's mind, she really believed that flies in Las Vegas actually behaved differently than flies elsewhere on earth (in similar climate zones)?

Did prosecutor DiGiacomo present any evidence on this assertion, or was it simply a pro forma assertion to save face or to hopefully score a "win" for the prosecution, regardless of the guilt or innocence of Lobato?

I suggest that we have no real knowledge of what Mignini or the other Italian prosecutors in the Knox - Sollectio case thought and that it is, instead, more relevant and indeed critical to focus on their actions, and whether or not the prosecutors and police followed Italian law, the Italian Constitution, and ECHR case-law.

Source of the quoted excerpt: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/29/...ul-conviction/

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd January 2018 at 08:28 AM. Reason: Added source.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 09:13 AM   #886
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Bill, thanks for this post.

Now, some posters here have suggested that Mignini thought Amanda Knox was guilty.

Do these posters also suggest that Mignini thought Mario Spezi was guilty?

Can one reliably judge the state of mind of a prosecutor? For example, in the Kirstin Lobato case, we see this about a prosecutor's court actions:

"The state’s theory of the crime fell apart this past October, when Potkin and a team from the Innocence Project presented nearly a week’s worth of testimony from several renowned entomologists and a medical examiner, each of whom demonstrated why the state’s narrative never made any scientific sense. In short, had Bailey been slaughtered in the pre-dawn hours and his body left outside all day in the summer heat, as the state claimed, blowflies — nature’s swift and ubiquitous first responders to scenes of death — would have quickly colonized his remains, leaving visible clusters of eggs in his various wounds.

Still, the prosecution would not be bowed: At the October hearing, prosecutor Sandra DiGiacomo tried to peddle the notion that flies in Las Vegas behave unlike flies everywhere else in the world. ...."

Are we to judge that in prosecutor DiGiacomo's mind, she really believed that flies in Las Vegas actually behaved differently than flies elsewhere on earth (in similar climate zones)?

Did prosecutor DiGiacomo present any evidence on this assertion, or was it simply a pro forma assertion to save face or to hopefully score a "win" for the prosecution, regardless of the guilt or innocence of Lobato?

I suggest that we have no real knowledge of what Mignini or the other Italian prosecutors in the Knox - Sollectio case thought and that it is, instead, more relevant and indeed critical to focus on their actions, and whether or not the prosecutors and police followed Italian law, the Italian Constitution, and ECHR case-law.

Source of the quoted excerpt: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/29/...ul-conviction/
I emphasize this point because it relates to the possible future judgments of the ECHR on the Knox case and the potential Sollecito case.

The ECHR, not surprisingly, in its judgments pays great attention to the actions of state agents and does not speculate excessively about their motivations or state of mind.

For example, the ECHR pays considerable attention to determining whether or not state agents who arrest and detain someone may have acted in "bad faith". However, the ECHR does not attempt to analyze the state of mind of the agents, but relies solely on the observable actions of the agents.

If someone has been arrested and/or detained under "bad faith" or other arbitrary condition, the ECHR holds that such arrest and/or detention is a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, and, therefore, the affected individual must be appropriately compensated for the violation of rights.

Here's the wording the ECHR generally uses to discuss bad faith and arbitrariness in arrest and/or detention, excerpted from Saadi v. the United Kingdom 13229/03 29 Jan 2008 (internal citations omitted for clarity):

"67. It is well established in the Court’s case-law under the sub-paragraphs of Article 5 § 1 that any deprivation of liberty must, in addition to falling within one of the exceptions set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f), be “lawful”. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness.... It is a fundamental principle that no detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1 and the notion of “arbitrariness” in Article 5 § 1 extends beyond lack of conformity with national law, so that a deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law but still arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention.

68. While the Court has not previously formulated a global definition as to what types of conduct on the part of the authorities might constitute “arbitrariness” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, key principles have been developed on a case-by-case basis. It is moreover clear from the case-law that the notion of arbitrariness in the context of Article 5 varies to a certain extent depending on the type of detention involved (see further below).

69. One general principle established in the case-law is that detention will be “arbitrary” where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities .... The condition that there be no arbitrariness further demands that both the order to detain and the execution of the detention must genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 .... There must in addition be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention ....

70. The notion of arbitrariness in the contexts of sub-paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) also includes an assessment whether detention was necessary to achieve the stated aim. The detention of an individual is such a serious measure that it is justified only as a last resort where other, less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or public interest which might require that the person concerned be detained .... The principle of proportionality further dictates that where detention is to secure the fulfilment of an obligation provided by law, a balance must be struck between the importance in a democratic society of securing the immediate fulfilment of the obligation in question, and the importance of the right to liberty.... The duration of the detention is a relevant factor in striking such a balance....

71. The Court applies a different approach towards the principle that there should be no arbitrariness in cases of detention under Article 5 § 1 (a), where, in the absence of bad faith or one of the other grounds set out in paragraph 69 above, as long as the detention follows and has a sufficient causal connection with a lawful conviction, the decision to impose a sentence of detention and the length of that sentence are matters for the national authorities rather than for the Court under Article 5 § 1 ...."
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 09:34 AM   #887
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Bill, thanks for this post.

Now, some posters here have suggested that Mignini thought Amanda Knox was guilty.

Do these posters also suggest that Mignini thought Mario Spezi was guilty?
Did Giuliano Mignini think that Douglas Preston was guilty?

Judging from Mignini's words during Preston's interrogation: yes. Judging by Mignini's actions: no. Preston was let go.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 11:40 AM   #888
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Bill, thanks for this post.

Now, some posters here have suggested that Mignini thought Amanda Knox was guilty.

Do these posters also suggest that Mignini thought Mario Spezi was guilty?
Believing Knox was guilty does not preclude Mignini thinking Spezi was not guilty. However, the whole Spezi/Preston incident was just plain nuts and, to me, indicates Mignini was quite willing to abuse his powers for his own advantage.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 01:18 PM   #889
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Believing Knox was guilty does not preclude Mignini thinking Spezi was not guilty. However, the whole Spezi/Preston incident was just plain nuts and, to me, indicates Mignini was quite willing to abuse his powers for his own advantage.
Yes.
But "for his own advantage as a prosecutor."

And a pattern of abuse of authority by a state agent implies that that new activity of that agent may be considered untrustworthy.

So, one should examine the Knox - Sollecito case from its beginning to see where and when Mignini (and the police and other prosecutors and also judges) abused power - denied defense rights and violated laws - to achieve a seeming professional goal.

For example, according to ECHR case-law, an arrest hearing must be an adversarial hearing. This means, among other things, that the defense lawyer must be given adequate time to meet with the accused prior to the hearing to review the case and organize the defense. When the accused is denied the right to meet the defense lawyer until immediately before the arrest hearing, the amount of time to organize a defense is necessarily inadequate, and there has been a violation of Convention Article 6.3b (the defense must be provided with adequate time and facilities).

The aggregate of such items of abuse of power then indicates bad faith by the authorities, which renders the arrest and detention a violation of Convention Article 5.1c (arrests and detentions must be in accordance with law). This then necessarily implies a violation of Convention Article 5.5 (violation of any provision of Article 5.1 - 5.4 requires adequate compensation) if someone, such as Sollecito - or, anticipating possible future events, Knox, is denied compensation for wrongful detention.

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd January 2018 at 01:19 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 02:02 PM   #890
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
And now for the laugh of the day from TJMK:

Quote:
Why did the Mainstream Media Enable a Takeover by the Conspiracy Nuts?

posted by The Machine
This is the same group that claims the Masons, the Mafia, the US State Dept., "bent" judges, and world respected experts "shills" are responsible for the Knox and Sollecito acquittals. Does it get any more ironic?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 02:14 PM   #891
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,020
It's so easy to get away with murder all you have to do is take over a nation's entire media, get a criminal stranger to come to your crime scene and roll around in it leaving all the evidence and then refuse to testify against you for no reason, then hope your dorky boyfriend you knew for five days has secret high level mafia contacts that for unknown reasons follow his every whim as if hes the don himself and will use these contacts to subvert a nation's highest court and overturn a life sentence.

Hard to believe there's still anyone in prison for murder
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 02:55 PM   #892
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
It's so easy to get away with murder all you have to do is take over a nation's entire media, get a criminal stranger to come to your crime scene and roll around in it leaving all the evidence and then refuse to testify against you for no reason, then hope your dorky boyfriend you knew for five days has secret high level mafia contacts that for unknown reasons follow his every whim as if hes the don himself and will use these contacts to subvert a nation's highest court and overturn a life sentence.

Hard to believe there's still anyone in prison for murder
True. And don't forget the Masons' connection. I'm sure it's all explained over on TJMK.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 03:02 PM   #893
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
And now for the laugh of the day from TJMK:
Quote:
Why did the Mainstream Media Enable a Takeover by the Conspiracy Nuts?

posted by The Machine
This is the same group that claims the Masons, the Mafia, the US State Dept., "bent" judges, and world respected experts "shills" are responsible for the Knox and Sollecito acquittals. Does it get any more ironic?
How dim can these people be?

For the first while the media landscape was owned by luminaries like Nick Pisa, Barbie Nadeau, and Andrea Vogt. It was only when the American media sent Tim Egan, the NYTimes and Rolling stone that reporting not laced with Mignini's theories was done.

The "Conspiracy Nuts" "took over" because the obvious truth was on their side. Eventually, apparently, the truth wins out. Some people just need a scapegoat when that happens.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 05:03 PM   #894
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Bill, thanks for this post.

Now, some posters here have suggested that Mignini thought Amanda Knox was guilty.

Do these posters also suggest that Mignini thought Mario Spezi was guilty?

Can one reliably judge the state of mind of a prosecutor? For example, in the Kirstin Lobato case, we see this about a prosecutor's court actions:

"The state’s theory of the crime fell apart this past October, when Potkin and a team from the Innocence Project presented nearly a week’s worth of testimony from several renowned entomologists and a medical examiner, each of whom demonstrated why the state’s narrative never made any scientific sense. In short, had Bailey been slaughtered in the pre-dawn hours and his body left outside all day in the summer heat, as the state claimed, blowflies — nature’s swift and ubiquitous first responders to scenes of death — would have quickly colonized his remains, leaving visible clusters of eggs in his various wounds.

Still, the prosecution would not be bowed: At the October hearing, prosecutor Sandra DiGiacomo tried to peddle the notion that flies in Las Vegas behave unlike flies everywhere else in the world. ...."

Are we to judge that in prosecutor DiGiacomo's mind, she really believed that flies in Las Vegas actually behaved differently than flies elsewhere on earth (in similar climate zones)?

Did prosecutor DiGiacomo present any evidence on this assertion, or was it simply a pro forma assertion to save face or to hopefully score a "win" for the prosecution, regardless of the guilt or innocence of Lobato?

I suggest that we have no real knowledge of what Mignini or the other Italian prosecutors in the Knox - Sollectio case thought and that it is, instead, more relevant and indeed critical to focus on their actions, and whether or not the prosecutors and police followed Italian law, the Italian Constitution, and ECHR case-law.

Source of the quoted excerpt: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/29/...ul-conviction/
I believe in many of these cases you can boil it down to;

1 - Jump to a conclusion
2 - Realize the conclusion was wrong
3 - Defend the conclusion rather than admit it was wrong

I'm going to go out on a limb here and proclaim DiGiacomo KNOWS Lobato is innocent. Further, I'm pretty certain she knows blowflies are the same in Vegas as they are everywhere else in the world. Yet publicly she says the exact opposite. Defense of the failed system is more important to her than justice for Lobato as well as ensuring the real killer(s) are taken off the street and held accountable. Circumstances were different in the Knox/Sollecito case but the theme remains the same. CYA

I'm not suggesting I know what was going on in Mignini's head. When and how things came together for him only he can know, but I am fairly certain that at some point he began to question his own initial belief of their guilt and at that point, instead of adjusting his theory, he dug in and the case went sideways. The exact same thing can be said for the Kirstin Lobato case, or the WM3 case, or the Julie Rae Harper case, or the Marty Tankleff case, or the...

But with Spezi I think Mignini was trying to suppress criticism of his handling of the MoF case. Spezi and Preston were targeted. I don't think he ever thought he would prosecute them, just scare them enough to stop digging into the case.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 05:04 PM   #895
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
How dim can these people be?

For the first while the media landscape was owned by luminaries like Nick Pisa, Barbie Nadeau, and Andrea Vogt. It was only when the American media sent Tim Egan, the NYTimes and Rolling stone that reporting not laced with Mignini's theories was done.

The "Conspiracy Nuts" "took over" because the obvious truth was on their side. Eventually, apparently, the truth wins out. Some people just need a scapegoat when that happens.
As in the recent Lobato case being overturned with prejudice, the truth finally came out despite the best attempts of the prosecution and police.

Vegas blowflies are unlike blowflies anywhere else = TMB negative doesn't really indicate no blood is present.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 06:17 PM   #896
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Yes.
But "for his own advantage as a prosecutor."

And a pattern of abuse of authority by a state agent implies that that new activity of that agent may be considered untrustworthy.

So, one should examine the Knox - Sollecito case from its beginning to see where and when Mignini (and the police and other prosecutors and also judges) abused power - denied defense rights and violated laws - to achieve a seeming professional goal.

For example, according to ECHR case-law, an arrest hearing must be an adversarial hearing. This means, among other things, that the defense lawyer must be given adequate time to meet with the accused prior to the hearing to review the case and organize the defense. When the accused is denied the right to meet the defense lawyer until immediately before the arrest hearing, the amount of time to organize a defense is necessarily inadequate, and there has been a violation of Convention Article 6.3b (the defense must be provided with adequate time and facilities).

The aggregate of such items of abuse of power then indicates bad faith by the authorities, which renders the arrest and detention a violation of Convention Article 5.1c (arrests and detentions must be in accordance with law). This then necessarily implies a violation of Convention Article 5.5 (violation of any provision of Article 5.1 - 5.4 requires adequate compensation) if someone, such as Sollecito - or, anticipating possible future events, Knox, is denied compensation for wrongful detention.
To this it should be added that the procedure used to deny a lawyer to Sollecito was found to be in violation of Italian law by the Italian Superior Council of the Judiciary, and that Council - which is the disciplinary body for the Italian judiciary - censured Mignini for the violation.

Presumably, Knox was denied a lawyer under a similar procedural violation of Italian law.

In another aspect, the arrest warrant signed by Mignini significantly misquoted the text message on Knox's phone by leaving out the ending, "buona sera" (have a good evening).

Thus, along with the actions and inactions (such as not keeping proper notes or making a record of the the questions and answers) of the police and Mignini during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, shows that there was a pattern of unlawful actions by the authorities in the arrest and detention of Sollecito and Knox.

It is thus irrelevant, from the viewpoint of ECHR case-law, whether or not the police "sincerely" believed Knox and Sollecito to be guilty or merely pretended to believe them to be guilty. The judgment of the ECHR would be based upon the observable actions of the authorities; the ECHR would not be driven to speculate on the state of mind of those authorities.

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd January 2018 at 06:20 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 06:31 PM   #897
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I believe in many of these cases you can boil it down to;

1 - Jump to a conclusion
2 - Realize the conclusion was wrong
3 - Defend the conclusion rather than admit it was wrong

I'm going to go out on a limb here and proclaim DiGiacomo KNOWS Lobato is innocent. Further, I'm pretty certain she knows blowflies are the same in Vegas as they are everywhere else in the world. Yet publicly she says the exact opposite. Defense of the failed system is more important to her than justice for Lobato as well as ensuring the real killer(s) are taken off the street and held accountable. Circumstances were different in the Knox/Sollecito case but the theme remains the same. CYA

I'm not suggesting I know what was going on in Mignini's head. When and how things came together for him only he can know, but I am fairly certain that at some point he began to question his own initial belief of their guilt and at that point, instead of adjusting his theory, he dug in and the case went sideways. The exact same thing can be said for the Kirstin Lobato case, or the WM3 case, or the Julie Rae Harper case, or the Marty Tankleff case, or the...

But with Spezi I think Mignini was trying to suppress criticism of his handling of the MoF case. Spezi and Preston were targeted. I don't think he ever thought he would prosecute them, just scare them enough to stop digging into the case.
Mario Spezi was prosecuted, for impeding justice. "He was even jailed on charges of impeding the investigation by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, though the charges were overturned on appeal."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Spezi

Douglas Preston left Italy very soon after he was questioned by Mignini and thereby escaped prosecution.

According to Wikipedia: "Preston has criticized the conduct of Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in the trial of American student Amanda Knox, one of three convicted, and eventually cleared, of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007. In 2009, Preston argued on 48 Hours on CBS that the case against Knox was "based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories". In December 2009, after the verdict had been announced, he described his own interrogation by Mignini on Anderson Cooper 360° on CNN. Preston said of Mignini, "this is a very abusive prosecutor. He makes up theories. He's ... obsessed with satanic sex." {See references cited within the Wikipedia article.}

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dougla...orence%22_case
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2018, 09:06 PM   #898
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Mario Spezi was prosecuted, for impeding justice. "He was even jailed on charges of impeding the investigation by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, though the charges were overturned on appeal."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Spezi

Douglas Preston left Italy very soon after he was questioned by Mignini and thereby escaped prosecution.

According to Wikipedia: "Preston has criticized the conduct of Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in the trial of American student Amanda Knox, one of three convicted, and eventually cleared, of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007. In 2009, Preston argued on 48 Hours on CBS that the case against Knox was "based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories". In December 2009, after the verdict had been announced, he described his own interrogation by Mignini on Anderson Cooper 360° on CNN. Preston said of Mignini, "this is a very abusive prosecutor. He makes up theories. He's ... obsessed with satanic sex." {See references cited within the Wikipedia article.}

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dougla...orence%22_case
"Between 1974 and 1985, seven couples—fourteen people in all—were murdered while making love in parked cars in the hills of Florence. The case was never solved, and it has become one of the longest and most expensive criminal investigations in Italian history. More than 100,000 men have been investigated and more than a dozen arrested, and scores of lives have been ruined by rumor and false accusations. There have been suicides, exhumations, poisonings, body parts sent by post, séances in graveyards, lawsuits, and prosecutorial vendettas. The investigation has been like a malignancy, spreading backward in time and outward in space, metastasizing to different cities and swelling into new investigations, with new judges, police, and prosecutors, more suspects, more arrests, and many more lives ruined.

It was an extraordinary story, and I {Douglas Preston} would—to my sorrow—come to share Spezi’s obsession with it. We became friends after that first meeting, and in the fall of 2000 we set off to find the truth. We believed we had identified the real killer. We interviewed him. But along the way we offended the wrong people, and our investigation took an unexpected turn. Spezi has just emerged from three weeks in prison, accused of complicity in the Monster of Florence killings. I have been accused of obstruction of justice, planting evidence, and being an accessory to murder. I can never return to Italy.

.... {A summary of the Monster of Florence case and Preston's involvement with Spezi in some investigative journalism on the case. The following excerpt is from near the end of the article and gives an account of his interrogation by Mignini.}

{Mignini says:} “You and Spezi either planted, or were planning to plant, false evidence at that villa in an attempt to frame an innocent man for being the Monster of Florence, to derail this investigation, and to deflect suspicion from Spezi. That is what you were doing. This comment—We did it all’—that is what he meant.” {The comment was from an intercepted phone conversation between Spezi and Preston.}

I {Preston} was floored. I stammered that this was just a theory, but Mignini interrupted me and said, “These are not theories. They are facts!” He insisted I knew perfectly well that Spezi was being investigated for the murder of Narducci, and that I knew more about the murder than I was letting on. “That makes you an accessory. Yes, Dottor Preston,” Mignini insisted, “I can hear it in your voice. I can hear the tone of knowledge, of deep familiarity with these events. Just listen.” His voice rose with restrained exaltation. Listen to yourself!”

And, for maybe the tenth time, he replayed the phone conversation. “Perhaps you have been duped, but I don’t think so. You know! And now, you have one last chance—one last chance—to tell us what you know, or I will charge you with perjury. I don’t care; I will do it, even if the news goes around the world tomorrow.”

I felt sick, and I had the sudden urge to relieve myself. I asked for the way to the bathroom. I returned a few minutes later, having failed to muster much composure. “I’ve told you the truth,” I managed to croak. “What more can I say?”

Mignini waved his hand and was handed a legal tome. He placed it on his desk with the utmost delicacy, opened it, and, in a voice worthy of a funeral oration, began to read the text of the law. I heard that I was now “indagato” (an official suspect under investigation) for the crime of reticence and making false statements. He announced that the investigation would be suspended to allow me to leave Italy, but that it would be reinstated when the investigation of Spezi was concluded.

The secretary printed out a transcript. The two-and-a-half-hour interrogation had been edited down to two pages, which I amended and signed.

“May I keep this?” I asked.

“No. It is under seal.”

Very stiffly, I picked up my International Herald Tribune, folded it under my arm, and turned to leave.

“If you ever decide to talk, Dottor Preston, we are here.”

On rubbery legs I descended to the street, into a wintry drizzle.

I left Italy the next day. ...."


Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...orence/304981/

Last edited by Numbers; 2nd January 2018 at 09:08 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 12:33 AM   #899
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
Scary. And I believe every word of it.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 07:46 AM   #900
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Mario Spezi was prosecuted, for impeding justice. "He was even jailed on charges of impeding the investigation by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, though the charges were overturned on appeal."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Spezi

Douglas Preston left Italy very soon after he was questioned by Mignini and thereby escaped prosecution.

According to Wikipedia: "Preston has criticized the conduct of Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in the trial of American student Amanda Knox, one of three convicted, and eventually cleared, of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007. In 2009, Preston argued on 48 Hours on CBS that the case against Knox was "based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories". In December 2009, after the verdict had been announced, he described his own interrogation by Mignini on Anderson Cooper 360° on CNN. Preston said of Mignini, "this is a very abusive prosecutor. He makes up theories. He's ... obsessed with satanic sex." {See references cited within the Wikipedia article.}

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dougla...orence%22_case
I know this. The only point I was trying to make was that in the case of Preston and Spezi, Mignini did not jump to a false conclusion and then try to defend it... he was using his position to go after them because they were doing harm to his reputation and credibility. So to ask if anyone thought Mignini "thought Mario Spezi was guilty" is irrelevant. However, I do think Mignini's actions against Preston and Spezi does prove he won't hesitate to make false claims and abuse his position to further his agenda. He is scary. Amanda and Raffaele never had a chance.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 08:27 AM   #901
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I know this. The only point I was trying to make was that in the case of Preston and Spezi, Mignini did not jump to a false conclusion and then try to defend it... he was using his position to go after them because they were doing harm to his reputation and credibility. So to ask if anyone thought Mignini "thought Mario Spezi was guilty" is irrelevant. However, I do think Mignini's actions against Preston and Spezi does prove he won't hesitate to make false claims and abuse his position to further his agenda. He is scary. Amanda and Raffaele never had a chance.
My point is that some posters are trying to parse the thoughts or motivations of abusive prosecutors such as Mignini, and opining Mignini thought X was guilty and therefore abusively prosecuted X, while then opining Mignini thought Y wasn't guilty, but as a warning, abusively prosecuted Y.

Did Mignini really believe that Knox was guilty of calunnia against the police, or was that an abusive prosecution as a warning to her and to any others who dared to complain about being mistreated by the police? What about his action (lawsuit or charges) against her parents for defamation, which did not extend to the journalist-author (Follian) or the newspaper publishing the alleged defamation?

Perhaps the attempts at analyzing someone's thoughts, which are of course objectively unknowable in detail, has some value. But I think the common feature of Mignini's prosecutions is that they were objectively abusive - that is, they included conduct contrary to Italian law and ECHR case-law, and that abusive misconduct is what deserves emphasis.

It seems clear to me that Mignini's actions - his criminal charging of those who were convenient suspects of actual or imagined crimes as well as his criminal charging or lawsuits against those whom he perceived as opposing him - included features of intimidation as well as allegations of guilt. I think only a psychiatric examination could begin to credibly explain what Mignini thought.

Last edited by Numbers; 3rd January 2018 at 08:31 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 08:51 AM   #902
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I know this. The only point I was trying to make was that in the case of Preston and Spezi, Mignini did not jump to a false conclusion and then try to defend it... he was using his position to go after them because they were doing harm to his reputation and credibility. So to ask if anyone thought Mignini "thought Mario Spezi was guilty" is irrelevant. However, I do think Mignini's actions against Preston and Spezi does prove he won't hesitate to make false claims and abuse his position to further his agenda. He is scary. Amanda and Raffaele never had a chance.
There are other cases of official misconduct, including those in the US, where one could debate what the police or prosecutor thought, based on claims by the interested person compared to what can be objectively determined.

Take the Laquan McDonald case from Chicago. (Summary source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...aquan_McDonald).

The officer, Jason Van Dyke, who shot and killed McDonald claimed that he acted in self-defense, because McDonald was advancing on him with an open-blade knife. Some of the other officers present supported Van Dyke's statement.

The video images obtained from police car cameras show that officer advancing upon McDonald, who was walking away from police, and repeatedly firing {excerpt from the Wikipedia article, internal cites deleted for clarity}:

"Video of the shooting shows that Van Dyke was advancing on McDonald, while McDonald was walking away from Van Dyke when the first shot was fired. The first shot hit McDonald, who spun and fell to the ground. As McDonald lay on the ground, still holding the knife, Van Dyke fired more shots into him. In total, Van Dyke shot McDonald 16 times in 14–15 seconds, expending the maximum capacity of his 9mm semi-automatic firearm. Van Dyke was on the scene for less than 30 seconds before opening fire and began shooting approximately six seconds after exiting his car. The first responding officer said that he did not see the need to use force, and none of the at least eight other officers on the scene fired their weapons."

Did Van Dyke believe that McDonald was advancing on him with a knife? I don't believe I could knowingly say he did not. Would an objective analysis of the scene, based on the video, lead one to believe that McDonald was advancing on Van Dyke? No (because, obviously, the motions of the persons are judged relative to the positions of the background objects fixed to the earth's surface).
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 12:01 PM   #903
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It seems clear to me that Mignini's actions - his criminal charging of those who were convenient suspects of actual or imagined crimes as well as his criminal charging or lawsuits against those whom he perceived as opposing him - included features of intimidation as well as allegations of guilt. I think only a psychiatric examination could begin to credibly explain what Mignini thought.
Is there anyone, other than Perugian law enforcement, and the few remaining English-language guilters left who defend Mignini?

The guilters strategy at one point was simply to periodically mention Mignini, but only as if he was not really an actor in either the Spezi or the Sollecito/Knox debacles. It was always "the lies Knox told", or the "times Sollecito changed his story," or "The Masonic influences on Hellmann's court," or, "The mafia influences on the 5th Cambers of Cassazione."

Very little, if any, analysis of Mignini's own role has even been done by the guilters. Indeed, Mignini (in his own voice) lays it all out in the NetFlix piece, and guilters charge that he'd been taken out of context.

Mignini, to them, is acted upon by evil people - never really an actor in his own right. All Mignini makes are legal decisions he's forced to make.

Well - I can think of two issues which destroy that view. One is as John Follain related in his book, "A Death in Italy." Mignini on one page views Knox as a hopeless liar, but then on the next page says Mignini is forced to arrest Lumumba on Knox's say-so, and her say-so only.

The other is the parasitical prosecution of Curt and Edda Knox, for being reported to have said that their daughter had been hit at interrogation. The key here is that neither the reporter in question (again, John Follain) nor even the publisher (The Sunday Times?) were included in the lawsuit against the parents. There is no other way to see that other than as "weaponizing" the Italian legal system for his own protection and to get at his enemies. Like using legislation reserved for mafioso to withhold lawyers from his suspects at interrogation.

The remaining English-language Mignini-surrogates are all that there is on that side of the fence these days. They keep promising reversals, all of which with the effect of vindicating the most embarrassed prosecutor in Italy in the last decade or two.

Let's see what the Migini-surrogates or Mignini himself does with George Clooney's upcoming film, about Douglas Preston's experiences with his "Monster of Florence" research. (!!!)

I see the very last scene before the closing credits of that film about Douglas Preston being:

Quote:
Mignini is being driven to a potential murder scene on the east side of Perugia, still smarting from his own legal troubles - being convicted in the 1st instance of Abuse of Office. He thinks to himself that all his troubles had started with the Narducci affair.

Getting out of the car at the cottage below Viale Sant'Antonio, Mignini walks up to the cottage, the parking area filled with what looks like a collection of students and police.

He recognises Inspector Napoleoni, and is told that she is the lead policeperson on this case. Mignini makes note that this, then, will be the first case in which she is in charge of any investigation - at the police level, in any event.

Asking if there is anyone familiar with the cottage as well as the victim, he is motioned to a young American and her Italian boyfriend. When he asks their names, she says in heavy accented Italian....

"Mi chiamo Amanda Knox."

<- fade to black. Roll credits ->
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 3rd January 2018 at 12:05 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 12:41 PM   #904
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Here's what prosecutor Wolfson has said in the Kirstin Lobato case:

"Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson spoke exclusively to the I-Team about the case on Tuesday (02 Jan 2018). It's the first time the DA has spoken publicly about Lobato.

Vanessa Murphy, Reporter: "Do you believe she's an innocent woman?"
Steve Wolfson, Clark County District Attorney: "No.
Vanessa Murphy: "Why not?"
Steve Wolfson: "Well because 24 jurors, two separate groups of 12 listened to the evidence and the facts and circumstances and found her guilty."

The Clark County judge who dismissed the case ruled Lobato didn't have a fair shot when she was on trial in 2001.

For nearly two decades, Lobato insisted she was innocent.
There wasn't any physical evidence linking her to the crime. Questions linger about the time of death since she was seen nearly 170 miles outside of Las Vegas before and after the crime, and she passed her polygraph tests. ..."

Does this prosecutor believe Lobato is guilty? How does it matter when the evidence shows she is not guilty, besides that Lobato was wrongfully convicted?

So if prosecutor Mignini believed Knox or Sollecito guilty, how does it matter when the evidence shows that they are not guilty, besides that they were wrongfully provisionally convicted, and indeed were finally definitively acquitted?
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 12:54 PM   #905
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's what prosecutor Wolfson has said in the Kirstin Lobato case:

"Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson spoke exclusively to the I-Team about the case on Tuesday (02 Jan 2018). It's the first time the DA has spoken publicly about Lobato.

Vanessa Murphy, Reporter: "Do you believe she's an innocent woman?"
Steve Wolfson, Clark County District Attorney: "No.
Vanessa Murphy: "Why not?"
Steve Wolfson: "Well because 24 jurors, two separate groups of 12 listened to the evidence and the facts and circumstances and found her guilty."
The legal equivalent of "5,000 years of religious tradition can't be wrong."

Quote:

The Clark County judge who dismissed the case ruled Lobato didn't have a fair shot when she was on trial in 2001.

For nearly two decades, Lobato insisted she was innocent.
There wasn't any physical evidence linking her to the crime. Questions linger about the time of death since she was seen nearly 170 miles outside of Las Vegas before and after the crime, and she passed her polygraph tests. ..."

Does this prosecutor believe Lobato is guilty? How does it matter when the evidence shows she is not guilty, besides that Lobato was wrongfully convicted?

So if prosecutor Mignini believed Knox or Sollecito guilty, how does it matter when the evidence shows that they are not guilty, besides that they were wrongfully provisionally convicted, and indeed were finally definitively acquitted?
It's an interesting question in psychology. What are the limits on what someone will genuinely believe in pursuit of their own self interest.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 01:03 PM   #906
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
What I mean by "convenient suspect" is a person who is readily at hand and who may be readily fit into the crime, possibly with the help of a bit of police trickery.

By the police assuming a staged break-in, based on their subjective analysis of the crime scene, and contrary to the actual evidence, they essentially committed themselves to consider one or more persons resident in the cottage as the murderer or as an accomplice of the murderer. Thus, this assumption of a staged break-in eliminated the need for the police to search for an presumably unknown person whose DNA, found within Kercher's body and on her clothes and purse, was by objective analysis the murderer/rapist.

Amanda Knox was the "odd" person in the cottage, with Meredith Kercher dead - neither Italian, neither with family in Italy, neither a native speaker of Italian. Knox may have seemed culturally different and highly naive, that is unaware of her rights, and unlike the Italian flat-mates, with no lawyer, and an alibi for the time of the murder dependent on the statements of only one other person, Sollecito, whose support of her alibi could be easily defeated by charging him as a participant in the crime. Therefore Knox was a "convenient suspect" to the police. The purpose of the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito was to get them to say anything that could be interpreted as seeming to justify an arrest. Recall that the police began by interrogating Sollecito and attempting to get him to abandon his alibi for Knox.
Speaking of "convenient suspects", I think that Guede turned out to be an "inconvenient suspect" also played a role here.

Even if one leaves out the things Burleigh, Dempsey and Bob Graham found out about the incident in Milan and Guede's alleged "problems" because those things sadly aren't backed up with other sources, one is still left with the fact that this "new suspect" in the murder of Meredith Kercher happened to be arrested in Milan just days before the murder, armed with a knife from the kitchen there and in the possession of stolen goods from at least one burglary in Perugia. I did some digging some time back about the penalties for burglary, trespassing and possible aggravating circumstances in the Italian CP and came up with up to 6+ years in prison that would have been in the cards for Guede. So that he was let go without even a preliminary hearing is, let's say, at least suspicious.

I'll leave it at this point, because without sources about how and why Guede was released in Milan it's just speculating and just too close to conspiracy theory, but I think that without the Milan incident there would have been a slight chance - despite the pompous "Caso Chiuso" press conference - that Mignini simply would have dropped the charges against Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba, simply blaming Knox for the mistake.

I'm beginning to think, that from the time Guede was identified, Knox and Sollecito became collateral damage in the quest to avoid inconvenient questions and also potential compensation claims from Meredith Kercher's family against the State of Italy and/or the persons who had been involved in Guede's release, enabling him to break into the cottage and in the end to murder Meredith Kercher...
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 05:10 PM   #907
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's what prosecutor Wolfson has said in the Kirstin Lobato case:

....
Source for the above excerpt:

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/i-te...ease/898135757
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 05:17 PM   #908
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Speaking of "convenient suspects", I think that Guede turned out to be an "inconvenient suspect" also played a role here.

Even if one leaves out the things Burleigh, Dempsey and Bob Graham found out about the incident in Milan and Guede's alleged "problems" because those things sadly aren't backed up with other sources, one is still left with the fact that this "new suspect" in the murder of Meredith Kercher happened to be arrested in Milan just days before the murder, armed with a knife from the kitchen there and in the possession of stolen goods from at least one burglary in Perugia. I did some digging some time back about the penalties for burglary, trespassing and possible aggravating circumstances in the Italian CP and came up with up to 6+ years in prison that would have been in the cards for Guede. So that he was let go without even a preliminary hearing is, let's say, at least suspicious.

I'll leave it at this point, because without sources about how and why Guede was released in Milan it's just speculating and just too close to conspiracy theory, but I think that without the Milan incident there would have been a slight chance - despite the pompous "Caso Chiuso" press conference - that Mignini simply would have dropped the charges against Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba, simply blaming Knox for the mistake.

I'm beginning to think, that from the time Guede was identified, Knox and Sollecito became collateral damage in the quest to avoid inconvenient questions and also potential compensation claims from Meredith Kercher's family against the State of Italy and/or the persons who had been involved in Guede's release, enabling him to break into the cottage and in the end to murder Meredith Kercher...
It seems likely that the Perugia police wanted to please someone from the wealthy and important Italian family that had taken in Guede and/or that Guede had some relationship to the police. Why else would the Perugia police have asked for Guede to be returned to Perugia with no charges raised due to the Milan incident?
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 05:55 PM   #909
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It seems likely that the Perugia police wanted to please someone from the wealthy and important Italian family that had taken in Guede and/or that Guede had some relationship to the police. Why else would the Perugia police have asked for Guede to be returned to Perugia with no charges raised due to the Milan incident?
As I remember, it is not known that the Perugia police did ask for Guede to be released with no charges. According to Burleigh's book, pg 129:

Quote:
The Milan prosecutor, after a call to the Perugia police, released Rudy that afternoon. The Milan police didn’t want to let him go, according to the officers involved, but they had no choice. Detention is up to the prosecutor on duty, and on that October Saturday morning, the prosecutor had many more serious cases to sort through than to keep this minor, nonviolent, potential burglar on their roster. Rudy was Perugia’s problem, not Milan’s. According to some accounts, the prosecutor actually called the Perugia police, who instructed him to send Rudy home.
Follain, in his book, briefly mentions the Milan incident but makes no mention of why Guede was released or who was behind it. In fact, he makes no mention of Guede being released at all. Nor does he mention the woman's gold watch found in Guede's rucksack that was never accounted for that could have linked him to his neighbor's burglary and fire.

I've often wondered why there was never any explanation from the police and/or prosecutor as to why Guede was let go, but something about it just doesn't pass the smell test.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 06:17 PM   #910
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
As I remember, it is not known that the Perugia police did ask for Guede to be released with no charges. According to Burleigh's book, pg 129:



Follain, in his book, briefly mentions the Milan incident but makes no mention of why Guede was released or who was behind it. In fact, he makes no mention of Guede being released at all. Nor does he mention the woman's gold watch found in Guede's rucksack that was never accounted for that could have linked him to his neighbor's burglary and fire.

I've often wondered why there was never any explanation from the police and/or prosecutor as to why Guede was let go, but something about it just doesn't pass the smell test.
It doesn't make sense that Guede was released without charges or a preliminary hearing. Under Italian law, a prosecutor MUST press charges if he is notified of a crime and a suspect is identified. Since Guede was apprehended on the premises of the nursery school, he certainly was identified as the suspect. There is no prosecutorial discretion in Italy.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 06:35 PM   #911
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It doesn't make sense that Guede was released without charges or a preliminary hearing. Under Italian law, a prosecutor MUST press charges if he is notified of a crime and a suspect is identified. Since Guede was apprehended on the premises of the nursery school, he certainly was identified as the suspect. There is no prosecutorial discretion in Italy.
Legally, the prosecutor may have to press charges, but what happens in reality? Legally, RS and AK were required to have lawyers present during their Nov 5/6 interrogations. As was Lumumba. None did.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 07:04 PM   #912
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Legally, the prosecutor may have to press charges, but what happens in reality? Legally, RS and AK were required to have lawyers present during their Nov 5/6 interrogations. As was Lumumba. None did.
In 2010, Giuliano Mignini answered a question about that asked by CNN's Drew Griffin. The full English translation of that interview can be found on TJMK.

When asked to explain why Mignini could extend the interrogation with no lawyer present after the 1:45 am memorale had been signed by Knox, Mignini explained to Griffin that he had told Knox that if she wished to continue making spontaneous statements, he'd ask no questions but would act "as if a only notary" in recording her further words. Presumably, all of that led to the 5:45 am memorale.

Mignini explained to Griffin that since he'd not asked questions but had only recorded statements, then the law had been satisfied.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 3rd January 2018 at 07:08 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 07:28 PM   #913
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
In 2010, Giuliano Mignini answered a question about that asked by CNN's Drew Griffin. The full English translation of that interview can be found on TJMK.

When asked to explain why Mignini could extend the interrogation with no lawyer present after the 1:45 am memorale had been signed by Knox, Mignini explained to Griffin that he had told Knox that if she wished to continue making spontaneous statements, he'd ask no questions but would act "as if a only notary" in recording her further words. Presumably, all of that led to the 5:45 am memorale.

Mignini explained to Griffin that since he'd not asked questions but had only recorded statements, then the law had been satisfied.
I know the PGP swallow that load of hogwash, but anyone with any sense certainly doesn't. Why on earth would Amanda, exhausted, confused, and scared, want to keep talking to Mignini if he wasn't asking her questions? This "explanation" is nothing more than him trying to cover his own ass for an illegal action. Matteini didn't swallow that nonsense either.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2018, 09:47 PM   #914
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I know the PGP swallow that load of hogwash, but anyone with any sense certainly doesn't. Why on earth would Amanda, exhausted, confused, and scared, want to keep talking to Mignini if he wasn't asking her questions? This "explanation" is nothing more than him trying to cover his own ass for an illegal action. Matteini didn't swallow that nonsense either.
The Gemelli CSC panel did not accept that Mignini's questioning of Knox produced a valid "spontaneous statement" that could be used as evidence against her in the murder/rape case. But that CSC panel decided that because Knox had produced a "defensive document", Memoriale 1, on her own volition soon after the interrogation, all her interrogation statements including the alleged "spontaneous statement" could be used against her in the trial for criminal calunnia against Lumumba held within the trial for murder/rape.

To me, this suggests that the calunnia against Lumumba charge and trial were retribution against Knox for stating in Memoriale 1 that she had been mistreated by police.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 12:06 AM   #915
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The Gemelli CSC panel did not accept that Mignini's questioning of Knox produced a valid "spontaneous statement" that could be used as evidence against her in the murder/rape case. But that CSC panel decided that because Knox had produced a "defensive document", Memoriale 1, on her own volition soon after the interrogation, all her interrogation statements including the alleged "spontaneous statement" could be used against her in the trial for criminal calunnia against Lumumba held within the trial for murder/rape.

To me, this suggests that the calunnia against Lumumba charge and trial were retribution against Knox for stating in Memoriale 1 that she had been mistreated by police.
Thanks...I meant Gemelli, not Matteini, had not accepted Mignini's hogwash about only "listening" to Knox.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 08:27 AM   #916
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Thanks...I meant Gemelli, not Matteini, had not accepted Mignini's hogwash about only "listening" to Knox.
CNN's Drew Griffin related anecdotally as a follow-up, that the day after the interview with Mignini in 2010, that the next morning Griffin had seen Mignini walking to work.

When Mignini had spied Griffin, he did not go in but came across the street to speak to Griffin.

Griffin was floored - Mignini had come over to ask, "Did I sound believable yesterday?"

When asked what that could have meant, Griffin confessed that he could perhaps guess, but not really know for sure. But it just became part of what had been, back then with the pair still in prison, the whole surreal backdrop to what journalists had been promised an open and shut case against AK and RS, but mostly AK if only RS had cooperated!

For me, reading Mignini's own account of the interrogation crushed my own belief, back then, that Hellmann had got it 100% correct in acquitting the pair for murder, but convicting Knox for calunnia against Lumumba. I had been wrong about calunnia. That interview exposed Mignini as a liar, lying because it seemed even in 2010 that he knew he would soon be exposed for blowing the investigation of the murder of the 1st victim to this horrible saga.

BTW - before anyone claims that that CNN/Mignini interview was the subject of a bad translation into English, poster-to-this forum Machiavelli had been involved in translating as part of the TJMK team!

It's simply amazing that they could have seen Mignini's own words as fair ball, and not an admission that he'd violated a suspect's rights, as he had eventually been censured for in Sollecito's case.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 4th January 2018 at 08:29 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 09:45 AM   #917
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Here's an illustration from the US of the "convenient suspect" approach of police, involving a case of mistaken identity ... the police would not accept that the person they had apprehended could have had the same name as the person they sought, but was actually not that sought-after person. In this example, the police stubbornly "closed the case" with the person at hand, rather than go through any effort to verify identity. (I agree that this case also illustrates the "tunnel vision" concept.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2a37dca59c73
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:01 PM   #918
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,577
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's an illustration from the US of the "convenient suspect" approach of police, involving a case of mistaken identity ... the police would not accept that the person they had apprehended could have had the same name as the person they sought, but was actually not that sought-after person. In this example, the police stubbornly "closed the case" with the person at hand, rather than go through any effort to verify identity. (I agree that this case also illustrates the "tunnel vision" concept.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2a37dca59c73
Wow. That is some story. It truly does illustrate tunnel vision and hubris.

I had a discussion with my BIL, an ex-cop, about the Knox/Sollecito case years ago. He said that there are two kinds of people who become cops: those who truly do want to "serve and protect" and those who simply get off on the power they wield. He also said that the "blue shield" aka "the blue code of silence" is very real. Cops protect each other and do not report errors of conduct, mistakes, etc by fellow cops unless forced to do so. I doubt this is true any less for cops in other countries, including Italy. When we look at the conduct of Monica Napoleoni, Lorena Zugarini, et.al. in the case involving Napoleoni's husband and court psychologist, it shows this mentality.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:52 PM   #919
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's what prosecutor Wolfson has said in the Kirstin Lobato case:

"Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson spoke exclusively to the I-Team about the case on Tuesday (02 Jan 2018). It's the first time the DA has spoken publicly about Lobato.

Vanessa Murphy, Reporter: "Do you believe she's an innocent woman?"
Steve Wolfson, Clark County District Attorney: "No.
Vanessa Murphy: "Why not?"
Steve Wolfson: "Well because 24 jurors, two separate groups of 12 listened to the evidence and the facts and circumstances and found her guilty."

The Clark County judge who dismissed the case ruled Lobato didn't have a fair shot when she was on trial in 2001.

For nearly two decades, Lobato insisted she was innocent.
There wasn't any physical evidence linking her to the crime. Questions linger about the time of death since she was seen nearly 170 miles outside of Las Vegas before and after the crime, and she passed her polygraph tests. ..."

Does this prosecutor believe Lobato is guilty? How does it matter when the evidence shows she is not guilty, besides that Lobato was wrongfully convicted?

So if prosecutor Mignini believed Knox or Sollecito guilty, how does it matter when the evidence shows that they are not guilty, besides that they were wrongfully provisionally convicted, and indeed were finally definitively acquitted?
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
The legal equivalent of "5,000 years of religious tradition can't be wrong."

[...]
... and quite in line with Dottore Mignini in his defamation suit against Sollecito's lawyer Maori and an Umbrian Weekly(translation page 3):
Quote:
However, before dealing with the question, it appears necessary to highlight the circumstances, in fact and in law, left in the shadows by the interview and which render even more serious, frankly incomprehensible and above all without any justification on the basis of the complex course of proceedings, the defamatory statements contained in the article and the very grave and intolerable accusations launched with so much superficiality against the investigators and the 34 magistrates who had upheld the prosecution’s case against the 11 who had doubted it.
These prosecutors seem to express their faith in the system or perhaps better infallibility of the system, while being like "If I can manage to get someone convicted, this person must be guilty (nevermind the dirty tricks I used to secure the win)."

What these prosecutors don't seem to understand is that a trial - regardles of the system - isn't a "best of five". Both Wolfson and Mignini sound like boxers lamenting that they should have won, after recieving the knock-out punch in the 12th round after "winning" the previous 11... Poor them
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 02:42 PM   #920
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
... and quite in line with Dottore Mignini in his defamation suit against Sollecito's lawyer Maori and an Umbrian Weekly(translation page 3):
Lol they voluntarily translated Mignini's ranting and ravings. This case
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.