Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RWVBWL]

I read it at the time and found it to be loose with the truth.

<snip>

The link also will take you to the other part of the Skype on YouTube.

Thanks Grinder,
But from what I've read before,
the Skype call(s?) with Giacomo Benedetti
was a lot longer than 11 minutes long Youtube video you mention.

Reading for a moment in Candace Dempsey's book Murder in Italy, pages 219-221
she writes that they 1st chatted on Messenger, than switched to Skype,
this was 3 hours in duration.

Makes mention that Rudy says he's in Dusseldorf and has no $$$,
Giacomo is going to send him $50 Euro thru Western Union to pick up.
Etc...

She also writes that Rudy responded to a reporter from The Telegraph who left him a message on Facebook that same day.


That's loose with the truth?

 

[Grinder]

Thanks Grinder,
But from what I've read before,
the Skype call(s?) with Giacomo Benedetti
was a lot longer than 11 minutes long Youtube video you mention.

Reading for a moment in Candace Dempsey's book Murder in Italy, pages 219-221
she writes that they 1st chatted on Messenger, than switched to Skype,
this was 3 hours in duration.

Makes mention that Rudy says he's in Dusseldorf and has no $$$,
Giacomo is going to send him $50 Euro thru Western Union to pick up.
Etc...

She also writes that Rudy responded to a reporter from The Telegraph who left him a message on Facebook that same day.


That's loose with the truth?

Go to the amandaknoxcase page - read the Skype translation and then watch the other part on YouTube.

He clearly says he was there in the Skypes. He clearly doesn't say he was there three days before and not the when the murder occurred.

CD's report was bull.

The money part is in the first part of the Skype.

 

[carbonjam72]

LOL. This is some kind of lawsuit? Sounds more like a wishful rant.

Is there a cite link for this? When was this lawsuit filed? Sounds like shortly after 2013 annulment of Hellmen?

Its all discredited evidence, and Mignini is suing someone because they disregard his disproven evidence?

Or did Maori say something like, "there's no evidence", and Mignini's answer is his laundry list of bogus info.

I love that Curatolos experience as a witness makes him more reliable.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Grinder,
I'm kinda busy to really dig into what you want me to right now.

But that said, every single person that ever reported, blogged, wrote a book or discussed this case on a forum has made mistakes in their story line, reporting or discussions, right?
You have, I have, Sfarzo, Pisa, Burleigh, Follian, Nadeau, and all the rest have...

You can't stand Dempsey for some reason,
maybe because she made a paycheck doing a lot of work on this case we discuss.
But hey, last time I looked, gas cost $$$, so does food, and a place to live.
What's wrong with earning a paycheck?
Her book is mostly factual, as seen time and time again when comparing it to other sources.
Same with Frank Sfarzo's blog, they did a great job.


I'd betcha that Sfarzo and Dempsey know more about the case than you or I,
and it doesn't make a difference if they, nor you or I, made a mistake here or there, because, bottom line, friend, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are free, man!
I gotta go,
enjoy your Friday,
RW

 

[Dougm]

Hi Grinder,
I'm kinda busy to really dig into what you want me to right now.

But that said, every single person that ever reported, blogged, wrote a book or discussed this case on a forum has made mistakes in their story line, reporting or discussions, right?
You have, I have, Sfarzo, Pisa, Burleigh, Follian, Nadeau, and all the rest have...

You can't stand Dempsey for some reason,
maybe because she made a paycheck doing a lot of work on this case we discuss.
But hey, last time I looked, gas cost $$$, so does food, and a place to live.
What's wrong with earning a paycheck?
Her book is mostly factual, as seen time and time again when comparing it to other sources.
Same with Frank Sfarzo's blog, they did a great job.


I'd betcha that Sfarzo and Dempsey know more about the case than you or I,
and it doesn't make a difference if they, nor you or I, made a mistake here or there, because, bottom line, friend, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are free, man!
I gotta go,
enjoy your Friday,
RW

Hi RW!

I agree, and would like to add, that it also doesn't matter if a person started out reporting on and learning about the case, and later became an advocate for a certain POV. As long as that POV fit the facts they learned about.

That goes for Candace, Frank, Nina, etc. They dug deep into the case, and found out it was a sham. So then they said it was a sham, instead of continuing a pretense of impartiality.

Have a nice weekend! Looks like perfect weather!

 

[LondonJohn]

In a few words: Mignini states: "They got an anullment without remand without asking for it.", while the quote from Sollecito's ricorso proves that at least he asked for an anullment (without remand). Or shorter "Mignini lies."

Careful with your words - although you're actually correct.

The issue here is whether the defendant(s) requested annulment with remittance or without remittance (not remand - which is a totally different thing). In other words, did the defendant(s) ask the SC to strike out the guilty verdicts and totally acquit them, or did they ask the SC to strike out the guilty verdicts and remit the case back to the appeal court for another appeal-level trial?

Mignini claims that the defendants did not ask for annulment without remittance. However, Sollecito's appeal explicitly does request annulment without remittance. It's in the "Fourteenth Reason" in his appeal submission - the English translation is in the link below:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Summary-Sollecito-New-Reasons-of-Appeal.pdf

So yes, it appears that once again Mignini is being somewhat "economical with the actualité"........

 

[carbonjam72]

In a few words: Mignini states: "They got an anullment without remand without asking for it.", while the quote from Sollecito's ricorso proves that at least he asked for an anullment (without remand). Or shorter "Mignini lies."

So where did Mignini make this claim? In which law suit? Must have been recent, within the last 90 days if its referring to the recent acquittals?

 

[carbonjam72]

How many people connected with the case have he sued now?

How many times has he won?

The man is insane. Hopefully with this one they will get him on the stand. Can't wait to see what nonsense comes out of his mouth this time. I suggest Bongiorno as a defense lawyer for this one. That should be fun.

Its actually better than that.

Raf's lawyer in his trial over 'Honor Bound', is Alfred Brizzioli (spelling?).

Brizzioli was the lone hold out in Mignini's Narducci trail case against 20 innocent people in Florence for the MOF murders, claiming they were part of the satanic masonic sect that ordered Paciani, Lotti and Vanni to kill couples and steal the women's sex organs for 'satanic rites', 'black masses', and using the body parts as "blasephemous wafers".

Judge Micheli rejected the case, and waited 1 year before turning in his motivation report, turning it in 90 days after Hellman's was released.

When ISC returned both cases for appeal, the element of criminal conspiracy (the satanic sect angle) was denied, so all that was left were charges that would get ditched due to statute of limitations - a guaranteed win for the defendants.

The six or so defendant left, including Mario Spezi, all accepted the win on the basis of statute of limitations - except Brizzioli, who insisted on obtaining a verdict to clear his name.

Of all the lawyers in Italy that Raf could have hired, the one he chose is the only individual to have beaten Mignini in court over his Narducci trail fraud.

MOO, there is no way they are letting Mignini out of this law suit because of statute of limitations. I predict they will put Mignini on the witness stand, and Brizzioli will take him apart like a cheap radio. Again, just MOO.

 

[Methos]

Careful with your words - although you're actually correct.

The issue here is whether the defendant(s) requested annulment with remittance or without remittance (not remand - which is a totally different thing). In other words, did the defendant(s) ask the SC to strike out the guilty verdicts and totally acquit them, or did they ask the SC to strike out the guilty verdicts and remit the case back to the appeal court for another appeal-level trial?

Mignini claims that the defendants did not ask for annulment without remittance. However, Sollecito's appeal explicitly does request annulment without remittance. It's in the "Fourteenth Reason" in his appeal submission - the English translation is in the link below:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Summary-Sollecito-New-Reasons-of-Appeal.pdf

So yes, it appears that once again Mignini is being somewhat "economical with the actualité"........

Not another "wordgame"/"definition battle" here, please (English isn't my first language, as you know, and French is off my radar...). As my google-fu sensei Rose says: "I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right."

 

[lonepinealex]

Its actually better than that.

Raf's lawyer in his trial over 'Honor Bound', is Alfred Brizzioli (spelling?).

Brizzioli was the lone hold out in Mignini's Narducci trail case against 20 innocent people in Florence for the MOF murders, claiming they were part of the satanic masonic sect that ordered Paciani, Lotti and Vanni to kill couples and steal the women's sex organs for 'satanic rites', 'black masses', and using the body parts as "blasephemous wafers".

Judge Micheli rejected the case, and waited 1 year before turning in his motivation report, turning it in 90 days after Hellman's was released.

When ISC returned both cases for appeal, the element of criminal conspiracy (the satanic sect angle) was denied, so all that was left were charges that would get ditched due to statute of limitations - a guaranteed win for the defendants.

The six or so defendant left, including Mario Spezi, all accepted the win on the basis of statute of limitations - except Brizzioli, who insisted on obtaining a verdict to clear his name.

Of all the lawyers in Italy that Raf could have hired, the one he chose is the only individual to have beaten Mignini in court over his Narducci trail fraud.

MOO, there is no way they are letting Mignini out of this law suit because of statute of limitations. I predict they will put Mignini on the witness stand, and Brizzioli will take him apart like a cheap radio. Again, just MOO.

Oh I hope you're right. That would be sweet.

 

[Methos]

So where did Mignini make this claim? In which law suit? Must have been recent, within the last 90 days if its referring to the recent acquittals?

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2015GMaoriComplaint.pdf

 

[Strozzi]

From a legal standpoint, Amanda's application pending in ECHR only treats her conviction for calunnia, and that would involve the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, but not very likely any action by Stefanoni or the other prosecution experts. It would likely concentrate attention on the actions of the police, prosecutors (especially Mignini), and actions - or lack of actions - by the judges. ECHR itself could not, by the Convention, force an investigation; that would be the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and Italy itself. ECHR could judge Italy had violated Amanda Knox's Convention rights, declare that the conviction for calunnia was in violation of those rights, and declare that Knox was entitled to ask for a retrial or other revision. It could also award her pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages (these awards by ECHR are typically relatively small) and legal costs.

I feel very strongly that if a police official, prosecutor, magistrate, or prison official who learns that a detainee alleges that he has been threatened or struck by a police officer or other person, the official who learned of it instantly has a responsibility to protect the detainee from possible physical violence.

I believe that the moment Mignini learned from Amanda's written statement that she allegedly was struck in interrogation, Mignini had a responsibility to protect (compartment) her, and in this case means he should have ordered that none of the police involved in interrogating Amanda that night or their squad mates should have access to her in detention in the police station, during transport, or in prison from that moment forward. After he learned of the alleged assault on Amanda, Mignini and the police chief allowed the same squad police officers to place hands on Amanda later that morning as she was being moved to Capanne prison.

I hope an Italian investigation will examine this as a human rights violation on the part of all PLE authorities who had any responsibility for protecting/detaining her. Mignini, the police chief, and others should answer for it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Its actually better than that.

Raf's lawyer in his trial over 'Honor Bound', is Alfred Brizzioli (spelling?).

Brizzioli was the lone hold out in Mignini's Narducci trail case against 20 innocent people in Florence for the MOF murders, claiming they were part of the satanic masonic sect that ordered Paciani, Lotti and Vanni to kill couples and steal the women's sex organs for 'satanic rites', 'black masses', and using the body parts as "blasephemous wafers".

Judge Micheli rejected the case, and waited 1 year before turning in his motivation report, turning it in 90 days after Hellman's was released.

When ISC returned both cases for appeal, the element of criminal conspiracy (the satanic sect angle) was denied, so all that was left were charges that would get ditched due to statute of limitations - a guaranteed win for the defendants.

The six or so defendant left, including Mario Spezi, all accepted the win on the basis of statute of limitations - except Brizzioli, who insisted on obtaining a verdict to clear his name.

Of all the lawyers in Italy that Raf could have hired, the one he chose is the only individual to have beaten Mignini in court over his Narducci trail fraud.

MOO, there is no way they are letting Mignini out of this law suit because of statute of limitations. I predict they will put Mignini on the witness stand, and Brizzioli will take him apart like a cheap radio. Again, just MOO.

The shocking thing in reading trial transcripts is the sheer volume of theatrics and shouting amoung lawyers. I can't imagine Mignini being cross-examined by Brizzioli but would pay teal money to witness it!

 

[Grinder]

Hi Grinder,
I'm kinda busy to really dig into what you want me to right now.

Nothing to dig into as Rudi just doesn't say what Cd claims in the Skypes. Period. In fact he says the opposite: "I was there"

But that said, every single person that ever reported, blogged, wrote a book or discussed this case on a forum has made mistakes in their story line, reporting or discussions, right?
You have, I have, Sfarzo, Pisa, Burleigh, Follian, Nadeau, and all the rest have...

I'm sure all have made errors, not all as many as CD and not all with an overarching agenda.

You can't stand Dempsey for some reason,
maybe because she made a paycheck doing a lot of work on this case we discuss.

She didn't get a paycheck at all. She saw dollar signs from the beginning as she pursued the book deal from the very beginning. Her endless promotion of it does bother me.

It seems there are huge double standards here. Bill goes on about Barbie and Vogt and others yet no remarks about gas money etc. Barbie and Vogt were reporters (stringers) working the EU scene while CD has a little blog with only one post at the time of the murder. She wasn't a reporter/journalist and isn't one today.

Her book is mostly factual, as seen time and time again when comparing it to other sources.
Same with Frank Sfarzo's blog, they did a great job.

I loved Frank's blog. Didn't read her book as her blog turned my stomach. Once when I showed her errors on the blog someone said that didn't matter because blogs don't need to be accurate.

I bet if she said a shark wasn't a fish that would change your tune.

Once again you brought up Dempsey to prove me wrong but in fact she was wrong.

“Listen, you know I knew those girls, I knew them both, Meredith and Amanda, but nothing more, you know that,” Rudy told a friend during a long Skype call on Nov. 19, 2007, several weeks after Kercher’s brutal slashing. He was sleeping rough in Germany, where he’d fled after the murder. Even though police had found his bloody handprint on the victim’s pillow, he insisted: “I’ve been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn’t do anything. I have nothing to do with this business. I wasn’t there that evening. If they have found my fingerprints it means I must have left them there before.”

The above is wrong and disingenuous. Even if Rudi had claimed in the Skype call what Dempsey claimed, he wouldn't have done it knowing they had found his palm print. She writes bull and it bothers me.

Lately most of you here have gone after a new book because it's bull. I'd join in more but there is no need.

Btw, Mignini brings mixed blood back in his alleged lawsuit.

 

[Grinder]

Hi RW!

I agree, and would like to add, that it also doesn't matter if a person started out reporting on and learning about the case, and later became an advocate for a certain POV. As long as that POV fit the facts they learned about.

That goes for Candace, Frank, Nina, etc. They dug deep into the case, and found out it was a sham. So then they said it was a sham, instead of continuing a pretense of impartiality.

Have a nice weekend! Looks like perfect weather!

Frank was there from day one.

Nina spent 9 months there or something like that and was a working reporter.

Dempsey didn't spend much time there though I can't prove the precise time but since I was reading her bull as it happened it was obvious when she was here or there. She didn't show strong language ability.

Btw, in the 2011 piece she repeats the Rudi only met MK and AK once factoid.

 

[Strozzi]

As we discussed, Massei accepted Papa Raff's desperate theory.

Actually, Judge Massei accepting that the shoeprint is not Raffaele's really means that Massei rejected Mignini's desperate theory that the print is Raffaele's.

 

[Dougm]

Frank was there from day one.

Nina spent 9 months there or something like that and was a working reporter.

Dempsey didn't spend much time there though I can't prove the precise time but since I was reading her bull as it happened it was obvious when she was here or there. She didn't show strong language ability.

Btw, in the 2011 piece she repeats the Rudi only met MK and AK once factoid.

Can't refute what you say. I will say I think Dempsey's book is probably the best straightforward delivery of the facts that was done, from the ones I read. She didn't do a lot of editorializing, if I remember correctly. My comparison would be to the others I read, which are Nadeau, Nina B, and Follain.

 

[Bill Williams]

Frank was there from day one.

Nina spent 9 months there or something like that and was a working reporter.

Dempsey didn't spend much time there though I can't prove the precise time but since I was reading her bull as it happened it was obvious when she was here or there. She didn't show strong language ability.

Btw, in the 2011 piece she repeats the Rudi only met MK and AK once factoid.

Now that the kids are exonerated, my opinion is that Dempsey's account will stand the test of time, far more than any of the other attempts. In the back and forth of accusations of who peddled "bull", or who tepresented one side or the other, my view is that Dempsey's will come out fairly well.

Most assuredly as compared to Follain and Nadeau.... when it comes to factoids.

I'll never understand the dismissal of an author only because she had an early point of view.

 

[JREF2010]

Can't refute what you say. I will say I think Dempsey's book is probably the best straightforward delivery of the facts that was done, from the ones I read. She didn't do a lot of editorializing, if I remember correctly. My comparison would be to the others I read, which are Nadeau, Nina B, and Follain.

I agree, Dempseys, Murder in Italy book, captured the chaos of the beginning, better than all of the others. ..pip or pgp.

Her personal association and family connection to Perugia etc...anyway it was unbiased, in her early stages. She kind of saw it through the eyes of an average person and her book is well written in the layout, imo.
I dont know how much she was there, a few trials, in the city a few times, an early blog before the mania took off, and death threats started coming in for the blog writers, or legal charges etc...

As for mistakes, every book misses something, every Judge seems to leave something out or get a detail wrong. The media became a cesspool of mistakes. The Stefonani video ended up helping the defense see all the mistakes made, the computer experts destroyed harddrives, the interrogation was mistakenly not recorded, the Stefonani critical evidence was mistakenly destroyed....etc..et.

When you think back its nice to have that book as a reminder how bizarre it all was. To this day I still cant decide if it was a
1) corrupt prosecution
2) incompetent prosecution
3) both 1 & 2

 

[acbytesla]

Can't refute what you say. I will say I think Dempsey's book is probably the best straightforward delivery of the facts that was done, from the ones I read. She didn't do a lot of editorializing, if I remember correctly. My comparison would be to the others I read, which are Nadeau, Nina B, and Follain.

I agree with Doug wholeheartedly on this. CD definitely made a few mistakes. But I see only minor discrepancies. I thought she was by far the most straightforward in her reporting. I don't think she made anything up. I do think that she used a source or two who were wrong.

I have no problem with her becoming an advocate. In fact, I don't see how you couldn't become one staring at this farce and the injustice it represents.