Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
carbonjam72 said:
Mach had more to say on this subject, but one of the issues was that Raf had gone to a university library and p[ut a copy of his book on a shelf in the library.

It sad that Italy has criminal penalties for "insults". Its amazing the adults haven't rushed in and taken the dangerous toys away from the children.
Click to expand...

Sollecito is an Italian citizen, and Italian citizens are subject to Italian law even if they commit actions in another jurisdiction.
I think Mignini is not interested in claiming damages, but rather in showing that some claims are false. Also let's not forget that the book was advertised by Francesco Sollecito on Porta a Porta and specific claims were adressed.
There are no charges of "insults" in the indictment, but there is a charge of aggravated defamation and a charge of contempt of the Judiciary.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Sollecito is an Italian citizen, and Italian citizens are subject to Italian law even if they commit actions in another jurisdiction.
I think Mignini is not interested in claiming damages, but rather in showing that some claims are false. Also let's not forget that the book was advertised by Francesco Sollecito on Porta a Porta and specific claims were adressed.
There are no charges of "insults" in the indictment, but there is a charge of aggravated defamation and a charge of contempt of the Judiciary.
Click to expand...

What are these claims, and how does Mignini plan to show that they are false?
 
Desert Fox said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Click to expand...

Fascinating, thanks. So now does Oggi get to reprint everything and say they are just covering the trial? Or has Oggi already run excerpts, as they did I believe with amanda's book?

By the way. I've always found Streisand annoying and cloying, Bette Midler to be obnoxious, and Etheyl Merman to be vomit inducing. I truly think it skips a generation. I'm sorry, but the vaunted charms of these loud warbling rude women eludes me.
 
Machiavelli said:
Sollecito is an Italian citizen, and Italian citizens are subject to Italian law even if they commit actions in another jurisdiction.I think Mignini is not interested in claiming damages, but rather in showing that some claims are false. Also let's not forget that the book was advertised by Francesco Sollecito on Porta a Porta and specific claims were adressed.
There are no charges of "insults" in the indictment, but there is a charge of aggravated defamation and a charge of contempt of the Judiciary.
Click to expand...

George Washington sent slave catchers after a runaway slave of his too, so it's not like I'm gloating.

It's just we don't consider our citizens to be slaves anymore, such that we can silence their right to express an opinion, and 'call a spade, a spade'.

I thought Raf's father actually disputed some of the claims from Raf's book? (I would imagine out of fear of this type of legal action?). Its weird that Raf would be held accountable for "advertising" the book on the TV show, if he didn't control the program. But if the law is he's guilty for publishing the book anywhere, then I can see the prosecution allegations, but I'm not sure I see the TV show as relevant since Raf doesn't control the TV program's content. Maybe I don't understand this point.

Thanks for the clarification on 'insults'. And the charge of "contempt of the judiciary", is that a reference to Mignini alone, or in combination with some of the other judges (if I remember the book correctly, Raf was critical of some of the other judges as well).

Is it still "contempt of the judiciary", if the contempt expressed is justified, and supported by the record? Or is it basically an automatic guilty verdict?

And I noticed the lawyer in Raf's case was Alfred Brizzoli? Is this the same lawyer who was a defendant from the Narducci trail cases (friend of Narducci family) that insisted he be declared innocent, rather than accepting a court victory on the basis of an expired statute of limitations?

That could make an interesting courtroom spectacle?
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Sollecito is an Italian citizen, and Italian citizens are subject to Italian law even if they commit actions in another jurisdiction.I think Mignini is not interested in claiming damages, but rather in showing that some claims are false. Also let's not forget that the book was advertised by Francesco Sollecito on Porta a Porta and specific claims were adressed.
There are no charges of "insults" in the indictment, but there is a charge of aggravated defamation and a charge of contempt of the Judiciary.
Click to expand...


So if an Italian citizen travels to (e.g.) Argentina and kills an Argentinian citizen in a hotel room in Buenos Aires, that person could be prosecuted in Italy, under Italian law, for murder?
 
Machiavelli said:
Sollecito is an Italian citizen, and Italian citizens are subject to Italian law even if they commit actions in another jurisdiction.
I think Mignini is not interested in claiming damages, but rather in showing that some claims are false. Also let's not forget that the book was advertised by Francesco Sollecito on Porta a Porta and specific claims were adressed.
There are no charges of "insults" in the indictment, but there is a charge of aggravated defamation and a charge of contempt of the Judiciary.
Click to expand...
Judge Hellmann declared Raffaele innocent. Raffaele agreed with this because he was there, and he helped write a book. It seems perfectly reasonable for him to have contempt for the members of the judiciary he wrote about. After all, they ruined his life and the lives of his family. How is Vannessa by the way? Has she rebuilt her life at all?

The point is at the time he wrote his book the allegations were timely and correct. With hindsight, who would prod the monster?
 
Last edited:
PS That bit about Vecchiotti being a coroner was hilarious :D

(Hint: a coroner is a government-appointed person with judicial powers who investigates and reports deaths on behalf of the state. As far as I know, there's not even any such position as "coroner" (or equivalent) in Italy. Perhaps "reporting pathologist" might be more appropriate. But even then, Vecchiotti's CV and published history makes it more than clear that her entire academic career has been in microbiology, genetics and forensic investigation. Not in adjudicating causes of death. And not in cutting open bodies.)
 
Machiavelli said:
There are no charges of "insults" in the indictment, but there is a charge of aggravated defamation and a charge of contempt of the Judiciary.
Click to expand...

What kind of crime is "Contempt of the Judiciary"??

Must lose something in the translation. Is it actually a crime to have contempt for something, or someone, in Italy, or does this have a different meaning than it has in other countries? :confused:
 
Strozzi said:
How many hours did the police question the Swiss professor who came to them to affirm that he was in Le Chic that evening until late and conversed with Lumumba periodically throughout? He presented a receipt to document it, didn't he?
Click to expand...

I repeat this because you skimmed over the point: the police found several witnesses, two or three testified that the bar was open, only one said it was closed, albeit at an earlier hour, that didn't fit the police "need".

Did you understand? This point says that your claim is false: the truth is the witness claiming the bar was closed did not fit what you allege was the police "need".

How many hours the police questioned the professor has no importance, insofar the police had found several witnesses, some testified that the bar was open at later hours but they were not able to say for sure Lumumba was there, while one said it was closed but that was only at an hour too early for the police.

So the truth is the police had not obtained anything the needed from the witnesses.

Seems to me that the Police could have taken (accepted) his statement in 15 minutes. Why did they question him for many hours?
Click to expand...

Seems to you on the basis of what? What kind of argument is that? It's superficial and silly.
There is one thing more: the Swiss witness didn't just "come", he was called by Mignini to testify. After hearing Lumumba's memories the police actively sought him in Switzerland and found him.

He was a big problem for them. He was an exculpatory witness and not somebody they could detain for a five-year-old crime like Curatolo to prevent talking to journalists and defense counsel. The Swiss professor destroyed their case against Lumumba. Not only were they going to have to release Lumumba, but it messed up the orchestrated scenario they had constructed against Knox and Sollecito.
Click to expand...

It is something obvious that, if the Swiss professor was completely reliable this would blow apart the investigation scenario against Lumumba, and in fact this is the obvious reason why the police needed to be absolutely sure he was a reliable person, that's why they interrogated him for several hours. But I repeat this is just plain obvious. His importance as an informant, given the implication on the course of the investigation, obviously justifies the lenght of police checks on him.
This is just plain obvious. It would be obvious in the best and most honest police scenario. It is also obvious that it has absolutely no implication of anything "orchestrated". An investigation scenario agaisnt Lumumba was set, formally and transparently decided (upon evidence that shortly later was proven to be false), not "orchstrated".
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
So if an Italian citizen travels to (e.g.) Argentina and kills an Argentinian citizen in a hotel room in Buenos Aires, that person could be prosecuted in Italy, under Italian law, for murder?
Click to expand...

Absolutely yes if they are provided evidence, unless the Argentinian Judiciary acts.
 
Very good

Dougm said:
No. No one does.

As for my opinion:

* The argument you refer to was not interesting. Is was however, marginally more interesting than this one
* Are you claiming we have "seen" Raffaele's statement to the police of the night of the 5th, because we have seen THIS? A newspaper article, quoting another newspaper article? REALLY? I was referring to the actual statement he gave, not an article, based on what one reporter told another reporter that the police told the first reporter

Also, your continuing meme about how "The Knox crew had released images of the victims naked body" is not only silly, but false. If these images have been "released", and you think it is so important, then show us where they are available to the public. Oh wait, you can't. The only one that "released" any such thing was Maresca, in his bizarre unannounced showing in court, for no apparent reason other than shock value.

Your arguments are nonsense.
Click to expand...


Wow. This is on a par with ‘Utterly irrelevant’. Complete denial.

You are claiming that the RS statement hasn’t been published on the web & that the Telegraph translations from years ago are inaccurate. Given the furore here over media reports about AK having links and (possibly sex) with the drug dealer I am extremely surprised, given the serious nature of the issue, that this blatant misrepresentation by the Telegraph hasn’t received more coverage :eye-poppi
Do you believe that this statement actually exists anywhere?

Likewise you deny the existence of a post on these threads confirming that some of AK’s fans have access to the images of victim’s naked corpse.

And you claim not to understand my argument.

Very good.
 
Machiavelli said:
There is one thing more: the Swiss witness didn't just "come", he was called by Mignini to testify. After hearing Lumumba's memories the police actively sought him in Switzerland and found him.
Click to expand...



Well then, the unpleasantly litigious bully Mignini should probably consider bringing action against the authors of "Darkness Descending". Because that book states explicitly - and with apparent first-hand authority - that something very different indeed happened. The book states that the Swiss witness (Professor Mero) actually found out about Lumumba's situation from an Italian friend who had seen a news report. The book further claims that Mero then called Perugia police from Switzerland, but was told there was nobody available to speak with him. The book says he asked to come over, but was told that was not necessary. The book says that Mero then decided to go to Perugia on his own initiative, since he was frustrated by the police response and realised his testimony would be critical to Lumumba.


Strange that Mignini instead presents the story as one of diligent proactive work by police and prosecutor that even went beyond the call of duty, thus positioning the police and PM as the "heroes of the piece". I wonder which version is correct.....? :rolleyes:
 
Yeah but

Dougm said:
snip

As for RS's statement, I looked on the pro-guilt wiki, and did not find it. I have since found it on both the pro-guilt and pro-innocence wikis, but there is no English translation on either (the pro-guilt wiki has what they call a "partial" translation, but there is quite a bit of paraphrasing, so I don't consider it a real translation. Maybe one of the wikis will translate it at some point). So we HAVE seen it, I agree, although not in a way where I feel we can parse the words and compare to some press conference 7 years later, and draw any conclusions.
Click to expand...


Wow, that didn't take long - but it still doesn't count :)
 
Speaking of "contempt of judiciary", I was reading Barbadori's testimony to review what he said about the CCTV data collection.

Here is the defense cross on the CCTV time issue:
QUESTION - On what grounds she claims that the time indicated by the cameras of the car park is not accurate and fits ten minutes ahead*?
ANSWER - I checked out , I went on the internet and looked at the time legal.QUESTION - I explain this finding , " looked at "*?
ANSWER - I looked at the summer time , I also saw through the scanned images , which were given to me by the technicians of SIPA , there were ten minutes ...
QUESTION - How do you make sure they have ten minutes? without suggest*!
PRESIDENT - I'm sorry , asks the defendant, she said: " 20:51 , but in reality were 20:41 ," this " actually" from what came out?
ANSWER - An analysis of the cameras, I saw that it corresponded in substance.DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - She said: " I ​​went on Internet and saw daylight saving time . "
ANSWER - Yes
QUESTION - Daylight saving time is first and foremost an hour which means that if 12 becomes 11 is a time , daylight saving time is not ten minutes.
ANSWER - No daylight saving time, the actual time in substance.
PRESIDENT - So now the real?
ANSWER - Yes , the real time.
PRESIDENT - This real- time as he pulled out*? this diversity of ten minutes? What kind of assessment*? This calls for the Defense.
ANSWER - I honestly do not remember which was the figure .DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - In its disclosure if it is to I submit it to him , she does not explain how .
PRESIDENT - It is authorized to consult .
ANSWER - No, there is the annotation.DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - There is a record in a manner in which lapidary she concludes*: "It is necessary to consider that the time the equipment is moved than ten minutes about ahead of daylight saving time . " What do you want mean?
ANSWER - No, daylight saving time is in fact a mistake.
QUESTION - So it is legal to read real?
ANSWER - Yes , yes.
APPLICATION - We establish , however, that there is a statement according to the which you are rebuilding schedules and stuff like that we must now analyze in detail , then establish because these ten minutes, as he did to count these ten minutes are so important .
ANSWER - I do not remember how I became aware of this difference in ten minutes. From memory I do not remember .QUESTION - How do we do this to rebuild his assessment*?
PROSECUTOR - DR.SSA COMFORTABLE - He did not do him the finding.DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - So who did this finding ten minutes?
ANSWER - It was probably done by the coach of SIPA , that is, the technician from whom I acquired the images of parking lot that is the one who told me this figure .PRESIDENT - He knows the name of this technical SIPA*?
ANSWER - No, I could track down , definitely yes.
PRESIDENT - I could track down but at the moment he does not know the name?
ANSWER - Yes
​


Notice how Barbadori begins by claiming that he did the assessment. Then he waffles by claiming that he doesn't remember how he did this assessment. Then when pressed, the ass prosecutor throws in the towel with the statement that the assessment of the CCTV time was not Barbadori's work but rather he got it from the parking lot attendant. The prosecutions CCTV time is shown to be nothing but the hearsay of an unnamed person who was not made available to the defense despite the prosecutions knowledge of these facts.

That cross to the upper right should have knocked out the prosecutions CCTV time.
 
Last edited:
carbonjam72 said:
Fascinating, thanks. So now does Oggi get to reprint everything and say they are just covering the trial? Or has Oggi already run excerpts, as they did I believe with amanda's book?

By the way. I've always found Streisand annoying and cloying, Bette Midler to be obnoxious, and Etheyl Merman to be vomit inducing. I truly think it skips a generation. I'm sorry, but the vaunted charms of these loud warbling rude women eludes me.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing is that with the passages being translated into Italian, they will get released to a wider Italian audience that they would otherwise. It would be far smarter to just let it lie :boxedin:
 
LondonJohn said:
Well then, the unpleasantly litigious bully Mignini should probably consider bringing action against the authors of "Darkness Descending". Because that book states explicitly - and with apparent first-hand authority - that something very different indeed happened. The book states that the Swiss witness (Professor Mero) actually found out about Lumumba's situation from an Italian friend who had seen a news report. The book further claims that Mero then called Perugia police from Switzerland, but was told there was nobody available to speak with him. The book says he asked to come over, but was told that was not necessary. The book says that Mero then decided to go to Perugia on his own initiative, since he was frustrated by the police response and realised his testimony would be critical to Lumumba.


Strange that Mignini instead presents the story as one of diligent proactive work by police and prosecutor that even went beyond the call of duty, thus positioning the police and PM as the "heroes of the piece". I wonder which version is correct.....? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If the professor did not act, I would bet anything that Patrick would have been convicted along with Amanda and Raffaele.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom