Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Machiavelli,

Thank you for providing some detail which I left out of this complicated story of the abuse of power by an Italian prosecutor, Mignini, and how the Italian judicial system protected him from any accountability for his misconduct.

In the simplified statement in my post, I only mentioned the time-limitation trick used to protect Mignini from accountability. You very kindly bring out that other trick, where either by the incompetence so typical of the Italian judiciary, or by their also typical intentional obstructionism, the prosecution of Mignini was conducted in the judicial district where he had (allegedly) violated the rights of one or more judges by abuse of power. So the finding of guilt in that district had questionable validity, and the trial was moved to another judicial district. Then the case ran out of time.

There is nothing in the treatment of the case against Mignini by the Italian judicial authorities which contradicts the proposition that he was protected from accountability from serious charges of abuse of power.

Wrong, it is a false or unfounded proposition instead.

First, the alleged causal link between time-limitation and annullment of trial and charges is false, which was the topic of your previous post. The truth is annullment of charges was not ruled because of time limitations, it was ruled because those who filed the charges were not acting lesitimately (this also means, to any reasonable person, that they were not credible).

Second, the only actual facts are Mignini was subjected to an illegitimate prosecution, and was tried by people who were obviously not credible due to manifest conflict of interest. The fact that he was prosecuted and tried (unlawfully) is the factual truth, not that he was "protected". The assertion that he was "protected" through the "obstructionist" or "incompetent" Florentine prosecution is a deliberate twisting on your part, given that the only factual truth is that he was prosecuted by some Florentine magistrates, not that he was protected by them. The latter assertion that he was "protected" is your own arbitrary interpretation, something obviously illogical beyond unfounded and just a made up addition on your part.

Third, the Italian judiciary ought not be called "typically incompetent" or "typically obstructionist" by people having as their point of reference and comparison, and as representatives, judicial authorities like those who convicted Chico Forti, who declared George W. Bush's victory over Al Gore, who deny justice to unarmed black people killed by police on the street, who have North Korea's incarceration rate or who keep Guantanamo Delta Camp open. Really, US citizens, theirrepresentatives and their Department of State are not in a good position for calling a judicial system like the Italian one "incompetent" or "obstructionist", not before human morals or human reason.

Fourth, I have to note that you omtted the part where Mignini was acquitted in the merits of the most serious charge, since he proved himself factually innocent of the allegation, showing the recording was genuine and not forged. He was convicted and found factually of that charge. This is something that, to a reasonable individual, would imply putting into question the credibility of the accusers, who were evidently attempting to bring false evidence against hime. Let's not forget, btw, that the Chief Prosecutor of Florence of that time, Nannucci, resigned, soon after he was wiretapped giving defensive suggestions to Mario Spezi, while the judge who convicted Mignini in the first instance, Maradei, subsequently fell in disgrace as he was involved in a political corruption scandal.

 

[Machiavelli]

I saw this one on Melrose Place - or was it Hollyoaks After Dark?

No, it was in Perugian newspapers, in lawyers' statements, in judicial papers, in police papers, in Knox's own statements, in Knox's phone records.

 

[christianahannah]

The Daily Mail readers have reversed their opinions. A couple of years ago, the comments were rated by the clicks heavily against Amanda and Raffaele. This article has drawn rating clicks, roughly 60 40 in favour. I suspect this could be regarded as an informal poll of what the British people believe. Take note Machiavelli, Christianahannah, Vibio, and so on.
I hope a retired tabloid journalist from Coulsdon is also mindful of what is going on.

I am not sure how to receive this news. I rarely rely on The Daily Mail for my news and the opinion of the public at large in any circumstance. You did write informal so I take it you are not convinced of such opinions either.

The clicks remind me of FB likes and while I confess I am somewhat flattered when I receive them I dont usually take them seriously (nor the comments added to the likes).

 

[christianahannah]

No, it was in Perugian newspapers, in lawyers' statements, in judicial papers, in police papers, in Knox's own statements, in Knox's phone records.

And this was not publicly brought before the court to use against Amanda during trial, correct (though I imagine was part of the investigation record)? So much for "Fifty Shades of Grey, dirty old man" Mignini.

As I wrote before he isn't what many collectively are describing him to be.

 

[Desert Fox]

There is a very serious issue arising if they jail Sollecito, and decline to seek extradition for Knox as Burleigh predicts.
This must be politically impossible, therefore I predict they will either order a new trial, or find a judicial loophole that puts Sollecito's situation in permanent limbo. This would suit everyone (or noone), no winners no losers.

In a few years they will likely release Guede while keeping Sollecito in prison. . . . Not going to look real good if they do that.

 

[NancyS]

No, it was in Perugian newspapers, in lawyers' statements, in judicial papers, in police papers, in Knox's own statements, in Knox's phone records.

I think Vibio wanted some examples of the 'sexed up' headlines from Perugian papers - he'll be most happy if you could provide the examples

And is this the same judical papers and police papers that talk about buying pants and eating evil pizzas?

 

[Samson]

I am not sure how to receive this news. I rarely rely on The Daily Mail for my news and the opinion of the public at large in any circumstance. You did write informal so I take it you are not convinced of such opinions either.

The clicks remind me of FB likes and while I confess I am somewhat flattered when I receive them I dont usually take them seriously (nor the comments added to the likes).

Well, here is a sample comment.


When the police lie, nothing happens? The assumption is they aren't motivated to lie and everything else they say is true? When the prosecutors lie, nothing happens? The assumption is they aren't motivated to lie and everything else they say is true? When the interrogators lie, nothing happens? The assumption is they aren't motivated to lie and everything else they say is true? But if the suspect stumbles or doesn't remember perfectly, it is a sign of lying and everything he/she said is untrue? But if the suspect says everything perfectly and the same time after time, he is rehearsed and thus guilty? This is only the top of a very big pile of objections I have about this case.

upvoted 107 downvoted 34.

I used to read these comments sections and this would have been the reverse. I am convinced that public opinion in the UK has changed accordingly. I think the reason will be steeped in the protracted nature of the proceedings, and the sure realisation by "the people" that where there is smoke there is fire. They are ceasing to buy the myth that all those courts must be right, and are rather seeing the process for the corupt farce it is.

In fact the score is exactly one all in the legitimate trials, with the Hellmann judgement having the benefit of the last say. This is the one the American state department is using IMO.

 

[Diocletus]

I remember that too and drew the same inference at the time.

But now there appears to be a complete lack of certainty as to how these people reached the verdict and how the sentences were decided upon. It may well be that the 'jurors' discussed the case between themselves (Mrs Ballerini also says the professional judges did not try to sway them during their discussions) and Nencini and Cicerchia simply decided on the verdict once the discussions were over or were terminated by them, having not guided the 'jurors' as to the meaning of 'Reasonable Doubt' (I doubt they understand it, either). She says that she and other 'jurors' protested, but this appears to have been solely about the length of sentence. It would seem likely that there was no vote; it seems even more likely that the 'jurors' had no say whatsoever in sentencing.

Nothing I read in the translation of Mrs Ballerini's comments suggested to me that she thought Ms Knox, at least, should be acquitted - merely that she shouldn't have been so heavily sentenced. I found one piece of additional machine translation, which added her referring to Guede's 16 year sentence. Ms B's reasoning appeared to be that since there was more evidence against Guede than Ms Knox, that Ms Knox should not have received a longer term than Guede.

If my take on this is correct, I think it is an even stronger indictment of the process - a widespread belief that proof of innocence needs to be discovered for an acquittal. What I think this 'juror' believes (and perhaps other 'jurors' too) is that if there is a reasonable doubt of guilt, but not proof of innocence, then the defendant should serve a less severe sentence! If this is so, then the verdict was not delivered according to law, or rather, was delivered according to out of date Italian law.

It may well be, if properly guided as to the law, the 'jurors' would have voted (if permitted to do so), unanimously for acquittal!

but, but, but . . .they are lay judges, a type of adjudicator that is vastly superior to a mere juror!

ETA: and they wear a sash.

 

[Diocletus]

And this was not publicly brought before the court to use against Amanda during trial, correct (though I imagine was part of the investigation record)? So much for "Fifty Shades of Grey, dirty old man" Mignini.

As I wrote before he isn't what many collectively are describing him to be.

Care to elaborate? Because despite you having said this twice now, I still think he's the same pervert scumbag that I always thought he was.

 

[Diocletus]

No, it was in Perugian newspapers, in lawyers' statements, in judicial papers, in police papers, in Knox's own statements, in Knox's phone records.

The only thing I trust there are the phone records. Unless the police promise not to hit Knox and then her statements are OK, too.

 

[Numbers]

Just the facts ma'am.

In English, such statements as yours are most properly called allegations.

Statements that are objectively true may be termed to disclose facts.

 

[platonov]

In a few years they will likely release Guede while keeping Sollecito in prison. . . . Not going to look real good if they do that.

Not going to look real good to who?
Black guy on 16yr + term released before white guy with 25yr term will only upset those who have a problem with melanin or mathematics.

Oh I see what you mean – it will upset a lot of AK’s fans

 

[Bill Williams]

Just the facts ma'am.

In English, such statements as yours are most properly called allegations.

Statements that are objectively true may be termed to disclose facts.

To Machiavelli they may be "facts". But when he posts on a service like this, and wishes to convince others the same, it requires something more than asserting that one knows something to be a fact.

Unless one is in court, then if it can be asserted by a PM or a judge, then it is up to the defence to provide counter-proof to rebut the assertion. As Massei printed in 2010, he can think of no reason why a public official would lie, so therefore assertions from those official must be facts. Shouldn't they?

 

[platonov]

Whoosh

Just the facts ma'am.

 

[Desert Fox]

Not going to look real good to who?
Black guy on 16yr + term released before white guy with 25yr term will only upset those who have a problem with melanin or mathematics.

Oh I see what you mean – it will upset a lot of AK’s fans

The thing is that there is no good evidence against either Amanda or Raffaele.
Your own posts admit that. Amanda will almost certainly never spend a moment in prison in Italy.

Italy will be imprisoning an innocent man while they may very well be releasing a potential future serial killer to offend again.

 

[christianahannah]

Care to elaborate? Because despite you having said this twice now, I still think he's the same pervert scumbag that I always thought he was.

Well I wasn't hopeful I would change your mind with just writing it once but writing it twice I thought there might be a chance.

Having listened to him speak (and I have to do this over and over) my impression is that this was not a joyful task for him to try Amanda et el but a sobering one. Not because he is a pervert scumbag but because there was a young girl he looked upon who had been murdered violently and he wanted to bring to justice those responsible.

Is there a chance Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly prosecuted? There is always that chance but if it is so I don't believe they were willfully wrongly prosecuted.

 

[Machiavelli]

And this was not publicly brought before the court to use against Amanda during trial, correct (though I imagine was part of the investigation record)? So much for "Fifty Shades of Grey, dirty old man" Mignini.

Correct. They were not brought up at the trial. We just know they exist, because lawyers and journalists reported them.

As I wrote before he isn't what many collectively are describing him to be.

In fact, not even the Perugian newspapers were ever "sexed-up" as many picture them.

 

[Machiavelli]

To Machiavelli they may be "facts". But when he posts on a service like this, and wishes to convince others the same, it requires something more than asserting that one knows something to be a fact.

By the way, what kind of information would you need exactly to be "convinced"?

 

[Numbers]

...

Third, the Italian judiciary ought not be called "typically incompetent" or "typically obstructionist" by people having as their point of reference and comparison, and as representatives, judicial authorities like those who convicted Chico Forti, who declared George W. Bush's victory over Al Gore, who deny justice to unarmed black people killed by police on the street, who have North Korea's incarceration rate or who keep Guantanamo Delta Camp open. Really, US citizens, theirrepresentatives and their Department of State are not in a good position for calling a judicial system like the Italian one "incompetent" or "obstructionist", not before human morals or human reason.

...

Mach,
I very much enjoy tu quoque arguments. Thank you for kindly providing the one above. I somewhat wonder how my comment as an individual, and I am an American, becomes associated with that of "US citizens, their representatives and their Department of State are not in a good position for calling a judicial system like the Italian one 'incompetent' or 'obstructionist'."

It is the Italian police, prosecutors, and a number of judges who violated Italian law, the Italian Constitution, and the European Convention of Human Rights in this case. Mignini was an initiator of these violations.

Based on your tu quoque argument, I am sure you feel that the Italian judicial officials committed these violations in accordance with all the other violations of human rights that are committed, whether by the US (or elements thereof) or North Korea, and that is the justification for them.

Perhaps the difference between Italy and the US is that in the US, one cannot be charged with an offense similar to "calunnia" for protesting mistreatment by the authorities. Also, many persons in the US recognize that when the authorities violate a law or the Constitution, that is wrong.

You may consider the record of Mignini and his police and judicial cronies spotless and saintly, but that is your opinion, which you are welcome to entertain. Others may have a different view of Mignini and the Italian judicial system that has nurtured, protected, and advanced him and those like him.

 

[sept79]

Well I wasn't hopeful I would change your mind with just writing it once but writing it twice I thought there might be a chance.

Having listened to him speak (and I have to do this over and over) my impression is that this was not a joyful task for him to try Amanda et el but a sobering one. Not because he is a pervert scumbag but because there was a young girl he looked upon who had been murdered violently and he wanted to bring to justice those responsible.

Is there a chance Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly prosecuted? There is always that chance but if it is so I don't believe they were willfully wrongly prosecuted.

Mignini has filed defamation charges against anyone that has publicly dared to disagree with him. He has used these lawsuits to embarrass Knox & Sollecito. He has attacked their families and their lawyers. He has used these lawsuits in an attempt to put fear into the minds of journalists in hopes to silence them. Here is a list of Mignini's lawsuits:

1. Amanda Knox: Charged with defamation of the police for claiming she was hit on the back of her head during her illegal interrogation. The wrongful conviction wasn't enough for Mignini.

2 & 3. Edda Mellas and Curt Knox: Amanda's parents were served with papers just before the ruling against their daughter, for simply repeating their daughters court testimony. During an interview, Amanda's parents told a reporter that Amanda testified in court, that she had been hit on the back of the head. They simply repeated the court testimony of their daughter. For that, Mignini slapped a lawsuit on them. Is he trying to keep them from visiting their daughter in prison? Is he really that cold hearted? I say yes. In my opinion, Mignini is an Unstable, cold hearted, worthless excuse of a human being.

4. The West Seattle Herald: Mignini filed defamation charges in this case because Herald reporter Steve Shay quoted other people saying Mignini was "mentally unstable". Mignini actually filed a lawsuit against a newspaper in Seattle Washington because they hurt his feelings.

5. Joe Cottonwood - Take a look at Joe's Website. Joe is a fiction writer. Joe doesn't even like Amanda Knox. He was simply voicing his opinion about the case. Why was Mignini threatened by him?

6. Luciano Ghirga, an attorney for Amanda Knox.

7. Luca Maori, an attorney for Raffaele Sollecito

8. Giangavino Sulas, journalist for Oggi magazine

9. The director and editor of Oggi magazine

10. Mario Spezi: Italian journalist who co-wrote The Monster of Florence with journalist and author Doug Preston. Mignini continues to torment Spezi for simply disagreeing with him.

11. Francesca Bene, an Italian reporter, said Knox had, in her opinion, advanced her cause by making clear what police had not previously conceded, that Knox thought she was being a helpful witness when in fact police were targeting her as a suspect and should have told her so. Mignini didn't like hearing the truth from Bene.

12. Gabriella Carlizzi: Carlizzi is a psychic. Mignini has charged Carlizzi with defamation multiple times. Doug Preston says that Mignini used Carlizzi as a witness in the Monster of Florence Case.