Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[toto]

It's an objective fact that Mignini prosecuted a charge of non premeditated murder. I wouldn't think someone could have doubts on this.

Is it true that he said this though?:

Said Mignini, the murder “was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier” — on Halloween itself — “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day…”​

http://crimefeed.com/2013/08/the-pursuit-of-the-she-devil/

 

[Bill Williams]

It's an objective fact that Mignini prosecuted a charge of non premeditated murder. I wouldn't think someone could have doubts on this

.

Is it true that he said this though?:

Said Mignini, the murder “was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier” — on Halloween itself — “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day…”​

http://crimefeed.com/2013/08/the-pursuit-of-the-she-devil/

What is "objectively true" is that Mignini really didn't know what he was prosecuting. What he brought in front of Mattieni was not the case he and Comodi brought before Massei.

And considering that the issue is not really Mignini - it is the "case against AK and RS" - it also needs to be compared with the case brought by Crini in Florence, and as recorded by Nencini in 2014 in his motivations report.

Mignini thought that the case against them was initially a crime associated with the "day of the dead", an intended crime which had to be delayed a day, to fit with Nov 1. That in and of itself implies premeditation, for a crime intended for one day, but delayed for the next day.

However, what will be even more important, Machiavelli, is when you (as Yummi on the other sites) start correcting other folk in the Pro-guilt lobby on this point.

 

[Diocletus]

I beg your pardon but I never engaged in any "comical" explanation. In fact what you may recall is that I simply quoted a disproval if your theory from Vecchiotti's report.

It's not from Vecchiotti's report. The proof of contamination can be seen in black and white on Stefanoni's own lab documents (negative controls with a positive result).

 

[Vibio]

Is it true that he said this though?:

Said Mignini, the murder “was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier” — on Halloween itself — “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day…”​

http://crimefeed.com/2013/08/the-pursuit-of-the-she-devil/

When and on what occasion was that said? Who quoted it? A link to the original?

 

[Diocletus]

I never changed my position.

Yes, you did.

 

[Kaosium]

When and on what occasion was that said? Who quoted it? A link to the original?

It was Mignini's close before the Micheli Court, on or about October, 20, 2008. Here's something from La Repubblica about it.

Uccisa durante un rito sessuale. Nella ricostruzione che la Procura ha illustrato nell'udienza di venerdì, l'omicidio di Meredith fu premeditato e avrebbe dovuto essere un rito da celebrare in occasione della notte di Halloween. Un rito sessuale in cui la studentessa inglese fu accoltellata alla gola da Amanda Knox, mentre Rudy Guede la strozzava e Raffaele Sollecito la teneva ferma. "L'avrebbero uccisa - ha detto la Procura - perché Meredith non volle partecipare a particolari giochi sessuali di gruppo".​

Google Translate:

Killed during a sexual ritual . In the reconstruction that the prosecutors presented in the hearing on Friday , the murder of Meredith was premeditated and should have been a ritual to celebrate the occasion of Halloween night. A sexual ritual in which the British student was stabbed in the throat by Amanda Knox , while Rudy Guede the choked and Raffaele Sollecito held her . " They would have killed her - said the prosecutor - because Meredith refused to participate in specific sexual games of the group."​

 

[toto]

When and on what occasion was that said? Who quoted it? A link to the original?

it was a question asked of Machiavelli. If he didn't say it that's fine. I just want to know.

 

[toto]

It was Mignini's close before the Micheli Court, on or about October, 20, 2008. Here's something from La Repubblica about it.

Uccisa durante un rito sessuale. Nella ricostruzione che la Procura ha illustrato nell'udienza di venerdì, l'omicidio di Meredith fu premeditato e avrebbe dovuto essere un rito da celebrare in occasione della notte di Halloween. Un rito sessuale in cui la studentessa inglese fu accoltellata alla gola da Amanda Knox, mentre Rudy Guede la strozzava e Raffaele Sollecito la teneva ferma. "L'avrebbero uccisa - ha detto la Procura - perché Meredith non volle partecipare a particolari giochi sessuali di gruppo".​

Google Translate:

Killed during a sexual ritual . In the reconstruction that the prosecutors presented in the hearing on Friday , the murder of Meredith was premeditated and should have been a ritual to celebrate the occasion of Halloween night. A sexual ritual in which the British student was stabbed in the throat by Amanda Knox , while Rudy Guede the choked and Raffaele Sollecito held her . " They would have killed her - said the prosecutor - because Meredith refused to participate in specific sexual games of the group."​

Thanks. I read Vibio's question before your reply.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, you did.

Not even in your dreams. But maybe you fail to understand it multiple times.

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks. I read Vibio's question before your reply.

Nice catch, Toto, I suspect Machiavelli had forgotten about that.

 

[Bill Williams]

That is perhaps the only answer a person from the pro-guilt lobby can make. Transporting the knife is not, in an of itself, an indication of premeditation.

Strangely enough, neither of the convicting judges gave this as an answer.

Additionally, making reference to turning off their cell phones is more black and white. Mignini advanced it as an indication of premeditation. Both convicting judges found no premeditation.

(...).

Absolutely not. Mignini never pushed an aggravating charge of premeditation.
I mean there is no premeditation of murder, certainly no evidence if it.
This doesn't rule out for sure that premeditation of some illegal action didn't occur. But there is no specific evidence of it.

.... this is only a slight shift in topic, Machiavelli, but nonetheless telling.

So in suggesting that it was a premeditated act associated with the day of the dead, even Mignini did not have the courage of his convictions ( or knew he had no evidence) to go for this as an aggravating factor.

It makes me appreciate other prosecutors..... Vincent Bugliosi comes to mind, who tended not to embellish his case. He tended to make his cases based on the facts and let them speak for themselves.

I have a friend here locally who was appointed as a special prosecutor (ie. not one on salary, but appointed from outside) to prosecute police officers for misconduct. Not one word of hyperbole or aggrandizement. Just the facts, and he sat down.

Not like this case, where seven years later Mignini-fan-in-chief has to make excuses for him, and claim he'd never said what he'd said.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you are going to play that way then I will trump your speculation and quote from someone that was in the court room following the trial:

Perugia-shock February 27, 2009

The scientific police finds a palm print on the pillow, not visible at naked eye, and after having checked the database send them the a name. Rudy HermanGuede.​

Perugia-shock april 23, 2009

In the police database there are 9 millions record cards with fingerprints and only 1 million with hand-prints too. Thanks to Rudy's usual bad luck, they had taken his palm too.
On the pillow there were 4 bloody signs of fingers/palm. The palm one was readable and, inserted in the data base, resulted Rudy's record card.​

Perugia-shock May 8, 2009

Today we came to know something more about the results in respect to Rudi. First of all only the palm print on the pillow is certainly attributable to him. The other ones, which we heard at last hearing, were just probable, so we finally have to consider 1 single print to him.
And then it was revealed something that surprised even the prosecutors. When they inserted the palm print in the database no match came out. Indeed not only Rudi didn't have any criminal record, as we knew, but even when he was stopped in Milan his fingerprints weren't taken.

They got to Rudy only after a while, when the Perugia police sent to Rome the record cards of possible suspected people. Among those cards there was Rudi's one but not for criminal reasons. His finger and palm prints were recorded only because of the law on immigration.​

But then I don't understand what we are arguing about!

If Sforzo's account is reliable and accurate, then what we have is the following:

1) The police lifted a usable palm print from the pillow case.

2) They tried to match this print (presumably using computer matching) with the database of palm prints from criminal suspects. There was no match because Guede had no criminal record and thus his prints did not reside in that database.

3) The police then sent the print to Rome to see if it matched any prints on other databases (including the immigration database).

4) The Rome authorities obtained a match with Guede because his palm print was on the immigration database.


And this chain of events would explain the apparent delay in identifying Guede from that palm print on the pillow case. But it also more-or-less confirms that the palm print lifted was usuable for comparative purposes, and it also strongly suggests that a match was made on crease analysis rather than friction ridge analysis. Lastly, it also suggests that the match was made using computer analysis.

So, in this case, it appears that a) the palm print left on the pillow case was capable of being matched, even back in 2007, using crease comparisons; and b) although the police didn't match the print to Guede at first (because his prints were not on the criminal database), they were able eventually to match it to his print on the immigration database.

 

[Diocletus]

Not even in your dreams. But maybe you fail to understand it multiple times.

Oh, Ok. Then tell us what the Italian police are supposed to do with a person they "suspect," in the time prior to the magistrate's declaration that the person is indagata.

 

[Machiavelli]

It was Mignini's close before the Micheli Court, on or about October, 20, 2008. Here's something from La Repubblica about it.

(...)

You can verify yourself that La Repubblica's article - especially its wording - is inaccurate. We can read Mignini's arguments and read his requests in the judicial papers, we can see there is no premeditation charge and no scenario of premeditated murder was presented.
In fact, even if we read news reports more accurate we can infer that the intent of perpetrators, in the proposed scenario, was to have fun (a "little party" says Mignini) not to kill.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, Ok. Then tell us what the Italian police are supposed to do with a person they "suspect," in the time prior to the magistrate's declaration that the person is indagata.

The police are supposed to treat the person as an informant if interrogated, unless there is already incriminating evidence against that person.
They make no mistake if they do so.
But if the person becomes a formal suspect subsequently, the statements he/she released when he/she was already a suspect with incriminating evidence against him/her, as well as the self I criminating statements, cannot be used against the person.
The code admits that the police may decide that one is a suspect in the wrong moment, too late, and makes no fuss about it. Simply re-sets the limit of usability of collected evidence so that statements he/she released as a suspect are not used.
In general, the precise moment she a person should have been considered as a suspect is decided only later, by the preliminary judge or by other judicial organs. The police are not tasked with making this assessment in real time.

 

[Numbers]

Is it true that he said this though?:

Said Mignini, the murder “was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier” — on Halloween itself — “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day…”​

http://crimefeed.com/2013/08/the-pursuit-of-the-she-devil/

When and on what occasion was that said? Who quoted it? A link to the original?

It was Mignini's close before the Micheli Court, on or about October, 20, 2008. Here's something from La Repubblica about it.

Uccisa durante un rito sessuale. Nella ricostruzione che la Procura ha illustrato nell'udienza di venerdì, l'omicidio di Meredith fu premeditato e avrebbe dovuto essere un rito da celebrare in occasione della notte di Halloween. Un rito sessuale in cui la studentessa inglese fu accoltellata alla gola da Amanda Knox, mentre Rudy Guede la strozzava e Raffaele Sollecito la teneva ferma. "L'avrebbero uccisa - ha detto la Procura - perché Meredith non volle partecipare a particolari giochi sessuali di gruppo".​

Google Translate:

Killed during a sexual ritual . In the reconstruction that the prosecutors presented in the hearing on Friday , the murder of Meredith was premeditated and should have been a ritual to celebrate the occasion of Halloween night. A sexual ritual in which the British student was stabbed in the throat by Amanda Knox , while Rudy Guede the choked and Raffaele Sollecito held her . " They would have killed her - said the prosecutor - because Meredith refused to participate in specific sexual games of the group."​

It is revealing that the Migninians don't recognize - or don't wish to recognize - their Leader's profound and sacred utterances.

 

[Machiavelli]

.... this is only a slight shift in topic, Machiavelli, but nonetheless telling.

So in suggesting that it was a premeditated act associated with the day of the dead, even Mignini did not have the courage of his convictions ( or knew he had no evidence) to go for this as an aggravating factor.

(...)

No, you don't understand. This is not an aggravating factor. The charge of aggravation in a murder charge means something different. It means there is a plan, decided while cold-minded and some time on advance, to eliminate somebody. It is the murder that needs to be planned on order to have a premeditation circumstance, not the party, not a rape or a burglary or a prank nor another action.

 

[Kaosium]

You can verify yourself that La Repubblica's article - especially its wording - is inaccurate. We can read Mignini's arguments and read his requests in the judicial papers, we can see there is no premeditation charge and no scenario of premeditated murder was presented.
In fact, even if we read news reports more accurate we can infer that the intent of perpetrators, in the proposed scenario, was to have fun (a "little party" says Mignini) not to kill.

We've read them, Machiavelli, together. They're in these threads!

If one tracks down the transcripts for that day they reveal that the full quote is something to the effect that the Halloween/All Saint's Day/Day of the Dead (!) weekend was an 'opportunity' that the perpetrators couldn't 'miss'--for whatever reason--to perform their sexual sacrificial 'rite.' Doncha remember the big tussle you got into with someone over the nuances and translation of the word 'rite?'

 

[Samson]

You can verify yourself that La Repubblica's article - especially its wording - is inaccurate. We can read Mignini's arguments and read his requests in the judicial papers, we can see there is no premeditation charge and no scenario of premeditated murder was presented.
In fact, even if we read news reports more accurate we can infer that the intent of perpetrators, in the proposed scenario, was to have fun (a "little party" says Mignini) not to kill.

Since you and others rest your case on Raffaele's knife acquiring Meredith's dna during the murder, and leaving a blood outline on the pillow as secondary proof, then being returned to the apartment, cleaned and placed back in the drawer to maintain the chattels inventory, there are few scenarios for the knife.
1. Amanda is convicted of transporting it, but if for cooking purposes this must be legal, otherwise no knife could be purchased at a store, and transported for cooking purposes in Italy.
2. Therefore for it to be a crime, as Massei found it was, it could not be for this purpose, but an illegal purpose, which could only be self defence or premeditated murder.

The only consistent theory is that it was intended for self defence, but instead used for murder. This is a remarkable contortion to keep premeditation at bay.

 

[Numbers]

We've read them, Machiavelli, together. They're in these threads!

If one tracks down the transcripts for that day they reveal that the full quote is something to the effect that the Halloween/All Saint's Day/Day of the Dead (!) weekend was an 'opportunity' that the perpetrators couldn't 'miss'--for whatever reason--to perform their sexual sacrificial 'rite.' Doncha remember the big tussle you got into with someone over the nuances and translation of the word 'rite?'

That was probably a different incarnation of "Machiavelli". The Migninians seem to employ a team of persons, with obviously varying English-language skills among them, to take on that role. The other possibility is that "Machiavelli" has a memory disorder.

It's extraordinarily difficult to believe that Mignini's "Halloween night ritual" and it's postponement by a day in Mignini's argument could have been forgotten by the Migninians. They should be more respectful of the words spoken by their Leader. Especially because rational people think that those words are insane nonsense.