[
I'm thinking there might well be a better way to identify whether the body in the casket is the one buried there outside checking the pants size and the hairstyle, especially being as this corpse was under water a while.
In fact there were several other problems with the corpse beyond the trousers size (that anyway was not compatible with the corpse found drawned). Another problem for example was the fact that the first body had been in water for a while, was yet in a too advanced state of decomposition to be preserved (coprses in this state have a tyipical quick moulding with liquefaction of internal organs) while the unburied body was still intect in its internal organs and preserved. Apart from the series of pleasant details about the corpse, the point is the Narducci case was not really about what happened with this corpse. In other words the problem is not just to understand if the corpse was the buried one. This investigation lead to a conclusion that members of Narducci's family indeed did obstruct justice and hd the body, but these crimes are expired. The interesting part of the investigation is the connection with the monster of Florence.
I knew it was Giuttari's plotline theory initially, but that Mignini attached himself to it, what is Mignini's version of what happened?
Just to clarify. The MoF theories were set before Giuttari by other important florentine judges, such as prosecutor Vigna. The theories brought in by Giuttari were about the involvement of the chief prosecutoer Di Donno in an alleged obstruction of justice on the MoF investigation. These theories were subsequently accepted by Mignini (rightly or wrongly) as an investigation theme.
The theories directly involving Narducci ad relating him to the Monster of Florence investigation were set by using the investigations of Giuttari and merging it with the one where Mignini happaned to found himself in as he was called on the finding of the drawned body; but the whole Procura of Perugia supervised the setting of this new investigation that collected and merged material form different sources.
I never read Mignini's written orders. Neither the one about the Narducci case, nor the one about the Florentine investigation of Di Donno and company.
However the trial for abuse of office was about the latter Giuttari's invesigation on Di Donno: this one was the last step and in fact leaded by Giuttari.
I'm not able to come to a conclusion about the reliability of Michele Giuttari. I understand - retrospectively - that criticisms to his professional approach are possible, there can be issues in his claims and methods, but my knowledge about the details is insufficient for me to have an opinion.
I can say that, by reading the sentencing report about Mignini and Giuttari, there is an absolute lack of kind of evidence to formulize any charge on Mignini, for sure.
What I meant was it didn't speak to the evidence but merely the procedure or process of his conviction, and eliminated it on those grounds, not because he didn't do it, they didn't have the evidence, or that it wasn't a violation of the law.That's what I call 'getting off on a technicality' and if that was the fundamental grounds of his defense then it changed from the reports of him claiming it couldn't be invasive because they didn't (supposedly) 'know' they were being investigated, which he claimed in his CNN interview and other press accounts later.
There is a fundamental point here, that I'm afraid you and many other will miss, at least for a while unless you can see it explained repeateadly.
The Mignini's case is not a technicality, and you would never call it "a technicality" if that happened to you or to anyone whom you believe innocent.
It's more like, imagine an Afghani court founds Britney Spears guilty of breaching the Sharia law. On appeal, a higher court rules that the Sharia tribunal was illegitimate since it had no jurisdiction, has no title to apply and interpretat the law on Britney Spears. Therefore the higher court declares the previous indictment and trial entirely illegitimate and null. In other words, the Sharia court is not Britney Spears' judge.
You would never call that "getting off on a technicality". You would never call that way such an event if it hapened to you: if ever happened that someone with no legitimacy "decides" to indict you and iterprets that what you did was illegal (and the party who interprets it is the same that was offendend by your action).
In legal terms, Mignini's position is more favourable than Amanda's position and of Sollecito's.
Mignini was not in fact found "innocent": he was found to be unfairly indicted. Which can be seen as much more than being found not guilty.
No court
ever found him guilty of anything in any instance, in fact, because the judges who ruled on him were
not his judges. The sentencing report with the opinion of a florentine judge about him has the same legitimacy and value of posters' opinion on JREF: that is nothing. This means no legitimate judge ever found him guilty of anything, and not even found him indictable of anything.
The outcome of his trial - not that of Knox - is the closest thing to an acknowledgment that he was unjustly prosecuted and tried.
Knox was found guilty of calunnia and condemned to pay huge amounts of money. And also Sollecito in the trial of first instance got a conviction: Massei's verdict was overturned but still Massei's report is legitimate and belongs to their trial file; it is still there and usable by the supreme court and for civil purposes. Moreover their murder trial is stil pending, they are still defendants.
The position of Mignini instead is tne cancellation of the entire trial file from all acts and records. Illegitimate, to be considered never existing, not just a judge gives a further opinion about the investigation: no investigation and no indictment was ever legitimate. Not just the verdict and sentencing report or just the trial is null, but the whole process from the roots, included the preliminary investigation with its indictments and rulings: all judiciary acts about Mignini and Giuttari are null.
And, as opposed to the case of Knox and Sollecito, the cases on them are not pending. By now there is no case, no indictment. No legitimate judicial authority ever stated - currently - they should be charged or investigated for something.
Do you think anyone will restart the process in Turin?
I have no idea. It's possible. There are only two options: the archiviation of the case, or the request for a trial. If there is a request for a trial, I'm positive that this will never lead to a conviction.
This would be the equivalent of the 10k page 'case file' in the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito 'investigation?'
Minus the judiciary acts, that is judges rulings and opinions. Phone wiretappings, testimonies, are included. But rulings and judges opinions are null.
I'm guessing what you mean by this is Mignini was 'on to' something, and that powerful people want to 'cover up' what's in the Narducci trial file?
I don't know, in particular I dont know how powerful. But the issues in the Narducci investigation are many. The key thing is that both the buried person and the body found in the lake were in fact killed, and there was no accidental drawning in the lake. The Narducci case is a case of murder, the Questura of Perugia of that time probably knew this from the very beginning, and this is the reason for its covering.
I dunno about that, but I'm sure there's a fair number of ex-policemen and judiciary who might want all mention of the Monster of Florence case quelled, not everyone shined in those 'investigations' and trials the way I read it.
Well the Monster of Florence investigations took place mostly in Florence.
On the other hand, a Monster Mystery is always an attraction for investigators, and so I guess such attraction by some may balance the oblivious attitude of others.
) I always empathized greatly with him, even though I did not agree with him on many things. I defended him on websleuths and Now Public News to the point where I annoyed and greatly vexed many people. I was not dying to see him convicted. I do not want his theory to win with the Supreme Court, but I have never vilified him.
), failed to test the key evidence, let other evidence rot and rust as to become untestable, and failed to secure the CCTV videos from all over the town. But it's all good because none of that would help us keep Knox in jail. To do that we had to lie a little about evidence that was not there, too. In fact, we had to lie a lot"
