Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

It'll be interesting to see if Raff gets a single Lire after all the lies he told and refusal to cooperate.

Now you're being silly. "Refusal to cooperate"!?!? Let's see, right of silence.... oh, never mind. You've made up your mind their guilty.

Next.

 

[Grinder]

I believe you are correct, Vixen, it was Raffaele who brought the complaint.

The oracle has spoken. Any, you know, like a cite or something or did he tell you directly?

 

[acbytesla]

Not at all. They sat until 2300 and insider sources revealed it was Marasca trying to stand down Bruno and chum into the wee hours, until at last he caved in.

What sources? Ergon? You can't believe everything God tells you.

 

[acbytesla]

You are not a burglar unless convicted. Any newspaper calling you one if you are not will pay you a handsome sum in "apologies".

Not according to Webster and Rudy has been described by thousands of publications as a burglar. Do you think he'll sue?

 

[Ken Dine]

I was also able to read the auto translate but it is well short of being clear. rather than just reproduce the Google since you understand it please rewrite in a form that is clear.

Here's another article which may be more clear. Apparently, Mignini received a rather minor rebuke (a censure) for not following correct legal procedures when Mignini had delayed Raffaele's right to counsel.

While still an official rebuke, Mignini's censure is certainly not as severe as many of us here feel Mignini actually deserves since this censure apparently has no punishment (but still may hinder somewhat his advancement in the Italian judiciary):

December 4, 2015
Meredith murder, censorship of the CSM to prosecutor Giuliano Mignini for banning a meeting with the legal Sollecito

The attorney general had asked for absolution believing it of little relevance

The disciplinary section of the CSM has inflicted the penalty of censure to Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor who from the start has been following the case of Meredith Kercher. The sentence is related to the time when Raffaele Sollecito was stopped for the murder and denied the meeting with his lawyer, a decision which Mignini gave not only orally instead with a reasoned [WRITTEN] decision.

The prosecutor general of the Supreme Court had asked for absolution Mignini - which was defended by the prosecutor Piercamillo Davigo - because the interview with the defender before notice of warranty had actually performed. The court did not consider that the behavior of the prosecutor was punishable and even the mildest.

http://www.umbria24.it/omicidio-mer...-colloquio-col-legale-a-sollecito/380495.html

 

[Grinder]

This may back that it was a Raf complaint:

The CSM censor the prosecutor Mignini for the procedure by which forbade urge the conversation with his lawyer
The CSM censor the prosecutor Mignini for the procedure by which forbade urge the talks with his defender. Decision soo oral and not written, "unjust harm" to urge
The judgment of the CSM comes after 8 years and agrees with Raffaele Sollecito and its rights. The disciplinary section of the CSM has indeed inflicted the sanction of censure to Giuliano Mignini,

 

[Ken Dine]

It's pretty clear to me. This is all about the ridiculous, mendacious and downright unlawful way in which Mignini prevented Sollecito (and Knox, for that matter) from getting access to a lawyer in the three days following their arrest and detention on 6th November.

Basically, there's an allowance in the Code for PMs to deny arrested persons access to counsel - but ONLY under extremely unusual and strictly-defined circumstances. In essence, the PM has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that to allow access to counsel might have a significant change of hampering the investigation and/or perverting the course of justice. And pretty much the only time this is at issue is with serious organised crime (e.g. the Mafia) or terrorism. In either instance, lawyers might wittingly or unwittingly be used to convey information such as alibis, or to intimidate potential witnesses, or to hide/destroy evidence.

If a PM wishes to invoke this denial of counsel, (s)he must set out the written grounds to do so, and present them in writing to the arraignment judge. The written grounds must specifically argue that the circumstances are extreme and unusual, and must spell out the reasons why the PM feels that the investigation might be hampered and/or justice perverted if the defendant(s) were to get access to a lawyer.

Mignini simply invoked this denail on a whim. Because it made things easier for him, and probably because he thought that Sollecito and/or Knox might further "buckle" without any legal advice, and might totally "spill the beans". But what he did was unlawful and unfair. And what's more, the supine arraignment judge, Micheli, blithely waved through Mignini's invocation of the denial of counsel - he actually asked Mignini if he (Mignini) had completed the formal written motivation, and Mignini demurred (he hadn't written any such thing....). So in a sense, Micheli is as guilty as Mignini on this matter. It also further illustrates vividly just how improper and unjust is the cosy relationship between judges and PMs.

And as I read it, Mignini has basically been formally told off by his superiors. It will sully his record, and presumably it will also potentially have some bearing on the rest of his career. The man's a disgrace for many reasons. This is just one of those reasons.

I feel your analysis is spot on.

 

[bagels]

That's a straw man, as bagel's false premise was, "Rudy must have been the sole perp as he was a burglar".

That's not what I said at all. I said if Rudy was locked up Meredith probably would still be alive. I think it's reasonable to conclude that if the only man leaving DNA inside Meredith's body and the only man who was so drenched in Meredith's blood he was spreading it around the cottage, was instead locked up in jail that night, Meredith would have had significantly better odds of survival. Most reasonable people would agree with that, which is why I find it interesting that it's not a point any PGP bother themselves with.

 

[Desert Fox]

That's not what I said at all. I said if Rudy was locked up Meredith probably would still be alive. I think it's reasonable to conclude that if the only man leaving DNA inside Meredith's body and the only man who was so drenched in Meredith's blood he was spreading it around the cottage, was instead locked up in jail that night, Meredith would have had significantly better odds of survival. Most reasonable people would agree with that, which is why I find it interesting that it's not a point any PGP bother themselves with.

While not 100% certain, I think the evidence is strong that Guede was the only perpetrator.

 

[acbytesla]

While not 100% certain, I think the evidence is strong that Guede was the only perpetrator.

Yea, I'm with you on that. Rudy was alone in the CCTV shots. He was alone in the Milan nusery. There doesn't appear to be any other bloody footprints. I'd say 90 percent plus.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mignini simply invoked this denail on a whim. Because it made things easier for him, and probably because he thought that Sollecito and/or Knox might further "buckle" without any legal advice, and might totally "spill the beans". But what he did was unlawful and unfair. And what's more, the supine arraignment judge, Micheli, blithely waved through Mignini's invocation of the denial of counsel - he actually asked Mignini if he (Mignini) had completed the formal written motivation, and Mignini demurred (he hadn't written any such thing....). So in a sense, Micheli is as guilty as Mignini on this matter. It also further illustrates vividly just how improper and unjust is the cosy relationship between judges and PMs.

As if there needs to be any more proof......

But when Mignini's actions are put to a timeline.....

..... something guilters never do for the actual events of the crime itself.....

...... it becomes clear not only that Mignini acted illegally, but further that under those (illegal) circumstances, what saved Amanda and Raffaele was that they actually had no beans to spill. Not even as "informed of the facts". They knew nothing of how Guede managed to murder the poor English woman.

The beans both of them spilled at interrogation amounted to nothing, not really. Raffaele conflating Wednesday and Thursday, Amanda being asked to imaging what might have happened if Lumumba had been there - none of that described anything to do with what was Rudy's crime.

For pete's sake. even John Follain, semi-guilter author, wades in in this time period. He has Mignini at the hearing where finally Amanda gets a lawyer, and Mignini looks on longingly that Amanda is no longer in his control. Whether true or not, Follain than unearths Mignini's private thought - seeing Amanda relate to her lawyer so quickly and easily: "Now we'll never know the truth."

Well, so much for that (illegal) strategy of locking them up in solitary until the squeal on each other.

Add the Perugian murder investigation fiasco to Mignini's résumé which includes the Monster of Florence fiasco. That one got him put up on charges of abuse of office!

Yes, he beat those charges - which should put into perspective his inability to redeem himself in front of his own peers.

Hoots!

 

[Bill Williams]

The oracle has spoken. Any, you know, like a cite or something or did he tell you directly?

I've never spoken to Ergon in my life!

 

[Mike1711]

Apx ITL300,000 / €1, notionally.

That was quick.

Now to Bill's (or was it Grinder's) request

Find us even a single instance (or even a plausible theoretical possibility) that the victim's DNA can be found on a knife used as a murder weapon without simultaneously finding the victim's blood.

I will save you some time. The chances of DNA being found without blood being found approaches zero. Practically speaking it is zero.

You do know why don't you?

 

[acbytesla]

I believe you are correct, Vixen, it was Raffaele who brought the complaint.

Hmmmmm. That's unusual. Vixen being right.

Is Raffaele laying the groundwork in getting compensation and maybe going after Mignini?

 

[Mike1711]

You are not a burglar unless convicted. Any newspaper calling you one if you are not will pay you a handsome sum in "apologies".

A burglar is a burglar is a burglar. Calling an "unconvicted" burglar "a burglar" is against the law for obvious reasons.

By your reasoning a theft is only a theft if someone is caught and jailed. If there's no thief how can there have been a theft?

 

[Grinder]

That was quick.

Now to Bill's (or was it Grinder's) request

Find us even a single instance (or even a plausible theoretical possibility) that the victim's DNA can be found on a knife used as a murder weapon without simultaneously finding the victim's blood.

I will save you some time. The chances of DNA being found without blood being found approaches zero. Practically speaking it is zero.

You do know why don't you?

There fixed it

Her response was quick but wrong to the exchange rate question.

 

[Grinder]

I believe you are correct, Vixen, it was Raffaele who brought the complaint.

The more I read on this the more I think this may be something that the lawyers and judges bring to the CSM and not necessarily "for" a client.

 

[Bill Williams]

The more I read on this the more I think this may be something that the lawyers and judges bring to the CSM and not necessarily "for" a client.

You could be right. I know of many professional organizations where it is well within their bylaws for a colleague to bring an accusation of misconduct of a peer, where the complainant is not the subject of the accusation.

While interesting to drill down on the mechanics of how complaints arise and are adjudicated, if one is censured in such a manner - they are not going to be a happy camper, and they may want to have a look at their retirement package.

 

[Bill Williams]

There fixed it

Her response was quick but wrong to the exchange rate question.

When the two of us are confused as to who is who, this is time for me to bow out.

 

[Grinder]

You could be right. I know of many professional organizations where it is well within their bylaws for a colleague to bring an accusation of misconduct of a peer, where the complainant is not the subject of the accusation.

While interesting to drill down on the mechanics of how complaints arise and are adjudicated, if one is censured in such a manner - they are not going to be a happy camper, and they may want to have a look at their retirement package.

The story is definitely being picked up by many outlets including the TWO HOUR radio broadcast. You may wish to check that post out again and check on all the Perugian cops in attendance. This wasn't just a quick paperwork deal.

When the two of us are confused as to who is who, this is time for me to bow out.

Oh please, I'll share a little of my glory with you.

ETA - another version The disciplinary section of the Msm has imposed the sanction of censure to the pm of Perugia Giuliano Mignini, holder of the proceeding the murder of Meredith Kercher, finished under proceedings on charges of violating the law for having banned immediately after the catch (November 6, 2007), Raffaele Sollecito (acquitted last March in a final, with Amanda Knox, from the charge of murder) to have talks with a lawyer without issuing an injunction written and reasoned.

Mignini, according to the Attorney General's Office of the Supreme Court, has caused "harm to stopped," uttering "orally, with serious and inexcusable breach of law", the "extension of the right of the stopped to confer with counsel", in "stark contrast" to the norm contained in the code of criminal procedure which prescribes a "reasoned Decree" and "delivery/performance" to entitled persons.

I love the way Bing translates CSM into MSM