Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[NancyS]

Well it didn't have anything to do with Meredith's murder. And Mignini didn't use it against Amanda at trial. So how was it mud slinging and slut shaming? Maybe on the part of journalists who dug up the information in the files recently.

As for Machiavelli I would not put him in that category either. He has repeatedly written he doesn't care about people's sex lives. I don't think he is focused on the sexual aspect as others appear to be.

So why has Machiavelli been continually posting about this nonsense, if not to slut shame and sling mud at AK? It has no relevance to the trial or to whether someone would have a propensity to murder. If anything, AK was less worldly than Meredith Kercher, but both sounded pretty average to me. Students commonly take drugs and have sex, it really has no relevance

 

[christianahannah]

Wut. You mean apart from when he leaped to the conclusion that the crime was a satanic sex game? You know, right at the start of this whole debacle.

ETA it's always the self-proclaimed puritans who turn out to be the biggest perverts. Mignini can write all he likes about his lack of interest in people's sex lives - his actions speak louder.

Well that wasn't exactly his conclusion (nor Comodi's). I haven't read anything from or about Mignini where he describes himself as a Puritan but I haven't read every venue concerning this case either.

 

[Diocletus]

You mean the case with Paul Ciolino? I thought he was an investigator and not a prosecutor.

No. I mean the northwestern univ. center for wrongful convictions and the national registry of exonerations.

 

[christianahannah]

So why has Machiavelli been continually posting about this nonsense, if not to slut shame and sling mud at AK? It has no relevance to the trial or to whether someone would have a propensity to murder. If anything, AK was less worldly than Meredith Kercher, but both sounded pretty average to me. Students commonly take drugs and have sex, it really has no relevance

I know Machiavelli can speak better for himself than I but what you have written above generally he has written here on this forum.

I think I pushed it more by saying this report was in the investigative file yet was never brought up by Mignini during trial. And really wasn't public until recently.

 

[lonepinealex]

Well that wasn't exactly his conclusion (nor Comodi's). I haven't read anything from or about Mignini where he describes himself as a Puritan but I haven't read every venue concerning this case either.

Wait did you mean Machiavelli or Mignini in your previous? I read it as Mignini, sorry! Why would anyone care what Machiavelli thinks?

 

[Planigale]

We disagree. I think it is proven, because the police wouldn't have busted the drug dealers ring without Ms. Knox's phone contacts, her phone calls were the link to them. This is a proven fact.
Moreover, I do consider the presumption of truthfulness of some statements, such as Knox's statement that she had sex with Federico, the Perugian newspapers (plus my direct sources) reporting that the dealers were actually tried and convicted, and the police report about the activities of the three.

'Busted' is not really British English so I may be misunderstanding. Are you really saying that just because Knox communicated with someone who communicated with these people (this is what the police report says - it does not claim that Knox had direct communication with the convicted dealers but that someone she had contact with (possibly of a sexual nature although the police document does not claim this for certain) had contact with them, is sufficient grounds in Italy to arrest someone?

So fact one; was merely having phone contact with Knox grounds for arrest (being busted)? Are you really saying the Perugian police were unaware of these dealers until they went through the phone calls of Knox? Since we have transcriptions of Knox's phone conversations we know that whatever was communicated was not related to drugs, that would have been used against Knox.

Fact two; Knox did not say she had sex with Frederico. If you have evidence to the contrary please quote it. The police report does not say say this.

Fact three; we have a record of Knox's phone calls please identify which were these calls.

in the absence of definite facts I think these are hearsay based allegations.

 

[lonepinealex]

I know Machiavelli can speak better for himself than I but what you have written above generally he has written here on this forum.

I think I pushed it more by saying this report was in the investigative file yet was never brought up by Mignini during trial. And really wasn't public until recently.

Why and how was it made public recently?

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

Hey Mach, wasn't the defamation case against Knox also moved from Perugia because the venue presented a conflict of interest? Were those prosecutors also at fault, and how are charges brought when there is such a conflict of interest, the case gets transferred to a new venue as happened with the defamation case against knox?

Also, I'd be curious about the charges of which Mignini was cleared, of having forged a recording (and I thought that charge was against Giutarri, and Mignini was only alleged to have tipped him off that he was being investigated?).

STill not sure how Mignini's conviction on the merits in the first instance trial, is outweighed among reasonable people, from an acquittal based on a venue change in combination with a statute of limitations dismissal.

 

[Dougm]

It would have to be the science. And that is tentative until I read more documents from both sides (by science I don't mean only Stefanoni).

It is not their demeanor, their quirkiness, their looks, their family, their friends, their extracurricular activities, their sexual activities and so on. And as much as I don't think the characterization of Mignini and Stefanoni is fair by many innocents I also don't think the characterization of Amanda and Raffaele by many guiltys is fair either.

I appreciate that you have not been swayed by the personal behavioral issues. So you (at least currently) believe that the DNA results are valid? I can understand that position, if only because I have personally been skeptical when defense attorneys claim the police botched the DNA process in other cases.

Here is what I see as the prosecution's case:

1) Assumption that Meredith had to have been killed by more than one person, even though 7 out of 8 experts at trial did not support that view
2) Meredith's DNA on the knife blade (although there was no blood or human tissue found, and Stefanoni's testing, which others disagree with, cannot be replicated)
3) Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp (issues have been fully discussed here)
4) Curatolo said he saw Amanda and Raff in the square (he was admittedly high on heroin, and his testimony does not fit the narrative, and makes it impossible for them to have done it if true)
5) Nara heard a scream and footsteps (but doesn't know when, and didn't see anyone)
6) Assumption that bathmat print is Raffaele's, although expert testimony did not prove this
7) Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom
8) Luminol footprints, some with Amanda and Meredith's DNA both, that tested negative for blood, and are in the home where they both lived (and not in the room where the murder took place)
9) Amanda's "confession/accusation". Except that it doesn't fit any of the other facts of the case, and was clearly coerced.
10) Assumption that the break in was staged (also not supported by the evidence, IMO)

I will agree that IF the knife DNA is valid, there might be a case, but the prosecution would still have to figure out how and why the two decided to kill Meredith in conjunction with a third guy they barely knew and did not hang out with (and did not have any communication with). And come up with some logical narrative, not a fantasy. And come up with a valid motive (I suppose if the evidence really clearly pointed to the pair, we could go with the "we just don't know" theory, but only "if").

To me, there is no case at all. We all would have our own DNA in our own homes and bathrooms. Even if we killed someone, that would not prove anything. And how did Amanda participate in the killing and not leave any trace in the murder room? Yes, that happens, but not in brutal, messy cases like this.

OK, done. I can see how you could be swayed by science, but not when it doesn't support the overall story, and not when it was done as shoddily as it was here. Bad science + doesn't match the other evidence = invalid results.

 

[Numbers]

No. I mean the northwestern univ. center for wrongful convictions and the national registry of exonerations.

That there is a (private) National Registry of Exonerations in the US is a refutation of Mach's earlier tu quoque argument. There is police and prosecutorial misconduct in the US, and other factors leading to wrongful convictions, but the problem is not hidden away.

National Registry of Exonerations
Currently 1,567 Exonerations

About the Registry

The National Registry of Exonerations is a project of the University of Michigan Law School. It was founded in 2012 in conjunction with the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The Registry provides detailed information about every known exoneration in the United States since 1989—cases in which a person was wrongly convicted of a crime and later cleared of all the charges based on new evidence of innocence.

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx

 

[carbonjam72]

How have they been softening up the public? Have they been saying anything about it?

The porta-porta show with Raf, was extremely sympathetic.

The following show with Dr Peter Gill and a panel of interested parties also seemed designed to undermine the evidence used to convict, and indeed to call into question the notion of a "reversal of burden of proof".

This is important because it suggest not just a lack of legitimacy in the conviction, but in the judicial institution itself, much like the conviction of scientists for failing to predict an earthquake caused similar consternation, and was reversed (in large measure).

I think the state run Italian media is much more of a spokes tool for the government in Italy, then in other countries, due to its fascists history and traditions. It's much more like Russia, China, or North Korea - the way totalitarian regimes use the media. So I see coordination in these positive portrayals of innocence, throwing doubt on the legitimacy of the verdicts.

Also, I see signs that the political warfare between Burlesconi's party and the judiciary is also reached a resolution, and I believe this is the only reason Hellman's acquittal was overturned, the judiciary trying to avoid a politically motivated investigation of their members in relation to the case.

The hostilities are at an ebb, public opinion is being softened, I think the Judiciary wants this case flushed, while they can do so without having it used as a club against them.

The timing is right to ditch this albatross (not a reference to Monty Python), and I see it getting ditched. I see cassation canceling the conviction, without requiring a retrial.

As people say here, YMMV.

 

[Machiavelli]

'Busted' is not really British English so I may be misunderstanding. Are you really saying that just because Knox communicated with someone who communicated with these people (this is what the police report says - it does not claim that Knox had direct communication with the convicted dealers but that someone she had contact with (possibly of a sexual nature although the police document does not claim this for certain) had contact with them, is sufficient grounds in Italy to arrest someone?

So fact one; was merely having phone contact with Knox grounds for arrest (being busted)? Are you really saying the Perugian police were unaware of these dealers until they went through the phone calls of Knox? Since we have transcriptions of Knox's phone conversations we know that whatever was communicated was not related to drugs, that would have been used against Knox.

Fact two; Knox did not say she had sex with Frederico. If you have evidence to the contrary please quote it. The police report does not say say this.

Fact three; we have a record of Knox's phone calls please identify which were these calls.

in the absence of definite facts I think these are hearsay based allegations.

I wonder why so many people seem to have problem understanding this story. It's not that strange, not something bizarre.
A drug dealers' ring made of three individuals (Federico, Lorenzo, Luciano, the latter being the boss) were caught. The reason why they were caught was their contacts with Amanda Knox.
Now: "was merely having phone contact with Knox grounds for arrest?". I'm sorry bu the question is stupid. Obviously not. It's no ground for arrest, it was ground for being investigated, and having their phone tapped. The police ascertained that Federico had sexual contacts with Amanda Knox (his name may have been in the list she gave to Ficarra; he was also mentioned in Knox's diaries in a sexual context). From intecepting Federico's phone the police discovered the drug dealing activity involving Lorenzo and Luciano, and then prosecutors discovered that Lorenzo had phone contacts with Amanda Knox too.

Two. Amanda Knox writes in her diary: I met Federico on the train with my sister on our travel from Milan to Florence". "we smoked, that was my first joint in Italy", then "after I put my sister to bed we went in his hotel room. I had told my friends I could not imagine myself in bed with some guy I met casually. But I changed Idea".
According to her diary (and in her book, where she changes his name from Federico to "Cristiano") her interest in Federico is obviously of a sexual nature. Her story is explicit enough as much as the police paper. What they did in private is not of our interest. It appears their meeting was of a sexual nature, drugs is also associated to Federico from the very start, it's hard to question that.

Fact three: sorry, I will not take the time to do that. I have no interest. You have the right to cling to any resonable or unreasonable belief of your likes. I think what you call "hearsay allegation" is a system of circumstantial evidence from multiple sources (newspaper articles reporting judicial facts, police papers, lawyers names, Knox's diary, and the fact itself that Federico was caught as a consequence of Knox's contacts and that he pleaded guilty of trading drugs for sex) which is considered enough by the average, neutral, unbiased reader. If all this doesn't exist to you, you only show your intent to be unreasonable or biased, and it's your buisiness. If instead your only problem is that you reasonably assume this is true, but you only have a tiny doubt left, I think it's your time to investigate further on your peculiar doubt (ask the lawyers, search the trial papers). I don't have really any burden to go further researching to "demonstrate" something that prima facie looks like something simple to understand and reported by reliable sources, reports names of lawyers and policemen and news not denied by the judiciary nor by any other source, and without any reasonable ground to believe it is false information.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Such an absurd lie. This is not in the court records at all. This is just smear from people like you. One lies and then your papers print it and you say that makes it a fact. Total NONSENSE!

 

[Machiavelli]

Hey Mach, wasn't the defamation case against Knox also moved from Perugia because the venue presented a conflict of interest?

That one is a calunnia case IIRC, not a defamation case.

Were those prosecutors also at fault, and how are charges brought when there is such a conflict of interest, the case gets transferred to a new venue as happened with the defamation case against knox?

The prosecution in Perugia was not "at fault", but they might have been at fault if they went forward prosecuting in the same venue, as it happened in the case against Mignini, and in the end the investigation might have faced an annullment. However, it's a calunnia case, not a defamation case.
The calunnia case was moved to another venue, another prosecution and another judge, in order to avoid the risk that abnormal procedings would take place and avoid the risk that it the case could incur in a future annullment like it happened with the Mignini Florentine one.

Also, I'd be curious about the charges of which Mignini was cleared, of having forged a recording (and I thought that charge was against Giutarri, and Mignini was only alleged to have tipped him off that he was being investigated?).

Exactly, he was cleared of having forged a recording. In fact it was Giuttari who allegedly forged the recording, but Mignini was charged of being a complicit of the action. But the whole action was proven to be non-existent.

STill not sure how Mignini's conviction on the merits in the first instance trial, is outweighed among reasonable people, from an acquittal based on a venue change in combination with a statute of limitations dismissal.

Reasonable people should first understand what such so called "convition in the merits" is, and I guess no English speaker read and even less understood the motivations report. Then they should understand how such "conviction in the merits" was found to be illegitimate, and it was annulled, meaning it never existed. It was razed to the foundations even more radically than the Hellmann verdict. Nothing remains about such conviction. Reasonable people may well understand that there was a reason why the conviction was annulled: it means that it was not valid, it was not credible, it had no legal value. It was affected by intrinsic genetic flaws. This is somethign that, from start, reasonale people should be able to perceive.

 

[Machiavelli]

Such an absurd lie. This is not in the court records at all. This is just smear from people like you. One lies and then your papers print it and you say that makes it a fact. Total NONSENSE!

It's in the court records of Federico's trial.
Knox's is not the only trial in the world.

 

[Machiavelli]

I know Machiavelli can speak better for himself than I but what you have written above generally he has written here on this forum.

I think I pushed it more by saying this report was in the investigative file yet was never brought up by Mignini during trial. And really wasn't public until recently.

It became public in 2010 actually, when Federico was brought to trial.

But Mignini never brought it into the Knox trial.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Which phone records? Mach suggests that this drug ring was caught because of Amanda'so phone records. Total nonsense. They find a phone number she called and that led to an arrest for drugs? Why? Isn't that a giant leap in logic?

 

[Machiavelli]

It sounds like you spend a lot of time thinking about AK's sex life? It wouldn't be even remotely relevant to the murder of MK, even if she had a rampant orgy with the entire Italian football team! It's one very weird and incredibly offensive view, to equate being a sexually active woman with having a propensity to murder

Building straw men is a very relaxing hobby, isn't it?

 

[christianahannah]

It became public in 2010 actually, when Federico was brought to trial.

But Mignini never brought it into the Knox trial.

That long ago? But wasn't it more public last year? Meaning reported in the media? Did you read about it in 2010?

 

[Bill Williams]

Which phone records? Mach suggests that this drug ring was caught because of Amanda'so phone records. Total nonsense. They find a phone number she called and that led to an arrest for drugs? Why? Isn't that a giant leap in logic?

Genny Ballerini is the dissenting popular-judge from the Nencini trial. One of the things which she is reported to have talked about is having access to the phone records so that they could pinpoint where everyone was, "at the time of death".

This raises two issues. One is that the Nencini courts seemed to be working with a very specific TOD. However, in the Nencini report, this is vague, Nencini tends to agree with Massei about a later TOD - which doesn't explain Ballerini's comments about the phone records being useful.

Remember - Amanda and Raffaele turned off their phones after they both realized they had a free evening on Nov 1.

But this leads to something Machiavelli implies - there are phone records of Amanda and drug dealers.

Where?