Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

CoulsdonUK,

Mignini's conviction at the trial of first instance is evidence. Whomever promoted Mignini had reasons about which one may speculate. People sometimes rise to the level of their incompetence, as Lawrence Peter observed, but Mignini may have been an exception.

I know, I know it's the Peter Principal. Hard to tell when these guys reached that level.

 

[Grinder]

Amy Strange,

An hard copy dictionary I have (Webster's New World Dictionary, Collegiate edition, 1955): "7. [Slang] to falsify evidence, testimony, etc. beforehand to in order to make (a person) appear guilty." I provided a slightly different definition from Harper Collins as well.

1955? You need to get out more.

Framing is for the innocent. Why you want to argue this is mind-boggling.

Go asked some people when you do as suggested and get out what it means to be framed.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Yes, and I read it, as all the prosecution and motivation reports. I regard them as sufficient material to form a cast iron view of the straightforward events of the case. The worst experience was reading Massei on the break in, it became immediately apparent he was wrong about the direction of the rock, Hellman was right, Galati was wrong again as were Crini and Nencini.

Which brings you back to today and post #2829.

Google translate of latest

PERUGIA
Rudy wants to go free, called the "super discount" of penaAlessandro Antonini
21 / Sept / 2014 - 09:32

Rudy wants early release. It demands a super cut of the sentence. The only one to be behind bars for the death of Meredith Kercher intends to quit before the age of 16 and is doing everything possible to get the discounts provided by the new rules-empty prisons. No to the supervising judge in an additional "discount" from cell Mammagialla of Viterbo takes pen and paper to instruct his lawyers to file complaints and demanding. Result: the surveillance court of Rome fixed the hearing in closed session for October 10.

Full article

http://corrieredellumbria.corr.it/news/perugia/150433/Rudy-vuole-tornare-libero--chiesto.html

Sorry, just so that we are clear are you responding to post #2834, I include below for further assistance.

I do not get the impression that this case has affected Mignini’s career; do you?

Guede is in prison; convicted, not long enough for my taste but there you are.

 

[Bill Williams]

Can you provide any citation that supports your assertion that Mignini (Beelzebub ) career has imploded since the 1st level trial, not that it has the slightest relevance to the case as it stands now.

Thanks in advance.

ETA: I believe Dr Mignini is effectively the deputy Prosecutor General of the Region of Umbria, Dr Galati (remember him?) is the Prosecutor General of the Region of Umbria.

From the earliest days of this case and the FOA a main theme has been about nutty Mignini, Preston's treatment and the charges against M.

He has avoided all punishment to date and received a promotion. I think he is nutty but he certainly hasn't had an implosion.

I can't imagine that he or anybody would think this case was a good way to restore his career. He would have achieved much more by backing off the kids and convicting Rudi.

My view is that anything presently regarding Mignini from an innocence side of the fence is "conspiracy theory", rather than hard and fast evidence. My bias, though, is that it is a conspiracy theory with some merit.

I have two words that perhaps can decide it one way or another.

Wladimiro De Nunzio.

Ok, ok, that's three words. Conspiracy theorists on both sides disagree on his role, but both sides agree that president of the Perugia Court of Appeal, Wladimiro De Nunzio, has something to do with this in his appointment of Hellmann to contact the 1st Second grade appeal's trial.

I suppose there's a third alternative - that BOTH sides in their various conspiracy theories are nuts and bonkers. Maybe De Nunzio just made the appointment because Hellmann was the next judge available....

But guilters say that De Nunzio purposely manipulated the appointment of the Appeal's judge to embarrass Mignini, and innocentisti say that De Nunzio wisely appointed Hellmann to undo the mess Mignini/Massei created.

Your mileage will vary.

Me, I want to know more about De Nunzio. However, after savaging him on line, Machiavelli won't talk about him any more.

 

[Bill Williams]

Lol! Wise up sunbeam . It won't be going to the United Sections, that's why the case has been assigned to Section 5. Do you people know anything over there in the U.S. about Italian law or is it just important to keep each others spirits up, regardless of the facts? Unbelievably, and wilfully, ignorant.

#1. For someone who claims to know the facts, at least get the country of origin correct.

#2. My sources differ. Deal with it.

 

[Grinder]

Amy Strange,

An hard copy dictionary I have (Webster's New World Dictionary, Collegiate edition, 1955): "7. [Slang] to falsify evidence, testimony, etc. beforehand to in order to make (a person) appear guilty." I provided a slightly different definition from Harper Collins as well.

A physics professor of mine said that definitions are not right or wrong, they are useful or useless. If we restrict frame to situations in which the framer knows of the innoncence of the framee, then we need additional terms for other cases and perhaps an umbrella term. I have enormous respect for The Skeptical Juror, but I have no strong opinion on the guilt or innocence of Preston Hughes, not having studied the case closely enough.

What a load. Frame is useless if it has no meaning. The framer doesn't hold up a sign that says I'm framing. One doesn't need to guilt or innocence in order to frame. If the cops think someone is guilty but they are innocent and they manufacture evidence then they framed the guy. If he is guilty they used falsified evidence to convict the guy but didn't frame him.

How many dictionaries did you have to check? Did you go to a used book store? And everyone knows the collegiate edition is inaccurate being written by students with hangovers.

 

[Grinder]

#1. For someone who claims to know the facts, at least get the country of origin correct.

#2. My sources differ. Deal with it.

Are these the same sources that assured you the recording of Amanda's interrogation would be released soon (three years ago)?

Frank? KayPea?

 

[Bill Williams]

Good Lord, you people don't give up even in the face of the facts. Let me say it just one more time - yes, the fact that section 5 have the case does mean a 'united sections' hearing has been denied. On the other hand if it makes you and IIP supporters feel better you can go on believing otherwise. But don't ever say you weren't told. I'm close to giving up here. Life's too short.

It would be helpful if you provided a citation. So far all there is is someone named Supercalifragilistic claiming this.

If you are right, then you are right. I have reason to believe you are wrong.

The reason a date has not been set for the Section 5 hearing, is because they first must deal with the request for a United Sections hearing. If I am wrong I am wrong. My sources would be wrong, in that event.

I do not think that they are. Can you provide any reason, like a citation from some authority that does not come from Mary Poppins?

 

[Bill Williams]

Are these the same sources that assured you the recording of Amanda's interrogation would be released soon (three years ago)?

Frank? KayPea?

First I would need a citation from me that I said that they would be released soon. I have never ever said that.

Grinder - you keep embarassing yourself. You keep making awkward guesses. Why don't you ask Frank, or why don't you ask Kay Pea? You keep playing these silly games. My primary source of that one was John Follain. John Follain wrote way, way back (three or four years ago) that the interrogation tapes/recordings existed. I got one verification of that, and that's where it sits.

Please provide a quote from me where I said they'd eventually be released. I don't think you can, but if you can provide one, that would allow me to correct it.

 

[Grinder]

frame (v.) Look up frame at Dictionary.com
Old English framian "to profit, be helpful, avail, benefit," from fram "active, vigorous, bold," originally "going forward," from fram "forward; from" (see from).

Influenced by related Old English fremman "help forward, promote, further, do, perform, accomplish," and by Old Norse fremja "to further, execute." Sense focused in Middle English from "make ready" (mid-13c.) to "prepare timber for building" (late 14c.). Meaning "compose, devise" is first attested 1540s.

The criminal slang sense of "blame an innocent person" (1920s) is probably from earlier sense of "plot in secret" (1900), perhaps ultimately from meaning "fabricate a story with evil intent," first attested 1510s. Related: Framed; framing.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

My view is that anything presently regarding Mignini from an innocence side of the fence is "conspiracy theory", rather than hard and fast evidence. My bias, though, is that it is a conspiracy theory with some merit.

I have two words that perhaps can decide it one way or another.

Wladimiro De Nunzio.

Ok, ok, that's three words. Conspiracy theorists on both sides disagree on his role, but both sides agree that president of the Perugia Court of Appeal, Wladimiro De Nunzio, has something to do with this in his appointment of Hellmann to contact the 1st Second grade appeal's trial.

I suppose there's a third alternative - that BOTH sides in their various conspiracy theories are nuts and bonkers. Maybe De Nunzio just made the appointment because Hellmann was the next judge available....

But guilters say that De Nunzio purposely manipulated the appointment of the Appeal's judge to embarrass Mignini, and innocentisti say that De Nunzio wisely appointed Hellmann to undo the mess Mignini/Massei created.

Your mileage will vary.

Me, I want to know more about De Nunzio. However, after savaging him on line, Machiavelli won't talk about him any more.

I don’t know about all that. However, my CT is Hellmann served his purpose with the Perugian appeal verdict, leading to Hellmann being knocked into the very long grass (retirement) by the Italian Supreme Court, ta dah. Florence appeal verdict. No evidence or citation, just a CT.

 

[Samson]

Which brings you back to today and post #2829.



Sorry, just so that we are clear are you responding to post #2834, I include below for further assistance.

Yes. This news was just posted on IIP, so the race is on to see if Rudy can vacate his cell in time for Raffaele to move in.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Yes. This news was just posted on IIP, so the race is on to see if Rudy can vacate his cell in time for Raffaele to move in.

And this is or will impact Mignini career, how? Erm post #2834?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don’t know about all that. However, my CT is Hellmann served his purpose with the Perugian appeal verdict, leading to Hellmann being knocked into the very long grass (retirement) by the Italian Supreme Court, ta dah. Florence appeal verdict. No evidence or citation, just a CT.

Finally, we understand one another. But the guilter CT is a bit different (just in case you are invited to their Christmas party).

The CT is that De Nunzio manipulated the appointment of Hellmann through unfair behind the scenes manipulation (even though he was the appointing authority!), knowing that Hellmann was retiring to begin with. The guilter CT's know the exact amount in Euros it took to pay off Hellmann, the money coming from American Media interests, funnelled through the Masons.

Strangely, there is no report that De Nunzio ever got any loot.

 

[Samson]

And this is or will impact Mignini career, how? Erm post #2834?

You are mixing it up, I didn't comment on Mignini's career, just Galati and Rudy's jail time.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You are mixing it up, I didn't comment on Mignini's career, just Galati and Rudy's jail time.

That was my point.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Finally, we understand one another. But the guilter CT is a bit different (just in case you are invited to their Christmas party).

The CT is that De Nunzio manipulated the appointment of Hellmann through unfair behind the scenes manipulation (even though he was the appointing authority!), knowing that Hellmann was retiring to begin with. The guilter CT's know the exact amount in Euros it took to pay off Hellmann, the money coming from American Media interests, funnelled through the Masons.

Strangely, there is no report that De Nunzio ever got any loot.

How dare you!

 

[Samson]

That was my point.

I am unclear of the point, but since my opinion is seldom asked....
I believe Mignini's career will be consumated whereever the pearly gates aren't.

 

[Desert Fox]

You are mixing it up, I didn't comment on Mignini's career, just Galati and Rudy's jail time.

The Italian system seems to be set up to give the guilty lighter sentences than the innocent.

 

[Grinder]

First I would need a citation from me that I said that they would be released soon. I have never ever said that. (that the tapes would be released long ago)

Grinder - you keep embarassing yourself. You keep making awkward guesses. Why don't you ask Frank, or why don't you ask Kay Pea? You keep playing these silly games. My primary source of that one was John Follain. John Follain wrote way, way back (three or four years ago) that the interrogation tapes/recordings existed. I got one verification of that, and that's where it sits.

Please provide a quote from me where I said they'd eventually be released. I don't think you can, but if you can provide one, that would allow me to correct it.

18th February 2012, 06:13 PM #1840

Let's see what happens when the tapes hit YouTube.

This will happen sooner than you think.

(please wiggle some more)

As for me, I have wrote summaries of what I consider evidence. The lies are one chapter of it. But there is a number of points, evidence from various sources. The whole to be assessed altogether.
I always refrained from writing and explaining my detailed list of the lies, never altogether.
Besides the fact that she is actually convicted for being a liar - thus demonstration is not needed in the first place - what demonstrates the presence of lies, of fictional accounts, on the whole of her declarations, is inconsistency.
Inconsistencies in Knox and Sollecito's accounts are on multiple levels (with other statements, eith facts, with the story itself etc) and on a huge number of key points.
I will answer separately, but I am not entering here specific issues.

For the sake of transparency of my position, Machiavelli, I regard the way you've phrased the above as representative of the evasion I've received when asking for a list. (I believe I also read a post of yours about the murder acquital not being final until the SC has ruled, and now the claim is made that Knox is a "liar" because Hellmann sustained the Massei conviction. But I'll leave that point for now - but it is evidence for me of the application of differing standards.)

Also for the sake of transparency of my position, the "inconsistencies" I have seen (esp. Harry Rag's list) relate mainly to the nature of the interrogation - and the nature of that will not be in dispute forever. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

I speculated on this very point many threads ago. Machiavelli chose to ignore my question then. I suspect he will choose to ignore it now.

The tapes exists and are in safe hands. Otherwise Frank would not be inviting Perugia's finest to rearrange his face again to find out where they are.

I am becoming very frustrated with PGP who are invited to assert their case, by drawing up a list of lies, who never actually do it.... but they reserve to right to call someone a liar, perhaps hoping that by sheer repetition someone else might believe it.

It is also very plain that the main reason why Frank's face has not been rearranged over the tapes is that these "safe hands" in possession are outside of the control of the Italian judiciary and police forces. Once it becomes known who these "safe hands" belong to, it will be plain why they are not being released today. Like many things in life, timing is important and there will not be many posts from folk like Machiavelli once the fullness of time arrives. Other folks with similar views and similar websites will be paying for consultations with their own lawyers, too.

.... that you see clearly (ooops, you said "perfectly" - apologies) that she staged, "an emotional or physical altered condition."

I am confused. I thought the videotapes had not been released yet. Don't worry, they will be. And when they are, I am sure that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will back you up.

My complaint is people saying the tapes will be coming out without giving Frank as the source, as if the poster actually has information.

The same as TM, Michael, and Gang alluding to sources on the inside - either don't say anything or let us know the facts.

Those are the facts, and you probably meant "let us know the source."

For me, it is just good enough to know that Sfarzo is not alone by his onsey in this one.

Those are the facts, and you probably meant "let us know the source."

For me, it is just good enough to know that Sfarzo is not alone by his onsey in this one.

Here's what you wrote: "I am confused. I thought the videotapes had not been released yet. Don't worry, they will be. And when they are, I am sure that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will back you up."

Here's what Frank wrote: "I’ve got information, by the way, that the tapes still exist. It’s impossible, but it would be wonderful if the Supreme Court would confirm the slander conviction, and then maybe the tapes come out…"


So I'm curious as to how you know that the tapes (recordings) will be released as I don't see where Frank or anybody else in the know said that.

And what's a onsey?

Except, they were allowed into the murder trial. I would agree that she placed herself at the scene to some extent. It appears the police had said they had evidence that she was at the cottage that night so she was "obligated" to fit what the police "knew to be correct" into her statements in order to satisfy their requirements for cooperation.

If we had the actual recordings, I doubt there would have been a trial.

I am currently being taken to task for reporting things I do not "know", but which I trust. And yes, this is apart from any trust in Frank Sfarzo's sources.

The reason to do this is not for me to crow about me knowing something others might not, although that is a legitimate criticism.