• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Desert Fox said:
I used the term "Perp Walk" as more or less a throwaway term. I don't know any simple word to use with the media circus when a defendant in named and displayed in whatever method.

I don't think anybody can argue that there was not a media circus with regards to this case. I would have likely defended Amanda and Raff in any case however because I defended the Norfolk Four and they were only minor celebrities.
Click to expand...

Once the Winterbottom film is out in general release, I'm not sure who will be left to argue with on the issue of the media circus which surrounded this case.

Winterbottom, and screenwriter Paul Viragh, take the view from inside the authors of that circus - Nick Pisa and Barbie Nadeau, with names dutifully changed to protect from lawsuit, I suppose.

The exception in Winterbottom's/Viragh's view was Frank Sfarzo, whose blog actually did contain the un-circus-like view of what was what, and how corrupt/inept the cops and local prosecutor was. And for his efforts in real time, the blog was shut down.
 
Motives

Bill Williams said:
It is really bizarre that Nencini latches on to, "it was a dispute over rent money," motive. It is bizarre because, as you say, the sole source for this is Rudy Guede, the guy whose fingerprints were found on Meredith's purse.

Why did Nencini not just stick with Prosecutor Crini's theory, that it was a dispute over pooh in the other toilet? What was wrong with Judge Massei who said that the motive, really, was all Rudy's, that Rudy needed no urging to be the sole initiator of the crime, one which (acc. to Meassei) Raffaele and Amanda made a last second "choice for evil" to support Rudy over their friend?

And what happened to the sex-game gone wrong? Why'd Nencini in carrying out the directives of the ISC to convict.... why'd he have to get creative on that: the motive?

Does he not know that Rudy's story also had it being Meredith who'd let him in and that they'd had consensual sex?

The whole thing is bizarre.
Click to expand...

I have to say that this is my favourite motive - favourite in a jaw droppingly you cannot be serious kind of way - dear, dear Mignini:

“It should be emphasized that, in any case, for those pathologically addicted to the commission of sex and violence, it is not far-fetched to connect the project to the tradition of Halloween, because if it is true that the night between October 31 and November 1 was passed (and Meredith had spent with her ​​friends and fellows), it is equally true that, at 9 pm circa of the first of November and for the next three hours, it was still the day of All Saints’ Day and what you do not was able to achieve on the eve night of Holiday of the Saints, could be realized in the night to pass from the last one to the “Holiday of the deads".......moreover, the three, and especially Sollecito, were all addicted to the suggestions of erotic – mudering “culture”, which has previosly been discussed and that night it was still the day of the Holiday of Saints, “inheritor” of the Catholic Shaman Celtic New Year, with all the implications that have their central point in the Holiday eve, that is the night between October 31 and November 1.”
 
refraining from extrajudicial comments

Desert Fox said:
"Look,Squirrel"
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I have made my opposition to perp walks and similar public spectacles clear here for several years at least. But we are not debating perp walks in general. My original point was that the behavior of ILE (taking a detour through Perugia on 6 November, release of the red bathroom photo; hanging Amanda's picture next to a mafia kingpin, etc.) heightened the general belief that the pair was guilty.

Consider a portion of the ABA's Rule 3.8 governing the responsibilities of a prosecutor: "(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule." There is wisdom in this standard.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
It is really bizarre that Nencini latches on to, "it was a dispute over rent money," motive. It is bizarre because, as you say, the sole source for this is Rudy Guede, the guy whose fingerprints were found on Meredith's purse.

Why did Nencini not just stick with Prosecutor Crini's theory, that it was a dispute over pooh in the other toilet? What was wrong with Judge Massei who said that the motive, really, was all Rudy's, that Rudy needed no urging to be the sole initiator of the crime, one which (acc. to Meassei) Raffaele and Amanda made a last second "choice for evil" to support Rudy over their friend?

And what happened to the sex-game gone wrong? Why'd Nencini in carrying out the directives of the ISC to convict.... why'd he have to get creative on that: the motive?

Does he not know that Rudy's story also had it being Meredith who'd let him in and that they'd had consensual sex?

The whole thing is bizarre.
Click to expand...

Kauffer said:
I have to say that this is my favourite motive - favourite in a jaw droppingly you cannot be serious kind of way - dear, dear Mignini:

“It should be emphasized that, in any case, for those pathologically addicted to the commission of sex and violence, it is not far-fetched to connect the project to the tradition of Halloween, because if it is true that the night between October 31 and November 1 was passed (and Meredith had spent with her ​​friends and fellows), it is equally true that, at 9 pm circa of the first of November and for the next three hours, it was still the day of All Saints’ Day and what you do not was able to achieve on the eve night of Holiday of the Saints, could be realized in the night to pass from the last one to the “Holiday of the deads".......moreover, the three, and especially Sollecito, were all addicted to the suggestions of erotic – mudering “culture”, which has previosly been discussed and that night it was still the day of the Holiday of Saints, “inheritor” of the Catholic Shaman Celtic New Year, with all the implications that have their central point in the Holiday eve, that is the night between October 31 and November 1.”
Click to expand...

One of the pro-guilt lobby is going to come back with this, so let's get it out of the way.

"Look, motive is not essential to solving a crime."

I've never disagreed with that.

What IS astounding, though, is that everyone on that side of the fence seems to need to invent motives for this crime. How many times have you read someone in the pro-guilt lobby talk about psychopathology - the psychopathology of Amanda Knox, the psychopathology of Raffaele Sollecito, the psychopathology of their families, or the psychopathology of anyone who supports them?

Even Mignini's Hallowe'en fantasy is not "psychology", it is medieval religion. Nencini's motive for the crime is pure greed, Massei's is a choice for evil facilitated by soft-drugs.

Why if motive is unessential for conviction, do they keep coming up with new ones? Even Nencini disagreed (apparently) with Prosecutor Crini's pooh-in-the-toilet theory.

But instead of going back to one tried-and-true one, he invented one out of whole cloth, a cloth spun by Rudy Guede.

C'mon Kauffer..... that's got to rank up there with Mignini's, even as it lacks a certain pizazz.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
I agree with you. I have made my opposition to perp walks and similar public spectacles clear here for several years at least. But we are not debating perp walks in general. My original point was that the behavior of ILE (taking a detour through Perugia on 6 November, release of the red bathroom photo; hanging Amanda's picture next to a mafia kingpin, etc.) heightened the general belief that the pair was guilty.

Consider a portion of the ABA's Rule 3.8 governing the responsibilities of a prosecutor: "(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule." There is wisdom in this standard.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you miss what I meant. . . .What I mean is that Vibio is posting a distraction. I made a minor argument but the poster is trying to turn it into something major instead of discussing how that Amanda and Raff are guilty.

On your issue, I always think of the media circus with regards to the West Memphis Three.
 
Kauffer said:
This is like pulling teeth. Was the passage, the quotation attributed to Mignini, correctly translated from the Italian? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be difficult... I am busy and this is the last thing on my mind.

I don't know exactly what quote you are refereing to. The only exact quote I can see in English is from ace reporter Candace Dempsey. She reports that Mignini said the following:

"Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room”

And she leaves it at that.

What Mignini actually says in the British tabloid interview is this:

"…teorecamente il delitto Arnanda poteva averlo anche istigato, teoricamente, stando.. . se lei mi dice non.. . non si trova.. . il delitto uno potrebbe averlo fatto anche stando nell'altra stanza, eh.. . cioè Sollecito,. , Sollecito è Raffaele. Cioè, teoricamente, cioè, io le dico questo: secondo me lei era lì, e lo dimostra... "

In English:

"...theoretically, Amanda could have instigated the crime…theoretically… being …if you tell me there is no…the crime, one could have carried it out even while in the other room, huh ... that is Sollecito ... Sollecito is Raffaele. That is theoretically that is. I'm telling you this: in my opinion she was there and it shows."

That's what he says and the short disjointed discussion about it begins and ends there. The full interview is at least 50 pages however.

Ace reporter Candace Dempsey then goes on say this in her article:

"But there’s a “time bomb waiting to explode” in the courtroom. All of a sudden Mignini has doubts. In an interview with Bob Graham in the SUN tabloid, he admits he can’t place Amanda in the murder room. Maybe, he says, she wasn’t there. Maybe she “instigated” the brutal slashing off-screen."

All lies.

There was no "“time bomb waiting to explode in the courtroom" about this. It wasn't even mentioned.

Mignini has absolutely no doubts that Amanda was there.

He does not "admit he can’t place Amanda in the murder room."
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
One of the pro-guilt lobby is going to come back with this, so let's get it out of the way.

"Look, motive is not essential to solving a crime."
I've never disagreed with that.

What IS astounding, though, is that everyone on that side of the fence seems to need to invent motives for this crime. How many times have you read someone in the pro-guilt lobby talk about psychopathology - the psychopathology of Amanda Knox, the psychopathology of Raffaele Sollecito, the psychopathology of their families, or the psychopathology of anyone who supports them?

Even Mignini's Hallowe'en fantasy is not "psychology", it is medieval religion. Nencini's motive for the crime is pure greed, Massei's is a choice for evil facilitated by soft-drugs.

Why if motive is unessential for conviction, do they keep coming up with new ones? Even Nencini disagreed (apparently) with Prosecutor Crini's pooh-in-the-toilet theory.

But instead of going back to one tried-and-true one, he invented one out of whole cloth, a cloth spun by Rudy Guede.

C'mon Kauffer..... that's got to rank up there with Mignini's, even as it lacks a certain pizazz.
Click to expand...

Trying to think of any cases where motivation would effect actual guilt from innocence except maybe in self defense cases. As well, might effect the actual punishment as well.
 
Vibio said:
I'm not trying to be difficult... I am busy and this is the last thing on my mind.

I don't know exactly what quote you are refereing to. The only exact quote I can see in English is from ace reporter Candace Dempsey. She reports that Mignini said the following:

"Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room”

And she leaves it at that.

What Mignini actually says in the British tabloid interview is this:

"…teorecamente il delitto Arnanda poteva averlo anche istigato, teoricamente, stando.. . se lei mi dice non.. . non si trova.. . il delitto uno potrebbe averlo fatto anche stando nell'altra stanza, eh.. . cioè Sollecito,. , Sollecito è Raffaele. Cioè, teoricamente, cioè, io le dico questo: secondo me lei era lì, e lo dimostra... "

In English:

"...theoretically, Amanda could have instigated the crime…theoretically… being …if you tell me there is no…the crime, one could have carried it out even while in the other room, huh ... that is Sollecito ... Sollecito is Raffaele. That is theoretically that is. I say this: in my opinion she was there and it shows."

That's what he says and the short disjointed discussion about it begins and ends there. The full interview is at least 50 pages however.

Ace reporter Candace Dempsey then goes on say this in her article:

"But there’s a “time bomb waiting to explode” in the courtroom. All of a sudden Mignini has doubts. In an interview with Bob Graham in the SUN tabloid, he admits he can’t place Amanda in the murder room. Maybe, he says, she wasn’t there. Maybe she “instigated” the brutal slashing off-screen."

All lies.

There was no "“time bomb waiting to explode in the courtroom" about this. It wasn't even mentioned.

Mignini has absolutely no doubts that Amanda was there.

He does not "admit he can’t place Amanda in the murder room."
Click to expand...
Thank you for the translation Vibio.
This can be sensibly used by the defence as full and final acknowledgement that there is no evidence Amanda was in the room. There is no reason for Mignini to say this otherwise. More material for a file to help newcomers to the case who find it difficult to believe there is no physical evidence that Amanda was involved in a murder in a bedroom. The judge implies there is, by declaring she plunged the knife while in the bedroom.
 
Samson said:
Thank you for the translation Vibio.
This can be sensibly used by the defence as full and final acknowledgement that there is no evidence Amanda was in the room. There is no reason for Mignini to say this otherwise. More material for a file to help newcomers to the case who find it difficult to believe there is no physical evidence that Amanda was involved in a murder in a bedroom. The judge implies there is, by declaring she plunged the knife while in the bedroom.
Click to expand...

I'm out of here. What an asylum.

Ciao.
 
Mignini

Vibio said:
I'm not trying to be difficult... I am busy and this is the last thing on my mind.

I don't know exactly what quote you are refereing to. The only exact quote I can see in English is from ace reporter Candace Dempsey. She reports that Mignini said the following:

"Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room”

And she leaves it at that.

What Mignini actually says in the British tabloid interview is this:

"…teorecamente il delitto Arnanda poteva averlo anche istigato, teoricamente, stando.. . se lei mi dice non.. . non si trova.. . il delitto uno potrebbe averlo fatto anche stando nell'altra stanza, eh.. . cioè Sollecito,. , Sollecito è Raffaele. Cioè, teoricamente, cioè, io le dico questo: secondo me lei era lì, e lo dimostra... "

In English:

"...theoretically, Amanda could have instigated the crime…theoretically… being …if you tell me there is no…the crime, one could have carried it out even while in the other room, huh ... that is Sollecito ... Sollecito is Raffaele. That is theoretically that is. I'm telling you this: in my opinion she was there and it shows."

That's what he says and the short disjointed discussion about it begins and ends there. The full interview is at least 50 pages however.

Ace reporter Candace Dempsey then goes on say this in her article:

"But there’s a “time bomb waiting to explode” in the courtroom. All of a sudden Mignini has doubts. In an interview with Bob Graham in the SUN tabloid, he admits he can’t place Amanda in the murder room. Maybe, he says, she wasn’t there. Maybe she “instigated” the brutal slashing off-screen."

All lies.

There was no "“time bomb waiting to explode in the courtroom" about this. It wasn't even mentioned.

Mignini has absolutely no doubts that Amanda was there.

He does not "admit he can’t place Amanda in the murder room."
Click to expand...

Well, let's forget the hyperbole and look at what he actually says and also what he starts to say but doesn't finish.

"...theoretically, Amanda could have instigated the crime…theoretically… being …if you tell me there is no…the crime, one could carried it out while in the other room, huh ... that is Sollecito ... Sollecito is Raffaele. That is theoretically that is. I say this: in my opinion she was there and it shows."

" if you tell me there is no...(evidence?)." He is, is he not stating that Ms Knox "could have instigated the crime....carried it out while in the other room"? But, in his opinion she did not do this. He thinks she was in the room and that "it shows" (whatever "shows" means in this context).

So, for Mignini, it is a plausible conclusion that Ms Knox was not in Ms Kercher's room at the time of the murder based on the absence of evidence.

Actually, this is, in a legal sense, reasonable doubt. Even if he doesn't believe it himself - not that he explains in this passage what "shows" Ms Knox was in the room.

Fair enough?
 
Kauffer said:
Well, let's forget the hyperbole and look at what he actually says and also what he starts to say but doesn't finish.

"...theoretically, Amanda could have instigated the crime…theoretically… being …if you tell me there is no…the crime, one could carried it out while in the other room, huh ... that is Sollecito ... Sollecito is Raffaele. That is theoretically that is. I say this: in my opinion she was there and it shows."

" if you tell me there is no...(evidence?)." He is, is he not stating that Ms Knox "could have instigated the crime....carried it out while in the other room"? But, in his opinion she did not do this. He thinks she was in the room and that "it shows" (whatever "shows" means in this context).

So, for Mignini, it is a plausible conclusion that Ms Knox was not in Ms Kercher's room at the time of the murder based on the absence of evidence.

Actually, this is, in a legal sense, reasonable doubt. Even if he doesn't believe it himself - not that he explains in this passage what "shows" Ms Knox was in the room.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...

I think I was trying to say that too. I'm not sure why Vibio is so impatient, we are all trying to get clarity, and this translation is a great help, as it shows Mignini's doubt in all its glory. What a pity he can't find her shoe prints.
 
Kauffer said:
Fair enough?
Click to expand...

No.

It's:

"Even if you are saying there is no evidence of Knox in the murder room, theoretically, she could have instigated it and been in another room while the crime happened (note he says at this point Sollecito). But I don't believe that. I'm telling you she was there and there is proof of it."

The interview is long and he gives his reasons of proof (agree with him or not) of why Knox was indeed in the room at the time of the murder. He shows absolutely no doubt that she was there in the room where Knox was murdered.

( and no, I'm not translating the rest of the interview....)


---
 
Last edited:
Proof

Vibio said:
No.

It's:

Even if you are saying there is no evidence of Knox in the murder room she could have instigated it and been in another room while the crime happened (note he says at this point Sollecito). But I don't believe that. I'm telling you she was there and there is proof of it.

The interview is long and he gives his reasons of proof (agree with him or not) of why Knox was indeed in the room at the time of the murder.

( and no, I'm not translating the rest the interview....)


---
Click to expand...

There is no proof of her in the murder room! He must be referring to traces of Ms Knox elsewhere that he cannot date and can be explained without reference to the murder.

So, she could have been in another room when the crime happened? I see. Interesting.
 
Vibio said:
No.

It's:

"Even if you are saying there is no evidence of Knox in the murder room, theoretically, she could have instigated it and been in another room while the crime happened (note he says at this point Sollecito). But I don't believe that. I'm telling you she was there and there is proof of it."

The interview is long and he gives his reasons of proof (agree with him or not) of why Knox was indeed in the room at the time of the murder. He shows absolutely no doubt that she was there in the room where Knox was murdered.

( and no, I'm not translating the rest of the interview....)


---
Click to expand...
I hope you follow the pattern here.
Mignini, Machiavelli, and now you Vibio, in slightly differing ways, are removing Amanda from the crime scene.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom