Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

I don't believe that. Even Giacomo Silenzi on returning back to Perugia from the bank holiday, was driven to the nearest attorney by his father as soon as he stepped off the train. Laura and Filomena all immediately hired lawyers.

Your claim Raff was denied legal advice does not stand up to scrutiny.

Te recent disciplianry of Mignini by CSM was to do with omitting to put the arrest right in writing. Raff had seen a lawyer before then.

No Vixen he neglected to follow the law and put the special detention request in writing and post it in the proper places. L&F worked at a law firm and were able to access lawyers easily. As I said earlier Raf did speak or his father spoke with a family lawyer BUT IT WAS BEFORE THE ARREST. The constitutional protections are after being named a suspect and/or arrested. Mignini neglected the law on both counts and the CSM agreed.

It has nothing to do with the arrest reasoning. It has to do with the denial of an attorney after the arrest and not before his first hearing.

Got it?

 

[Vixen]

I think that the Amanda picture meme is a factoid. It never happened but some members of the PGP kept telling this story.

Maresca had no moral right to put poor Meredith's pictures up for all to see. He also had no need as the judges had seen the pictures in a special closed session where only judges and the lawyers were present at the request of Meredith's family.

It's not a factoid. This rake really did offer nude pics of Amanda to various people including the PGP!

 

[Vixen]

No Vixen he neglected to follow the law and put the special detention request in writing and post it in the proper places. L&F worked at a law firm and were able to access lawyers easily. As I said earlier Raf did speak or his father spoke with a family lawyer BUT IT WAS BEFORE THE ARREST. The constitutional protections are after being named a suspect and/or arrested. Mignini neglected the law on both counts and the CSM agreed.

It has nothing to do with the arrest reasoning. It has to do with the denial of an attorney after the arrest and not before his first hearing.

Got it?

As Mignini said in his defense, Raff was not denied an attorney. It was an oversight that he did not get the statement in writing.

 

[Bill Williams]

As Mignini said in his defense, Raff was not denied an attorney. It was an oversight that he did not get the statement in writing.

Mignini's peers did not believe him. They censured him. Why do you believe Mignini?

 

[Bill Williams]

I think that the Amanda picture meme is a factoid. It never happened but some members of the PGP kept telling this story.

It's not a factoid. This rake really did offer nude pics of Amanda to various people including the PGP!

It's a factoid. The reason why? The PGP have never done anything other than allege it. However, it is one of those things - completely unconnected to the case - that gets repeated once in a six month cycle. This one is right on time!

 

[LondonJohn]

No Vixen he neglected to follow the law and put the special detention request in writing and post it in the proper places. L&F worked at a law firm and were able to access lawyers easily. As I said earlier Raf did speak or his father spoke with a family lawyer BUT IT WAS BEFORE THE ARREST. The constitutional protections are after being named a suspect and/or arrested. Mignini neglected the law on both counts and the CSM agreed.

It has nothing to do with the arrest reasoning. It has to do with the denial of an attorney after the arrest and not before his first hearing.

Got it?

You beat me to it.

The level of ignorance and/or willful avoidance of understanding on display is getting to astonishing levels. And it's really not conducive to any sort of half-decent debate about this case.

 

[Vixen]

Mignini's peers did not believe him. They censured him. Why do you believe Mignini?

Because he only got a 'censure'.

 

[Grinder]

It's not a factoid. This rake really did offer nude pics of Amanda to various people including the PGP!

Do you have a copy of this offer? Why should I believe this?

 

[Vixen]

It's a factoid. The reason why? The PGP have never done anything other than allege it. However, it is one of those things - completely unconnected to the case - that gets repeated once in a six month cycle. This one is right on time!

I see. It's OK for you to dramatically announce that Bruce Fischer of Injustice Anywhere is hopping mad that the PGP have accessed public domain court documents, yet it's a factoid when the PIP has behaved abominably. Offering nude pics of Amanda in custody for money and bombarding the victim's family with pictures of Vaseline jars.

ETA The murderofmeredithkercher.com has been collating the crime documents for years. It is the first source of information for many journalists seeking the facts of the case, rather than spin.

 

[Vixen]

Do you have a copy of this offer? Why should I believe this?

I have it from a reliable source.

 

[LondonJohn]

As Mignini said in his defense, Raff was not denied an attorney. It was an oversight that he did not get the statement in writing.

You're not getting that the senior magistrates who comprised the disciplinary section of the CSM entirely rejected Mignini's risible "defence" on this charge, are you? That will be why Mignini was found to have acted improperly by his superiors, and it'll be why he was issued with an official censure.

(If it will help your understanding, think of it a bit like if a UK accountant acts improperly, and is officially rebuked by the Disciplinary Section of the ICAEW or the Conduct Committee of the FRC. That rebuke isn't going to look very good on that accountant's professional record, is it? And it's not really going to do that accountant's career prospects all that much good either, is it?)

 

[Grinder]

As Mignini said in his defense, Raff was not denied an attorney. It was an oversight that he did not get the statement in writing.

Vixen you just can't get it. He was not allowed to see a lawyer after his interrogation and arrest before the hearing 3 days later. The Italian constitution requires an arrestee be provided with an attorney immediately.

It was not an oversight because there was no way he could justify using the Mafia exemption which would have been clear had he tried to write it. That is why the CSM gave him capital punishment.

Any tiny chance you get it?

 

[Grinder]

I have it from a reliable source.

no you don't, as it is malarkey.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have it from a reliable source.

Ah yeah: the mate of a bogus "journalist" who's a mate of an astrologer who thinks he's God?

Or, if your source truly is "reliable", then you should be able to reveal it, shouldn't you? There are no ethics around "protection of sources" at play here. I am sure that many (including me) would be genuinely interested to hear who divulged this information, and how that person in turn received this information - it would allow us to assess its credibility and reliability with a good deal more accuracy. Thanks in advance.

 

[Grinder]

Because he only got a 'censure'.

you must have missed the later editions. sadly for mignini fans he was given the death penalty

 

[Vixen]

You're not getting that the senior magistrates who comprised the disciplinary section of the CSM entirely rejected Mignini's risible "defence" on this charge, are you? That will be why Mignini was found to have acted improperly by his superiors, and it'll be why he was issued with an official censure.

(If it will help your understanding, think of it a bit like if a UK accountant acts improperly, and is officially rebuked by the Disciplinary Section of the ICAEW or the Conduct Committee of the FRC. That rebuke isn't going to look very good on that accountant's professional record, is it? And it's not really going to do that accountant's career prospects all that much good either, is it?)

The Big 4 accountancy firms make a regular appearance on ICAEW monthly disciplinary notice pages. It shows the regulators are doing their job. Most of them are relatively trivial in nature and just get a "reprimand". For example, being slow to hand over notes, or filing a return late, or inadvertently breaching one of the hundreds of rules. In serious cases, involving dishonesty, fines run into thousands of pounds and expulsion.

As you can see, Mignini simply got a reprimand, as did Nencini.

Read the Bar Standard's disciplinary page and you'll see a censure isn't necessarily ruinous to a barrister's career.

 

[LondonJohn]

I see. It's OK for you to dramatically announce that Bruce Fischer of Injustice Anywhere is hopping mad that the PGP have accessed public domain court documents, yet it's a factoid when the PIP has behaved abominably. Offering nude pics of Amanda in custody for money and bombarding the victim's family with pictures of Vaseline jars.

ETA The murderofmeredithkercher.com has been collating the crime documents for years. It is the first source of information for many journalists seeking the facts of the case, rather than spin.

If you're trying to imply that the website you mention above is free from spin, then your view of this case is even more warped than I thought. It's also utterly risible to try to pretend that it's the "go to" website for many journalists. That's the sort of BS Quennell comes out with all too regularly ("we are talking with several multinational news organisations", etc"). It's fanciful, fairytale nonsense and an amusing delusion.

If journalists are indeed seeking information about this case (as opposed to information about the online debate about this case), then any serious journalist would go no further than a) other copy from respected journalists who've reported on this case in major news outlets, and b) the official Wikipedia information about this case - but only as a lead towards other primary sources.

 

[Vixen]

Ah yeah: the mate of a bogus "journalist" who's a mate of an astrologer who thinks he's God?

Or, if your source truly is "reliable", then you should be able to reveal it, shouldn't you? There are no ethics around "protection of sources" at play here. I am sure that many (including me) would be genuinely interested to hear who divulged this information, and how that person in turn received this information - it would allow us to assess its credibility and reliability with a good deal more accuracy. Thanks in advance.

As a writer, I will never divulge my sources.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Big 4 accountancy firms make a regular appearance on ICAEW monthly disciplinary notice pages. It shows the regulators are doing their job. Most of them are relatively trivial in nature and just get a "reprimand". For example, being slow to hand over notes, or filing a return late, or inadvertently breaching one of the hundreds of rules. In serious cases, involving dishonesty, fines run into thousands of pounds and expulsion.

As you can see, Mignini simply got a reprimand, as did Nencini.

Read the Bar Standard's disciplinary page and you'll see a censure isn't necessarily ruinous to a barrister's career.

1) "Ruinous" is a straw man - that's a claim I never made.

2) For a prosecutor to receive an official censure from his disciplinary body is not good news to that prosecutor - even in such a messed-up country as Italy.

3) Do you yet actually understand how and why Mignini received his censure? And I'm talking here about the facts and the findings of the disciplinary panel - not about Mignini's own jaundiced, biassed and mendacious "defence".

 

[Vixen]

If you're trying to imply that the website you mention above is free from spin, then your view of this case is even more warped than I thought. It's also utterly risible to try to pretend that it's the "go to" website for many journalists. That's the sort of BS Quennell comes out with all too regularly ("we are talking with several multinational news organisations", etc"). It's fanciful, fairytale nonsense and an amusing delusion.

If journalists are indeed seeking information about this case (as opposed to information about the online debate about this case), then any serious journalist would go no further than a) other copy from respected journalists who've reported on this case in major news outlets, and b) the official Wikipedia information about this case - but only as a lead towards other primary sources.

AIUI the murderofmeredithkercher.com site received hundred's of thousands of hits in its first few months.