Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

The sleuths at TJMK have translated Amanda's December interrogation at Capanne. It includes this gem from Mignini who is setting out particulars of the case against her before the interrogation begins:

Mignini: Then there are, in the ambit of fingerprint tests that were done, the prints despite she lives, despite she lived in that house and she was the person who remained, who had moved around the inside of the house as [7] the last one there, up until… there was one trace only on a glass, only one print of hers. And this, this makes one think that there had been, that she had removed her other prints, because it isn’t, in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, it’s not likely that she had, that there would be only one single print of hers from… although she lived in the house. Now then. It’s these ones. Then there are the findings they are basically these ones. Now then.

He actually says it out loud: I am a stupid moron who should never have been promoted higher than filing clerk. That is my translation. Machiavelli, as Mignini's representative on planet Earth, can you offer a defence for this cretin?

 

[Samson]

Having witnessed this entity's proprietary combination of stubbornness and delusion for 4-plus years, I will say that your assessment is unlikely to come to any kind of satisfying culmination in any scenario, whatsoever.

For example, the astonishing nitwit "Ergon"'s belief is so bulletproof, he has said that he would disbelieve Rudy Guede if he had his Saul on the Road to Damascus moment and admitted full culpability. Based on my experience, Gabriel and the Holy Trinity could materialize out of the ether, chanting for a period of one month that Knox and Sollecito were uninvolved in the murder of Meredith Kercher, and Machiavelli would posthaste produce an online treatise explaining how God, his hosts and angels may be omnipotent in relative terms, but cannot be trusted to be accurate in all circumstances.

I agree the task appears daunting, but I am a great believer in geological leisure to change things. Lindy Chamberlain, Arthur Thomas in this neck of the woods, 30 and 40 years, but when there is something clearly wrong, a few pollyannas like us are needed to keep the show rolling along I believe.

 

[carbonjam72]

The sleuths at TJMK have translated Amanda's December interrogation at Capanne. It includes this gem from Mignini who is setting out particulars of the case against her before the interrogation begins:

Mignini: Then there are, in the ambit of fingerprint tests that were done, the prints despite she lives, despite she lived in that house and she was the person who remained, who had moved around the inside of the house as [7] the last one there, up until… there was one trace only on a glass, only one print of hers. And this, this makes one think that there had been, that she had removed her other prints, because it isn’t, in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, it’s not likely that she had, that there would be only one single print of hers from… although she lived in the house. Now then. It’s these ones. Then there are the findings they are basically these ones. Now then.

He actually says it out loud: I am a stupid moron who should never have been promoted higher than filing clerk. That is my translation. Machiavelli, as Mignini's representative on planet Earth, can you offer a defence for this cretin?

Excuse me, but am I understanding Dr Mignini correctly, in that it is not the fact that they found Amanda's fingerprints in the house where she lived that he finds indicative of her participation in the murder of her room mate. But rather, it is the fact that he, the prosecutor, would expect to have found more of her fingerprints, beyond the single print of Amanda's they did find on a drinking glass. And the absence of Amanda's finger prints, makes the prosecutor believe that Amanda must have engaged in a clean-up of her fingerprints of her own house, because if no clean up had occurred, the prosecutor would expect to find more of her prints. Therefore, it is the fingerprints that have been, presumably cleaned up by Amanda and therefore no longer existent, which the prosecutor believes points to Amanda's guilt in the murder of her room mate?

Did I get it right? Is this actually what Mignini said? Is this in a transcript of the Dec 18, 2007 interrogation?

 

[anglolawyer]

Excuse me, but am I understanding Dr Mignini correctly, in that it is not the fact that they found Amanda's fingerprints in the house where she lived that he finds indicative of her participation in the murder of her room mate. But rather, it is the fact that he, the prosecutor, would expect to have found more of her fingerprints, beyond the single print of Amanda's they did find on a drinking glass. And the absence of Amanda's finger prints, makes the prosecutor believe that Amanda must have engaged in a clean-up of her fingerprints of her own house, because if no clean up had occurred, the prosecutor would expect to find more of her prints. Therefore, it is the fingerprints that have been, presumably cleaned up by Amanda and therefore no longer existent, which the prosecutor believes points to Amanda's guilt in the murder of her room mate?

Did I get it right? Is this actually what Mignini said? Is this in a transcript of the Dec 18, 2007 interrogation?

Yes, you got it right. He doesn't stop to wonder why they would focus on her prints (which have every right to be there) nor how, while ignoring Raffaele's bloody footprint on the mat. Facepalm.

 

[Numbers]

The sleuths at TJMK have translated Amanda's December interrogation at Capanne. It includes this gem from Mignini who is setting out particulars of the case against her before the interrogation begins:

Mignini: Then there are, in the ambit of fingerprint tests that were done, the prints despite she lives, despite she lived in that house and she was the person who remained, who had moved around the inside of the house as [7] the last one there, up until… there was one trace only on a glass, only one print of hers. And this, this makes one think that there had been, that she had removed her other prints, because it isn’t, in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, it’s not likely that she had, that there would be only one single print of hers from… although she lived in the house. Now then. It’s these ones. Then there are the findings they are basically these ones. Now then.

He actually says it out loud: I am a stupid moron who should never have been promoted higher than filing clerk. That is my translation. Machiavelli, as Mignini's representative on planet Earth, can you offer a defence for this cretin?

Aren't the judges and prosecutors in Italy selected through competitive examinations?

But if so, which tail end of the distribution of exam scores are being selected?

In reality, like Giobbi and his behavioral analysis (hip wiggle, eating pizza), the real factors of suspicion are likely: 1) no lawyer; 2) female; 3) American; 4) conveniently framable.

 

[Desert Fox]

Excuse me, but am I understanding Dr Mignini correctly, in that it is not the fact that they found Amanda's fingerprints in the house where she lived that he finds indicative of her participation in the murder of her room mate. But rather, it is the fact that he, the prosecutor, would expect to have found more of her fingerprints, beyond the single print of Amanda's they did find on a drinking glass. And the absence of Amanda's finger prints, makes the prosecutor believe that Amanda must have engaged in a clean-up of her fingerprints of her own house, because if no clean up had occurred, the prosecutor would expect to find more of her prints. Therefore, it is the fingerprints that have been, presumably cleaned up by Amanda and therefore no longer existent, which the prosecutor believes points to Amanda's guilt in the murder of her room mate?

Did I get it right? Is this actually what Mignini said? Is this in a transcript of the Dec 18, 2007 interrogation?

I am quite sure that if there were fingerprints everywhere, that would be evidence of guilt as well.

Sometimes I do worry that I miss something, the pro guilt side argues that I am just not getting. Wish one would try not to be snide and explain where I am going wrong if I am.

 

[NancyS]

What a right thicko Although I think he's probably going for one of his favourite 'weighs more than a duck' arguments. If her fingerprints were found he would have claimed that they must have been left the night of the murder, because someone commented the place was vaguely clean - and yet if not found, it's evidence of a clean-up

 

[NancyS]

Yes, you got it right. He doesn't stop to wonder why they would focus on her prints (which have every right to be there) nor how, while ignoring Raffaele's bloody footprint on the mat. Facepalm.

This is also most annoying. They claim that in the massive clean-up they somehow missed the footprint on the bathmat - and yet they also imply that she must have lied about having a shower the next morning, as it would be impossible to miss the footprint

 

[carbonjam72]

This is also most annoying. They claim that in the massive clean-up they somehow missed the footprint on the bathmat - and yet they also imply that she must have lied about having a shower the next morning, as it would be impossible to miss the footprint

Good point Nancy, I never understood why they would claim Amanda lied about taking a shower.

Also, Nencini I think wrote something to the effect that any traces of Amanda in her own apartment were referable to the night of the murder, since everything else seemed to have been cleaned. (Amanda uses the quote on her blog).

 

[carbonjam72]

Yes, you got it right. He doesn't stop to wonder why they would focus on her prints (which have every right to be there) nor how, while ignoring Raffaele's bloody footprint on the mat. Facepalm.

It's not just dumb, its crazy. It's like arguing with a paranoid schizophrenic who somehow became a prosecutor, or should we say, inquisitor?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, you got it right. He doesn't stop to wonder why they would focus on her prints (which have every right to be there) nor how, while ignoring Raffaele's bloody footprint on the mat. Facepalm.

This is amazingly stupid Italian logic.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's not just dumb, its crazy. It's like arguing with a paranoid schizophrenic who somehow became a prosecutor, or should we say, inquisitor?

And yet there it is, in the translation by those dozy jackasses at TJMK who think they have discovered the Oracle. My theory is that Mignini was brilliantly covering his corruption by pretending to be an utter moron. You really need the IQ of a pencil to take this crap seriously. He should have been drowned in gales of laughter.

 

[Samson]

And yet there it is, in the translation by those dozy jackasses at TJMK who think they have discovered the Oracle. My theory is that Mignini was brilliantly covering his corruption by pretending to be an utter moron. You really need the IQ of a pencil to take this crap seriously. He should have been drowned in gales of laughter.

I think I detect underlying anxiety and frustration in the camp, first the conviction, then the motivation, then the translation were supposed to make everyone fold their tents and concede, but the pesky innocenti are vocal as ever.

 

[kwill]

Excuse me, but am I understanding Dr Mignini correctly, in that it is not the fact that they found Amanda's fingerprints in the house where she lived that he finds indicative of her participation in the murder of her room mate. But rather, it is the fact that he, the prosecutor, would expect to have found more of her fingerprints, beyond the single print of Amanda's they did find on a drinking glass. And the absence of Amanda's finger prints, makes the prosecutor believe that Amanda must have engaged in a clean-up of her fingerprints of her own house, because if no clean up had occurred, the prosecutor would expect to find more of her prints. Therefore, it is the fingerprints that have been, presumably cleaned up by Amanda and therefore no longer existent, which the prosecutor believes points to Amanda's guilt in the murder of her room mate?

Did I get it right? Is this actually what Mignini said? Is this in a transcript of the Dec 18, 2007 interrogation?

What's even weirder is that isn't true.

Prosecutor Mignini made the claim to the press that Amanda attempted to clean up her finger prints from the crime scene. Mignini stated: "It is reasonable to hypothesize that she herself felt the need to eliminate the traces of her presence from an apartment in which she lived."

At the trial, the prosecutor's own fingerprint expert, Giuseppe Privitera, flatly refuted this hypothesis. He said fingerprints tend to get smudged, often it is hard to find good ones even of someone who lives at the scene of an investigation, and nothing he found at the cottage suggested that any effort had been made to remove fingerprints intentionally.

source

Which is to say, they did in fact find Amanda's smudged prints all over the cottage. They just didn't bother to lift the prints because of course she lived there. Mignini's statement is an astonishing sample of stupidity: "It is reasonable to hypothesize that she herself felt the need to eliminate the traces of her presence from an apartment in which she lived."

Monty Python, are you jealous? Humph, humph!! It is reasonable to hypothesize that the suspect would try to pretend she had never been in the cottage at all, not even in her own bedroom! This is how suspects think! This is how they behave! Humph, humph!!

Except . . . they looked hard for Amanda's prints inside Meredith's room. But they couldn't find any, because she didn't go in there. Mignini is lying.

 

[Numbers]

What's even weirder is that isn't true.

source

Which is to say, they did in fact find Amanda's smudged prints all over the cottage. They just didn't bother to lift the prints because of course she lived there. Mignini's statement is an astonishing sample of stupidity: "It is reasonable to hypothesize that she herself felt the need to eliminate the traces of her presence from an apartment in which she lived."

Monty Python, are you jealous? Humph, humph!! It is reasonable to hypothesize that the suspect would try to pretend she had never been in the cottage at all, not even in her own bedroom! This is how suspects think! This is how they behave! Humph, humph!!

Except . . . they looked hard for Amanda's prints inside Meredith's room. But they couldn't find any, because she didn't go in there. Mignini is lying.

What is further troubling is that in the Italian justice system this obsessive and irrational prosecutor could carry out these criminal abuses, which resulted in Amanda and Raffaele each spending nearly four years in prison, and which I am sure are still costing them and their families enormous emotional and financial resources, with impunity. Impunity even after he tried to wreck the lives of about 20 other persons with his abusive and irrational prosecutions in his extension of the Monster of Florence cases.

 

[Machiavelli]

Actually, it's grand chamber. The grand chamber is the highest configuration of the ecthr. In bouyid, a lower panel of the court held basically that the cops are allowed to slap witnesses, and there was a lot of criticism of the decision from human right groups. The grand chamber granted review of that decision, argument to occur this month, and it seems likely that they will say that the cops are not allowed to slap interogees. Even perugian cops.

The ECHR will not rule about the slapping of Amanda Knox. The ECHR only rules on cases that have been examined by courts when the legal course is exhausted. Amanda Knox never initiated any legal action about the reported slapping. There was no legal complaint by Knox about a slapping, no court dealt with the issue.

 

[Wattson]

It's not just dumb, its crazy. It's like arguing with a paranoid schizophrenic who somehow became a prosecutor, or should we say, inquisitor?

Notary

 

[Diocletus]

The ECHR will not rule about the slapping of Amanda Knox. The ECHR only rules on cases that have been examined by courts when the legal course is exhausted. Amanda Knox never initiated any legal action about the reported slapping. There was no legal complaint by Knox about a slapping, no court dealt with the issue.

Sure they will. They charged her with a crime and part of her defense was that they coerced her to commit the crime by, among other things, hitting her. She testified to this fact. It's not her fault that the courts wouldn't rule on that specific issue, and indeed, the Italian authorities never conducted a proper investigation as they were obligated to do pursuant to their obligations under the echr. They issue is squarely before the ecthr and she is going to win if they decide the appeal

There was no need for her to commence a separate action for adjudication of her mistreatment, when it was a vital part of her defense.

 

[Planigale]

Yeah. But if you find neutral parties to examine the testimony and the gastric evidence, the very next event will be a series of attacks on the credibility & impartiality of those parties.

The PGP does not care what the evidence says. I just hope that the European Union does.

Just to clarify the European court of human rights is nothing to do with EU. That is why Russia and Turkey are subject to ECHR but are not members of EU. Technically the convention on human rights is what nations sign up to to be part of the Council of Europe. The EU is a completely different organisation, it is a bit like confusing the Organisation of American States with the United States of America, similar names but different entities.

 

[Desert Fox]

What is further troubling is that in the Italian justice system this obsessive and irrational prosecutor could carry out these criminal abuses, which resulted in Amanda and Raffaele each spending nearly four years in prison, and which I am sure are still costing them and their families enormous emotional and financial resources, with impunity. Impunity even after he tried to wreck the lives of about 20 other persons with his abusive and irrational prosecutions in his extension of the Monster of Florence cases.

The more I read, the safer I think Amanda is even with a Republican Administration. There is just too much BS involved in this case from the prosecution / judge side. It is horrible that Raffaele may spend years in jail while the real murderer will likely get out and may very well do something similar again.