Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Next to Champagne of disinformation, I like this as well. Maybe I would like Noble Wrong better. I don't see a policeman making sure a guilty person is convicted (that means absolutely for sure guilty as in where evidence that was definitive was ruled our on technicality) in anyway the same as framing a person the police know is innocent or have only an inkling of guilt.

Maybe I'll look at the case later.

The wiki is good, I have posted many times here because it clones the bra clasp dna planting. Woops is that a leap of faith?

 

[Samson]

I have suggested a lot of things. I have two top contenders for the bra clasp results. One is the deliberate planting of the evidence such as exposing the clasp to something Raffaele was close to. And the other involves Meredith being the intermediate transfer agent collecting DNA from the people she interacted with the night before and that morning and then transferring that collection to the clasp.

Since these vectors involve mostly non-overlapping sources for the extra DNA it is theoretically still possible to validate one or the other. All it would take is the collection of DNA from the likely individuals until one is found that matches.

Of course, the prosecution has no interest in doing that. And besides, they can't afford to since they blew their budget on wire taps and cartoons. The defense would probably not be able to bring this up in court at this late date. But nothing really is in the way of individuals doing this on their own just to find the truth.

There is nothing to prevent a reenactment of the facts by film. I would contribute to any fund that delivered. They are no longer guesswork, and the time has come for the script to be written. For example the bra clasp dna could have the options filmed. Raffaele will be opening Naruto while Meredith's meal fails to progress in a medically orderly fashion to her duodenum, because she is deceaseed.

 

[carbonjam72]

Are Insane yet genuine beliefs still considered framing?

Suspecting is not the same as framing. Yes, they're terrible at their jobs and apparently can't run an investigation to save their lives, but that is not the same as knowingly arresting innocent people. They felt their suspicion to be legitimate, they thought they had their murderers.

The implication behind this framing theory malarkey is that all the cops immediately spotted that Guede did it, and to protect him they collectively decided to pin the crime on anyone else, only to then arrest him later on when the forensic results came in. That's bonkers.

When Mignini and Guitarri theorized that the 1985 drowning death Dr Francesco Narducci had been killed by a satanic cult responsible for the Monster of Florence killings, to silence the Dr Narducci for his role in the crimes, they had the corpse of the Dr exhumed in 2002, because they believed the bodies had been switched to "cover up the crime".

WHen the body was exhumed, it was tested by DNA and found to be the original. MIgnini and Guitarri then theorized the body had been switched back in a "double swap", by the same satanic cult.

When Mario Spezi ridiculed Mignini and Guitarri for their investigation, SPezi himself was charged by Mignini as the Monster of Florence.

When Spezi was released from prison in an uproar, Mignini and Guitarri were then investigated and charged with abuses of office in relation to that investigation.

And, when Spezi was released, Mignini pursued the next leg of his case, against a Florence pharmacist Dr Calamandrei.

At the time of the Kercher killing, Mignini was under indictment for abuse of office, and his case against Calamandrei was collapsing in Florence.

QUESTIONS:

-When Mignini theorized there had been a "double swap', did he genuinely believe it?
-When Mignini charged Mario Spezi as being the Monster of Florence, did he genuinely believe it?
-When Mignini pursued a case against Dr Calamandrei, did he genuinely believe it?
-When the Calamandrei case falied, Mignini then pursued his same satanic claims against 20 defendants in Florence, including again, Mario Spezi. Did Mignini believe this case too?

- In all of these cases, Mignini's claims were based upon the satanic cult theories of the psychic Gabriella Carlizzi, with whom Mignini also consulted in the Kercher case before Nov 5, 2007.

- In claiming Amanda Knox was a participant to a satanic orgy murder associated with the 'rites of Halloween', did Mignini believe that too?

What if Mignini isn't sane, and his beliefs are heartfelt, yet delusional, then what do you call that? ("Insan-aming"?). Because that's what I think happened in this case.

The only person who needed to believe Knox was guilty, was Mignini.

Only the first investigators at the cirme scene, Zugarini and Napoleone needed to recognize Guede's MO and tip off Mignini. There is video footage of Napoleone and Zugarini greeting Mignini at the crime scene. Zugarini shakes Mignini's hands, and Mignini seems to say, 'thanks for the heads up'. That's my interpretation. But you should watch it before you poo-poo the idea that that's whats happening.

So to say Mignini genuinely believed he was framing an innocent American girl, or thought that he had stumbled upon yet more confirmation of his belief that the devil was afoot in Perugia and claiming the lives of pretty young women in bloody murders and satanic orgies affiliated with occult on Halloween, why thread the needle?

Mignini's motivation is irrelevant to the question of whether he was framing an innocent person. As to the distinction someone raised above,, hypothetically, 'if the police were framing someone they knew to be guilty but didn't have the evidence' - isn't evidence the manner by which we conclude one is guilty? Giobbi "knew" Amanda was guilty because she was eating pizza.

Stefanoni's antics in the lab are sufficient to account for the results on the knife and bra clasp, without he knowing participation of any other 'conspirators'. It doesn't take a grand conspiracy, just one nut at the top, and a couple loyal underlings in the right place, at the right time, and everyone else toes the line. One coerced confession in an overnight illegal unrecorded interrogation after a week of softening up and voila, case closed.

 

[Desert Fox]

Next to Champagne of disinformation, I like this as well. Maybe I would like Noble Wrong better. I don't see a policeman making sure a guilty person is convicted (that means absolutely for sure guilty as in where evidence that was definitive was ruled our on technicality) in anyway the same as framing a person the police know is innocent or have only an inkling of guilt.

Maybe I'll look at the case later.

If I stated to you "The cops think he is guilty but the evidence they used is a frame up," you will understand what I mean. It still produces the proper clarity. You don't like the term. I try real hard to not use the term "hypothesis" in its common use form.

There is a term called "Fruit of the poisoned tree" where if the evidence is collected illegally, does not matter how strong the guilt is. In the US, if they beat Amanda for example, and she confessed and she really was the killer, it would be unadmissible. Even further evidence developed from that would likely be unadmissible.

Another case, looking at Derick Tice. When a federal judge dismissed the state's case against him, it was not based on him being innocent. It was based on the confession being after the police refused both his request for a lawyer and him invoking his right to be silent.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

wait a second; I just have to lace these things up...

The blog is basically an extended ad for TJMK.

It occurred to me that it might be Follain's anonymous blog, inasmuch as Death in Perugia is one of two names used for his book, if I am not mistaken. My point in including the link was to show evidence that a lie can make it halfway around the world before truth can pull its boots on. I also thought that it was interesting that Barbie also pushed the multiple attacker theory using an anonymous expert. I have noted previously that when a reporter uses an anonymous expert, the reporter's credibility is a large determining factor of the overall credibility of the report.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Randall Dale Adams would agree

I've argued they tried to get Amanda to pick up a knife, so Steph could work her magic in the lab. You think I'm wrong on this point? Then for what possible legitimate reason do they need Amanda to physically 'Pick out a knife', and when she doesn't take one, not collect any for testing? Mignini could have already targeted Amanda with phone taps. And the interrogations had to be scheduled in advance.

In The Thin Blue Line, Randall Dale Adams recounts the time when he was told by a cop to pick up a gun (it must have been the murder weapon, but I have forgotten the details). The cop even pulled out his own gun to persuade him to do so. People who think that the cops never resort to this sort of behavior don't fully appreciate noble cause corruption.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Some suggestions with respect to terminology

That is not what I said. Do you know what framing means and implies?

As I see it, there are two kinds of framing. There is framing someone you don't believe is guilty (either you know he or she is innocent, or you have no idea). And there is helping to convict someone you believe is guilty but believe you lack sufficient evidence for a conviction. This might take the form of planting evidence to simply failing to follow up any evidence to the contrary; in other words it encompasses a whole range of mildly to grossly unethical behavior. Possibly the phrase "fitting up" someone is more appropriate for the latter than "framing" is. I would also call the latter a form of noble cause corruption. I hope this clarifies, rather than confuses, the issue.

With respect to DNA, I would strongly urge that we not use the word "contamination" to refer to deliberate tampering of evidence. Although the definition of contamination is the subject of much learned discussion, it definitely does not mean that.

 

[Bill Williams]

It occurred to me that it might be Follain's anonymous blog, inasmuch as Death in Perugia is one of two names used for his book, if I am not mistaken. My point in including the link was to show evidence that a lie can make it halfway around the world before truth can pull its boots on. I also thought that it was interesting that Barbie also pushed the multiple attacker theory using an anonymous expert. I have noted previously that when a reporter uses an anonymous expert, the reporter's credibility is a large determining factor of the overall credibility of the report.

Nadeau now does not seem to care that her reputation has a little tarnish on it with Winterbottom's film. She's got her money.

In my mind the one thing the reporters failed to do - failed to do at the first trial - is wait for the defence case. They reported to prosecution case in 2009, and it is my belief that Andrea Vogt was feeding stuff to Peggy Ganong is Seattle for the PMF (before the split). By the time the defence had their say the haters were already set. (Strengely, at the end of this, Nadeau told CNN - in Dec 2009 - "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence case was weaker, this could very well be overturned at appeal.")

Mignini adopted a theatrical presentation, putting words into Amanda's mouth, while admitting at the end that he was engaging in pure speculation. One of them was him speculating that Amanda had said to Meredith, "We will make you have sex," which in the next breath he admitted was speculation.

This is even before the reporters passed things on based on anonymous experts. I think the multiple attacker factoid is key.... people should actually read the Massei report on that one, Massei does a decent job summarizing what the actual, known experts had said about it. Only one of nine said it had to be multiple attackers.

Next thing you know, like "I was there", it is halfway around the world before the truth has its boots on.

If it weren't for prosecution and reporters' lies this would not still be going on.

 

[Grinder]

Suspecting is not the same as framing. Yes, they're terrible at their jobs and apparently can't run an investigation to save their lives, but that is not the same as knowingly arresting innocent people. They felt their suspicion to be legitimate, they thought they had their murderers.

The implication behind this framing theory malarkey is that all the cops immediately spotted that Guede did it, and to protect him they collectively decided to pin the crime on anyone else, only to then arrest him later on when the forensic results came in. That's bonkers.

Welcome to the island

There seems to be a pattern here that if one say this or that could have been suspicious in the kids' behavior, the next thing one hears is that is no proof of guilt.

Something that puts the lens of suspicion on someone need not be evidence of guilt.

One example is that Raf saying something is missing on the 911 call would draw suspicion but isn't evidence of guilt.

As for the "bonkers" idea that they recognized his MO and did a "ini mini miny mo" picking the kids to frame, add to your skepticism the fact that the Postal Police thought it looked like a staged break-in and they certainly weren't in on Rudi and his MO.

I believe that you are being very tolerant in the usage of "framing". The common definition is clearly: a conspiracy to incriminate someone on a false charge Manufacturing evidence to convict a guilty person isn't that.

 

[Grinder]

If I stated to you "The cops think he is guilty but the evidence they used is a frame up," you will understand what I mean. It still produces the proper clarity. You don't like the term. I try real hard to not use the term "hypothesis" in its common use form.

Nope. I'd was he framed or was he guilty.

There is a term called "Fruit of the poisoned tree" where if the evidence is collected illegally, does not matter how strong the guilt is. In the US, if they beat Amanda for example, and she confessed and she really was the killer, it would be unadmissible. Even further evidence developed from that would likely be unadmissible.

Yes evidence can be inadmissible but if a cop "found" something that wouldn't be framing it would be a "noble wrong".

{quote]Another case, looking at Derick Tice. When a federal judge dismissed the state's case against him, it was not based on him being innocent. It was based on the confession being after the police refused both his request for a lawyer and him invoking his right to be silent.[/QUOTE]

To bad there wasn't a cop to do a "noble wrong" .

Framing definitely implies the person was innocent or at least not known to be guilty. It also implies a conspiracy though not mandatory.

 

[Grinder]

Nadeau now does not seem to care that her reputation has a little tarnish on it with Winterbottom's film. She's got her money.

She sold her story just like all of them did or tried. She is not the worst self-promoter of the bunch. She has continued to write on many subjects. I think she isn't very bright but she does work at her craft unlike some others that cashed in with a book.

In my mind the one thing the reporters failed to do - failed to do at the first trial - is wait for the defence case. They reported to prosecution case in 2009, and it is my belief that Andrea Vogt was feeding stuff to Peggy Ganong is Seattle for the PMF (before the split). By the time the defence had their say the haters were already set. (Strengely, at the end of this, Nadeau told CNN - in Dec 2009 - "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence case was weaker, this could very well be overturned at appeal.")

Unfortunately the defense wasn't really public. They left it all to FOA and often they went for hyperbole. "Railroad job from hell" may be close to the truth but early on it had a sound bite ring to it. Chris Mellas was a main interview and didn't come off well. The "she didn't even know Rudi" didn't come across as "didn't know him well" and when the connection wasw revealed it didn't look good. Vogt clearly communicated with dear Peggy and even used a fashion house worker as a DNA expert, IN A PI ARTICLE.

Mignini adopted a theatrical presentation, putting words into Amanda's mouth, while admitting at the end that he was engaging in pure speculation. One of them was him speculating that Amanda had said to Meredith, "We will make you have sex," which in the next breath he admitted was speculation.

He must have spent too much time with Follain.

 

[Bill Williams]

She sold her story just like all of them did or tried. She is not the worst self-promoter of the bunch. She has continued to write on many subjects. I think she isn't very bright but she does work at her craft unlike some others that cashed in with a book.

All true.

Unfortunately the defense wasn't really public. They left it all to FOA and often they went for hyperbole. "Railroad job from hell" may be close to the truth but early on it had a sound bite ring to it. Chris Mellas was a main interview and didn't come off well. The "she didn't even know Rudi" didn't come across as "didn't know him well" and when the connection wasw revealed it didn't look good. Vogt clearly communicated with dear Peggy and even used a fashion house worker as a DNA expert, IN A PI ARTICLE.

Wasn't really public!?!?!?!!!???

The defence's job is to address the court, not the public. It is the press's job to make it public. The press who were available in Perugia were all (with the exception of Sfarzo) tied to tabloid media, who had lurid criteria for picking up stories from stringers. Once you see Winterbottom'sfilm, Ibelieve you'll understand this better, it is what Thomas (the Winterbottom substitute) has to come to terms with.

I don't mean to sound argumentative (!) but the implication above is that there was some thought out plan, like a football huddle, "Ok, we'll use hyperbole in the courtroom, and we'll leave it to the FOA to swindle the American media."

Strangely, though, your description above shows just how much people like C.M.were simply caught unawares of what having a microphone shoved in their face can mean. It confirms that Gogerty-Marriott's role was simply to receive and organize media requests, for a West Seattle family with no skill set for it.

And if we're back to a one-time blurting out, "She didn't even know Rudi," and whether or not is matches up with, "She didn't even know him well,".... well, then, this case WAS decided early on, on the most obscure of nuances of meaning.....

He must have spent too much time with Follain.

That'll do it to you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Welcome to the island

There seems to be a pattern here that if one say this or that could have been suspicious in the kids' behavior, the next thing one hears is that is no proof of guilt.

Something that puts the lens of suspicion on someone need not be evidence of guilt.

One example is that Raf saying something is missing on the 911 call would draw suspicion but isn't evidence of guilt.

As for the "bonkers" idea that they recognized his MO and did a "ini mini miny mo" picking the kids to frame, add to your skepticism the fact that the Postal Police thought it looked like a staged break-in and they certainly weren't in on Rudi and his MO.

I believe that you are being very tolerant in the usage of "framing". The common definition is clearly: a conspiracy to incriminate someone on a false charge Manufacturing evidence to convict a guilty person isn't that.

Truly, Grinder, I'm on your side of the fence on this one. But this would not be a true Bill/Grinder posting if I didn't try to annoy you on one fact, plucked at random from an otherwise sound post.

The original comment of Battistelli was, "This is no burglary." Filomena's comment was, "This is a stupid burglar not to take anything."

By that I mean that the initial impression was not that the break-in was staged, it was that whatever it was in Filomena's room, it was no burglary. I believe the faked-break-in was a later overlay in the narrative. That served Mignini's purposes and the multiple attacker narrative. But it was not necessarily exactly the initial observation.

I'm still stuck on Nencini's "out of the blue" comment in his motivations, that in considering whether or not Rudy had actually faked a break-in (to disguise that it had been Meredith herself who had let him in), Nencini clearly says that Rudy would not have done that.....

..... because the PLE would have recognized this break-in as resembling Rudy's signature M.O. The assumption Nencini makes is that Rudy himself would have known that the police knew this.

The astonishing thing about Judges in Italian courts is that for the purposes of their motivations reports, they are allowed to just make things up.

Maybe they are your definition of true crime writers!

 

[Grinder]

Wasn't really public!?!?!?!!!???

The defence's job is to address the court, not the public. It is the press's job to make it public. The press who were available in Perugia were all (with the exception of Sfarzo) tied to tabloid media, who had lurid criteria for picking up stories from stringers. Once you see Winterbottom'sfilm, Ibelieve you'll understand this better, it is what Thomas (the Winterbottom substitute) has to come to terms with.

Bill you complained that the press only publicized the prosecution's case. The defense was always counselling the PIP not to do press conference etc. They didn't give the press material for the defense leaving the press with one side of the legal case and the FOA.

I don't mean to sound argumentative (!) but the implication above is that there was some thought out plan, like a football huddle, "Ok, we'll use hyperbole in the courtroom, and we'll leave it to the FOA to swindle the American media."

I think you meant "we'll not use hyperbole in the courtroom". What I said was that the FOA was the public voice of the case and the Italian attorneys didn't say much. Swindle is far too strong a term similar to you using the word swipe for Filomena retrieving her computer with the PP permission. You like words that start with "SW".

Strangely, though, your description above shows just how much people like C.M.were simply caught unawares of what having a microphone shoved in their face can mean. It confirms that Gogerty-Marriott's role was simply to receive and organize media requests, for a West Seattle family with no skill set for it.

It was more than having a microphone shoved (no SW word) in his face. It wasn't just him either. Anne was out there on TV early on.

And if we're back to a one-time blurting out, "She didn't even know Rudi," and whether or not is matches up with, "She didn't even know him well,".... well, then, this case WAS decided early on, on the most obscure of nuances of meaning.....
.

Bill you weren't following the case and they clearly meant she had never met him. There was nothing in their spiel that left room for what turned out to be the truth, that she had met him and spent time in a very small space. It wasn't a one-time blurting - it was their factoid.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think you meant "we'll not use hyperbole in the courtroom". What I said was that the FOA was the public voice of the case and the Italian attorneys didn't say much. Swindle is far too strong a term similar to you using the word swipe for Filomena retrieving her computer with the PP permission. You like words that start with "SW".

Bill you weren't following the case and they clearly meant she had never met him. There was nothing in their spiel that left room for what turned out to be the truth, that she had met him and spent time in a very small space. It wasn't a one-time blurting - it was their factoid.

Swell. You've switched my meaning, swiveling the intent, and swinging its meaning. Swine.

 

[Grinder]

Swell. You've switched my meaning, swiveling the intent, and swinging its meaning. Swine.

Oh you sweetie! Did you mean they would use hyperbole in court?

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh you sweetie! Did you mean they would use hyperbole in court?

Louie, this is the start of a beautiful friendship.

 

[acbytesla]

As I see it, there are two kinds of framing. There is framing someone you don't believe is guilty (either you know he or she is innocent, or you have no idea). And there is helping to convict someone you believe is guilty but believe you lack sufficient evidence for a conviction. This might take the form of planting evidence to simply failing to follow up any evidence to the contrary; in other words it encompasses a whole range of mildly to grossly unethical behavior. Possibly the phrase "fitting up" someone is more appropriate for the latter than "framing" is. I would also call the latter a form of noble cause corruption. I hope this clarifies, rather than confuses, the issue.

With respect to DNA, I would strongly urge that we not use the word "contamination" to refer to deliberate tampering of evidence. Although the definition of contamination is the subject of much learned discussion, it definitely does not mean that.

The "noble cause corruption link" reminds me of this exchange in the movie "LA CONFIDENTIAL".

Captain Dudley Smith: Edmund, you're a political animal. You have the eye for human weakness, but not the stomach.
Ed Exley: You're wrong, sir.
Captain Dudley Smith: Would you be willing to plant corroborative evidence on a suspect you knew to be guilty, in order to ensure an indictment?
Ed Exley: Dudley, we've been over this.
Captain Dudley Smith: Yes or no, Edmund?
Ed Exley: No!
Captain Dudley Smith: Would you be willing to beat a confession out of a suspect you knew to be guilty?
Ed Exley: No.
Captain Dudley Smith: Would you be willing to shoot a hardened criminal in the back, in order to offset the chance that some... lawyer...
Ed Exley: No.
Captain Dudley Smith: Then, for the love of God, don't be a detective. Stick to assignments where you don't have...
Ed Exley: Dudley, I know you mean well, but I don't need to do it the way you did. Or my father

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two areas of disagreement

Bill you weren't following the case and they clearly meant she had never met him. There was nothing in their spiel that left room for what turned out to be the truth, that she had met him and spent time in a very small space. It wasn't a one-time blurting - it was their factoid.

Grinder,

This is your attempt at mind-reading, and I respectfully disagree with it. FWIW I don't find Raffaele's statement about nothing being missing (based on his assessment of F's room) to be very probative, either. IMO he called to report the fact that a domicile had been broken into. IIRC he did not volunteer any information about things missing; he was asked.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill you weren't following the case and they clearly meant she had never met him. There was nothing in their spiel that left room for what turned out to be the truth, that she had met him and spent time in a very small space. It wasn't a one-time blurting - it was their factoid.

Grinder,

This is your attempt at mind-reading, and I respectfully disagree with it. FWIW I don't find Raffaele's statement about nothing being missing (based on his assessment of F's room) to be very probative, either. IMO he called to report the fact that a domicile had been broken into. IIRC he did not volunteer any information about things missing; he was asked.

Winterbottom covers this in his film. There's some sort of interpretive vacuum into which someone inserts their biases. It's the reason why the character Thomas gives up trying to write a screenplay about the murder itself.

There's a million of these little "somethings" that some journalist (or non-communicative Seattleite) turns into a something. Next thing you know you have "all the other evidence." All based on the most nebulous of interpretations of individuals factoids.

Trying to spin, "She didn't know Rudi", into some sort of lie or "spin" or whatever, which really means, "she had met him and spent time in a very small space," and furthermore that this becomes on of those FOA items as part of a larger PR Supertanker.....

.... see how quickly it spins out of control?

The truth is, she did not know Rudi. Period. Neither she nor Raffaele had ANY reason to participate in a murder with Rudy, much less try to cover up his involvement.

All of that nonsense is as Winterbottom put it. It's the tabloid urge to make something out of nothing.