Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

So they're pursuing a defamation claim based on a book that wasn't published in their country and that apparently no one can understand? OK . . .

Well, at least they have an abundance of qualified translators, like Donnino. And, when she's done translating, she can conduct a mediation.

I wish Sollecito's book had said: "Mignini's prosecution improperly and unethically withheld voluminous lab data."

I think he sorta did. Its a pretty broad indictment of Mignini and his prosecution.

I think this case is an opportunity to finally stop the Mignini madman. I won't be surprised if the judge takes the opportunity to let the defendants prove their case, and destroy Mignini on the witness stand.

 

[Numbers]

That makes sense. I had asked the question since I have seen many people speculate that tapes exist, but have been hidden or destroyed.

This actually comes together in a logical fashion. If the police (and PM) had an established way of doing these things (and there is no reason to believe they did not), it makes sense that they would purposely NOT record an interrogation where they already knew that they would not want the specifics of what went on in those rooms known to others later. There is no value to them in having tapes of something they are 100% sure is going to be, at the very least, skirting the requirements of the law. THe odds of them later saying to themselves, "damn, if we had only taped that session!!" are very low.

And, since they are professional cops and have done this many times before, they knew what was going to happen, more or less. It was Amanda and Raffaele who had no clue.

IIUC, not only are there no extant tapes, there are no extant minutes or detailed notes of the interrogations. If the interrogations were actually intended as witness interviews, I believe that there would be a recording and/or detailed notes, because the police would want the ability to review the information. In an interrogation (of the "old school" variety), there is no need any notes; the goal is to obtain a confession or a statement incriminating the subject or others. All the questions and answers up to that point are irrelevant to the investigation - that is, the "questions" are merely part of the intimidation or coercion technique and the answers if not incriminating are considered unresponsive. Also the "questions" are not recorded because they may contain threats or promises or false or misleading allegations, casting doubt on the validity of the incriminating statement.

 

[Dougm]

In an interrogation (of the "old school" variety), there is no need any notes; the goal is to obtain a confession or a statement incriminating the subject or others. All the questions and answers up to that point are irrelevant to the investigation - that is, the "questions" are merely part of the intimidation or coercion technique and the answers if not incriminating are considered unresponsive. Also the "questions" are not recorded because they may contain threats or promises or false or misleading allegations, casting doubt on the validity of the incriminating statement.

A lot of people seem to have difficulty accepting this, but this is not based on anti-police bias, it is documented reality. There are many cases where it has been found police do this, worldwide.

 

[Bill Williams]

It seems that Mignini is not suing over the whole book, Honor Bound, but over "defamatory phrases."

The court wants these phrases translated.

One is an interview between Bob Graham and Mignini, which Honor Bound makes reference to - for obvious reasons.

In it, Mignini appears to admit that there is a theoretical possibility that Raffaele was not involved in the crime.

There's probably other phrases. But it will be interesting to have Mignini cross examined on this.

Again.... rose coloured glasses time. Mignini may come to regret taking this to court.

 

[Dougm]

It seems that Mignini is not suing over the whole book, Honor Bound, but over "defamatory phrases."

The court wants these phrases translated.

One is an interview between Bob Graham and Mignini, which Honor Bound makes reference to - for obvious reasons.

In it, Mignini appears to admit that there is a theoretical possibility that Raffaele was not involved in the crime.

There's probably other phrases. But it will be interesting to have Mignini cross examined on this.

Again.... rose coloured glasses time. Mignini may come to regret taking this to court.

I don't know if he will regret it or not, but I am having trouble understanding why he would want a book that was never sold in Italy, and never translated into Italian, brought into the eye of the Italian public. Now, the passages he objects to will be "published", when they were not before. And won't there be some discovery around whether these passage are true or not? Not sure he will want that kind of info brought out in public.

 

[Diocletus]

I don't know if he will regret it or not, but I am having trouble understanding why he would want a book that was never sold in Italy, and never translated into Italian, brought into the eye of the Italian public. Now, the passages he objects to will be "published", when they were not before. And won't there be some discovery around whether these passage are true or not? Not sure he will want that kind of info brought out in public.

It does appear to be a bit of an own goal. Sollecito needs a lawyer who is willing to stand up to that D-bag, though.

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't know if he will regret it or not, but I am having trouble understanding why he would want a book that was never sold in Italy, and never translated into Italian, brought into the eye of the Italian public. Now, the passages he objects to will be "published", when they were not before. And won't there be some discovery around whether these passage are true or not? Not sure he will want that kind of info brought out in public.

MOO, MIgnini lacks the ability to recognize the wrongfulness of his own behavior. He thinks he's in the right, and has been unjustly defamed. He also thinks the judiciary will look out for their own and protect him, because he represents them in a sense, being one himself.

I think Mignini has miscalculated as to how this will all play out, but what choice did he have? To not file a defamation case would be tantamount to admitting everything in Raf's book is true.

How the main appeal of the Kercher murder conviction goes in March 25, will be a bell weather for how this defamation case goes. But the cases are I believe deliberately paired, in the court scheduling. The judiciary can use these cases to signal the direction of the elephant in the room, which is the bogus murder convictions.

Letting MIgnini twist in the wind as his reputation is slowly eviscerated is what I hope and expect to happen.

 

[Bill Williams]

It does appear to be a bit of an own goal. Sollecito needs a lawyer who is willing to stand up to that D-bag, though.

This is where innocentisti need beware confirmation bias. It certainly can be viewed as an own goal, but innocentisti need to beware the difference between being right and winning.

 

[Desert Fox]

MOO, MIgnini lacks the ability to recognize the wrongfulness of his own behavior. He thinks he's in the right, and has been unjustly defamed. He also thinks the judiciary will look out for their own and protect him, because he represents them in a sense, being one himself.

I think Mignini has miscalculated as to how this will all play out, but what choice did he have? To not file a defamation case would be tantamount to admitting everything in Raf's book is true.

How the main appeal of the Kercher murder conviction goes in March 25, will be a bell weather for how this defamation case goes. But the cases are I believe deliberately paired, in the court scheduling. The judiciary can use these cases to signal the direction of the elephant in the room, which is the bogus murder convictions.

Letting MIgnini twist in the wind as his reputation is slowly eviscerated is what I hope and expect to happen.

The problem is that one is assuming that this is all one entity when in reality there are different judges that may look at different issues different.

 

[LondonJohn]

It does appear to be a bit of an own goal. Sollecito needs a lawyer who is willing to stand up to that D-bag, though.

One thing that interests me in this is how Mignini is able to bring a defamation case in the Italian courts. After all, Sollecito's book was not published in Italy and nor was it ever printed in Italian, and there doesn't appear to have been any clear route for the book to have become easily available to potential readers in Italy.

In most jurisdictions this would make it impossible to bring a defamation suit. Instead, Mignini would have to lodge actions in the jurisdictions in which the allegedly defamatory material was published and readily available (in this case, the USA and the UK for example).

 

[Dougm]

MOO, MIgnini lacks the ability to recognize the wrongfulness of his own behavior. He thinks he's in the right, and has been unjustly defamed. He also thinks the judiciary will look out for their own and protect him, because he represents them in a sense, being one himself.

I think Mignini has miscalculated as to how this will all play out, but what choice did he have? To not file a defamation case would be tantamount to admitting everything in Raf's book is true.

How the main appeal of the Kercher murder conviction goes in March 25, will be a bell weather for how this defamation case goes. But the cases are I believe deliberately paired, in the court scheduling. The judiciary can use these cases to signal the direction of the elephant in the room, which is the bogus murder convictions.

Letting MIgnini twist in the wind as his reputation is slowly eviscerated is what I hope and expect to happen.

This is all, IMO, a matter of how much Mignini cares about how he (and the case) look inside Italy, vs. outside. He may not care about how it looks outside Italy. But as has been speculated here, it seems to me that a Prosecutor in an active case suing one of the defendants for defamation is something that, while maybe common in Italy, will be seen outside Italy (and by the ECHR) as harassment of a private citizen by a government official. I realize he is no longer directly involved in the case, but he is clearly a participant in the overall prosecution effort of RS.

Mignini could easily have ignored the book until it (if ever) were published in Italy, because I don't think many people there even know what was said in it. Now, he could be opening a can of worms. Of course, maybe, as you mentioned, if he trusts the courts to protect him, he will never have to explain any of his behavior like he would in many countries.

 

[carbonjam72]

One thing that interests me in this is how Mignini is able to bring a defamation case in the Italian courts. After all, Sollecito's book was not published in Italy and nor was it ever printed in Italian, and there doesn't appear to have been any clear route for the book to have become easily available to potential readers in Italy.

In most jurisdictions this would make it impossible to bring a defamation suit. Instead, Mignini would have to lodge actions in the jurisdictions in which the allegedly defamatory material was published and readily available (in this case, the USA and the UK for example).

This is all, IMO, a matter of how much Mignini cares about how he (and the case) look inside Italy, vs. outside. He may not care about how it looks outside Italy. But as has been speculated here, it seems to me that a Prosecutor in an active case suing one of the defendants for defamation is something that, while maybe common in Italy, will be seen outside Italy (and by the ECHR) as harassment of a private citizen by a government official. I realize he is no longer directly involved in the case, but he is clearly a participant in the overall prosecution effort of RS.

Mignini could easily have ignored the book until it (if ever) were published in Italy, because I don't think many people there even know what was said in it. Now, he could be opening a can of worms. Of course, maybe, as you mentioned, if he trusts the courts to protect him, he will never have to explain any of his behavior like he would in many countries.

LJ - I think I remember seeing that Raffaele went into a university library, and put a copy of his book on the bookshelves there. I don't know if that's the basis for jurisdiction, but at least its something.

Plus Mignini is famously litigious, using the system to hound all his perceived enemies.

DougM, I agree with the point about the echr viewing litigation as harassment, and part of an unfair trial process, particularly if the right to defend their case is restricted by the judges at trial.

BUt this really is a test of the validity of Mignini's prosecution, and the underhanded tactics they employed.

And while the judges are different individuals, my sense is more often than not, they strive for agreement among cases to avoid inconsistencies, and are very concerned about maintaining the perception of legitimacy in the public's view. So coordination behind the scenes is something I expect happens, especially in high profile cases. But as always, MOO -

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach, have you considered becoming a restaurant critic or otherwise writing about food and wine?

I think your writing makes considerable sense when you stick to that topic.

ETA: And see how much clearer your exposition can be if you are concise, as in your quote, paraphrased above.

Numbers, your obsessions with the production of standards, reports, with states and governments, makes me suggest you should have considered working for GAO, that US Gov agency that recently won the IGNObel price for issuing a report about reports about reports that recommends the preparation of a report about the report about reports about reports (and maybe you do work there):

http://www.improbable.com/2014/04/10/an-interim-report-about-the-report-about-reports-about-reports/

 

[Diocletus]

One thing that interests me in this is how Mignini is able to bring a defamation case in the Italian courts. After all, Sollecito's book was not published in Italy and nor was it ever printed in Italian, and there doesn't appear to have been any clear route for the book to have become easily available to potential readers in Italy.

In most jurisdictions this would make it impossible to bring a defamation suit. Instead, Mignini would have to lodge actions in the jurisdictions in which the allegedly defamatory material was published and readily available (in this case, the USA and the UK for example).

I think something was published in Oggi.

 

[Diocletus]

Numbers, your obsessions with the production of standards, reports, with states and governments, makes me suggest you should have considered working for GAO, that US Gov agency that recently won the IGNObel price for issuing a report about reports about reports that recommends the preparation of a report about the report about reports about reports (and maybe you do work there):

http://www.improbable.com/2014/04/10/an-interim-report-about-the-report-about-reports-about-reports/

It's called research. You should try it sometime.

 

[Machiavelli]

'Fluidi biologica' means biological fluid. It is chosen deliberately to be neutral so it does not make any implications about the origin of the material. You are completely reversing the intent of the phrase. Elsewhere the phrase 'materiale biologico' is used about the same sample (Chris they listened to you).

In this report there is care taken to report only what was found, not to exaggerate or over interpret. The exact opposite of what Stefanoni does.

Actually there is no interpretation at all in Stefanoni's report. However, Stefanoni at the preliminary hearing was testifying as a technical consultant for the prosecution.

The Berti-Barni perizia refers to "fluidi biologici" (p. 15) as those fluids from the human body that can be recognized specifically through testing their own specific monoclonal antibodies each of which recognizes its own epitope protein antigen.
At p. 82, the report says "Amanda Marie Knox contributed with her own biological fluids to trace I".
It clearly say, not only "fluidi biologici", but "propri fluidi biologici", where propri is an aggettivo possessivo that puts in relation the fluids with Amanda Marie Knox, and means "her own".
So the biological fluids are liquids that come from the system of Amanda Marie Knox, certainly not from the testing tube.

However, this does not prove anything. It only shows what words Berti and Barni actually wrote.

All that can be said was that DNA of Knox was found on the knife blade. No conclusions were drawn or could be drawn about the tissue of origin. It might be tears if Knox used the knife to cut onions, it might be epithelial if she held the knife in what we are told is the proper American way to use a kitchen knife, we just do not know. The least likely explanation is blood since no chemical or microscopic evidence of blood was found.

Now, if you want to apply a principle of Cartesian doubt, this is correct. But your argument was that trace I should be considered "unlikely" to be Knox's blood and unlkely to be related to the murder. I explained that this is not founded on the evidence set, because Knox's blood was certainly found on the murder scene and was linked to the murder by independent evidence. So there is independent reasons to believe there was Knox's blood on the murder scene.

Yet your main criticism seems to be still against Stefanoni, against which you seem willing to build an attack in an indirect fashion. I don't understand exactly which Stefanoni words you view as highly unethical or false. But anyway I can tell you that your "DNA ratio argument" by which you try to use features of a secondary and less significant element, as arguments in order to debunk a more significant finding, is legally unacceptable, and it is illogical. Moreover, the finding of MK's DNA on the blade is itself direct evidence against Amanda Knox, not just against Raffaele Sollecito.

 

[Machiavelli]

LJ - I think I remember seeing that Raffaele went into a university library, and put a copy of his book on the bookshelves there. I don't know if that's the basis for jurisdiction, but at least its something.

(...)

This may bring Gumbel under Italian jurisdiction. But there is no need for that in order to have Sollecito under trial: he is an Italian citizen and, as such, he is always under Italian jurisdiction, weherever he commits a deed that is punishable by Italian law or brings civil responsabilites under Italian law.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, your obsessions with the production of standards, reports, with states and governments, makes me suggest you should have considered working for GAO, that US Gov agency that recently won the IGNObel price for issuing a report about reports about reports that recommends the preparation of a report about the report about reports about reports (and maybe you do work there):

http://www.improbable.com/2014/04/10/an-interim-report-about-the-report-about-reports-about-reports/

This was your best post ever, IMO, Mach. I am pleased to see you have a sense of humor. So food - especially wine and cheese - and humor, these are fields your posts may excel in.

They are, sadly, deficient in the fields of forensics, law, human rights, or even logic. And remember, propagandistic repetition of absurd arguments is not enough to convince skeptics.

So keep that light touch of humor and we'll have a chuckle or two when the ECHR finds Italy in violation of Convention Article 6 when it judges Ms. Knox's application on her calunnia conviction!

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
But, acc. to Mignini (early on at least) they had to communicate with Rudy, while not communicating with him because there is NO communication except for perhaps a nod and a wink at the piazza.... where the message was, "Remember the plan for last night? Well, the plan is ON for tonight!"

Back to the matter at hand. Is this not premeditation?

By the law, no. This is not premeditation.
A "little party" may be organized in advance, or last minute, or improvised, but not "premeditated".
But also, please note that Mignini does not say that they all three planned that days in advance together with Rudy.

I think that's why the guilters on-line are so wedded to premeditation, where Machiavelli himself is now fighting tooth or nail to deny that Mignini had EVER postulated it.

It is a matter of fact that Mignini did not postulate premeditation. It is just obvious. It shouldn't be a matter of "fight" or dispute.

 

[Numbers]

This may bring Gumbel under Italian jurisdiction. But there is no need for that in order to have Sollecito under trial: he is an Italian citizen and, as such, he is always under Italian jurisdiction, weherever he commits a deed that is punishable by Italian law or brings civil responsabilites under Italian law.

Mach,

You probably are aware that there are many Americans of Italian descent. I had thought that most immigrants had come from Italy to escape from poverty. But now I realize that political or judicial oppression may have been a large factor as well, based on way Italy treats its own citizens like Raffaele Sollecito.

http://www.pbs.org/destinationamerica/usim_wn_noflash_5.html

By 1870, there were about 25,000 Italian immigrants in America, many of them Northern Italian refugees from the wars that accompanied the Risorgimento—the struggle for Italian unification and independence from foreign rule. Between around 1880 and 1924, more than four million Italians immigrated to the United States, half of them between 1900 and 1910 alone—the majority fleeing grinding rural poverty in Southern Italy and Sicily. Today, Americans of Italian ancestry are the nation's fifth-largest ethnic group.