This looks like a citation from Mignini's 2009 closing arguments.
The prosecutor was slightly more articulate.
First, draws a psychological picture of Knox as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle, and suggests Meredith being disturbed by some of Amanda's sexual behaviours, or Amanda feeling offended by Meredith's attitude, may have plaid a role. At least the sexual theme plaid a role as an a trigger of an argument, or somehow as an instrument in Knox's "revenge":
Then Mignini draws a scenario where an argument between them degenerates, and this the context of the presence of Guede high on drugs and alcohol in a sexual ruse situation and Sollecito also high after using extensive drugs. Then draws a picture of what an instigation to sexual violence as a trigger moment could look like:
Mgnini calls Knox's behaviour: "aggressione sessuale da rivalsa" ("a sexual aggression as a revenge"), also suggested Knox may have felt Meredith as "una smorfiosetta" ("prissy").
Mignii suggests Knox may have taken advantage of her abilty to manipulate Guede and Sollecito through the sexual attraction they were both feeling for her, and thus from their "competition" to please Amanda, especially in their condition of being unchained and uninhibited due to use of drugs.
I don't believe Mignini's scenario has any meaningful difference from Nencini's reasoning about motives. Both portray a situation that has a sexual element, but the sexual context is a minor component, only a context and not itself the main motive. Both point out that "motives" are complex, different from each participants and made of multiple reasons. All judges conclude that the crime builds up gradually as an escalation, from a smaller conflict or a smaller aggression and as a degeneration of an argument.
Out of many problems with Machiavelli's own summary of Mignini's speech about the psychosexual maladies he sees in Amanda Knox.....
.... are the highlighted bits.
Like everything on the PM/Judge side of things, they get to speculate; something "may have happened", something "may be true" even if there was nothing entered at trial.
Yet the burden on the defence!? As per contamination - it is not required that a DNA lab show it has competence or even follows protocol, other than asking the technician herself.... but the defence
has to prove a route of contamination!
However, getting back to the specifics of Machiavelli's excellent summary of Mignini's sexual fantasies about this case, where is the evidence that:
1) Knox had a psychological profile of a "humiliated/wounded self"?
2) Meredith was cutting Knox out of the circle of friendship? (Where is there any evidence that Meredith was this catty?)
3) Meredith was disturbed by some of Knox's sexual behaviours? (For heaven's sake, they borrowed condoms from each other.)
4) Amanda was offended by Meredith's (imagined) attitude? (Note how Mignini buttresses one fantasy with another!)
5) There was ANY element of sexual revenge, or even simple revenge in this killing? (Massei is plain in saying the trigger for the killing was Rudy's lust.)
6) Raffaele used "extensive" drugs, as opposed to Rudy simply only using drugs?
7) Sexual violence, other than Rudy's lust, was the trigger for this murder?
8) Knox regarded Meredith as "prissy"?
9) That Knox had an ability to manipulate Guede and/or Sollecito, particularly since there is no record of Knox ever, in any meaningful sense, communicating with Guede?
10) Guede and Sollicto were competing for Amanda's attention?
This is all Mignini's fantasy, built on his "may haves". Can you imagine sitting their in court listening to yourself described this way, knowing that your fate is in the hands of a madman, and that because he is a PM, the court will listen to him, just because?
)