Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Annella]

Calunnia against Mignini and Perugian Cops

Here is the translated motivation report from Judge Boninsegna re Amanda's acquittal for calunnia during her interrogation.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Boninsegna-Motivations.pdf

 

[acbytesla]

It tends to be a powerful moment when humans think they have discovered facts that match their expectations. I think they had already decided what likely happened -- the text was just confirmation in their minds.

I always thought they got extra suspicious when Patrick showed up at Amanda's school. What is this older black man doing there?

I also wonder did they even think about letting Amanda and Raffaele go when it became clear that Patrick was not involved? Did they think for one second "hey, we got this all wrong, it's not at all what we think what happened." What made them think that it was OK to just plug Rudy into their scenario?

This really is one of the most bizarre stories. If it didn't all happen I don't think I could ever actually believe it.

 

[Dougm]

Here is the translated motivation report from Judge Boninsegna re Amanda's acquittal for calunnia during her interrogation.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Boninsegna-Motivations.pdf

Oh boy! The ECHR is going to LOVE this!

A couple of choice exerpts:

"The nature of the investigations, as reconstructed from the records of the investigative activities, from the testimonies heard and from the documents filed, particularly the rulings, shows they are not incompatible with what the girl said."

And ...

"Situations of this kind concern personal freedom as a fundamental and unshakable right of the individual (Constitution, article 13), a direct logical and legal consequence of the recognition of the fundamental human rights, both as those of a single human being and in the context of the society in which he or she lives (Constitution, article 2). Situations also connected to the ultimate recognition of the equal level of dignity between individual subjects - also in a context like the case here discussed and meant as a sum of rights and duties - and the authority of the State (Constitution, article 3).
Even more than that, this system of recognised individualities and of their interrelationships, includes also all the relationships between the citizen and the State, from a perspective shunning authoritarianism, which instead unilaterally privileges the State, with various justifications.

That is just a small portion.

 

[bagels]

I always thought they got extra suspicious when Patrick showed up at Amanda's school. What is this older black man doing there?

I also wonder did they even think about letting Amanda and Raffaele go when it became clear that Patrick was not involved? Did they think for one second "hey, we got this all wrong, it's not at all what we think what happened." What made them think that it was OK to just plug Rudy into their scenario?

This really is one of the most bizarre stories. If it didn't all happen I don't think I could ever actually believe it.

Rudy's discovery should end any speculation about what happened almost instantly, and I'd wager it did behind the scenes for a few on the police and in the prosecution offices. But it doesn't for everybody because humans aren't perfectly rational.

 

[acbytesla]

Rudy's discovery should end any speculation about what happened almost instantly, and I'd wager it did behind the scenes for a few on the police and in the prosecution offices. But it doesn't for everybody because humans aren't perfectly rational.

Ain't that the truth. There are a lot of stupid people out there. I mean how else do you explain Donald Trump?

everything points to Rudy and Rudy alone. Sure he could have had an accomplice, ie: Kokomani, but the evidence is slim. But of course if you actually thought Raffaele's shoes matched those bloody shoe prints then how could you not think they were involved?

This really was bias compounded by stupidity compounded by mistakes.

 

[Dougm]

I always thought they got extra suspicious when Patrick showed up at Amanda's school. What is this older black man doing there?

I also wonder did they even think about letting Amanda and Raffaele go when it became clear that Patrick was not involved? Did they think for one second "hey, we got this all wrong, it's not at all what we think what happened." What made them think that it was OK to just plug Rudy into their scenario?

This really is one of the most bizarre stories. If it didn't all happen I don't think I could ever actually believe it.

The ONE place I cut them some slack is in suspecting Amanda, Raffaele, and Lumumba (not necessarily together). They see this vicious crime, and immediately they must have assumed a man was involved. But to them, Amanda seemed suspicious -- I think her personality combined with her Seattle style of being was something totally unfamiliar to them. So they thought that Amanda was involved somehow, but either had help from a man, or the man did it at her behest. So they start looking around, and bingo! There is Lumumba. I think they weren't sure if Raff was involved or not, but they had to include him when he became Amanda's alibi.

How they swapped Lumumba for Rudy? I guess once they became convinced they knew what happened, that it was the evil seductress Amanda and some man she manipulated into the killing, they just figured they got the wrong man, but the story remained the same. We assume that, once they realized Lumumba was not involved, they would re-examine the whole story, but they didn't. It goes back to confirmation bias -- they thought they knew what happened, and they looked for facts to fit that story. I guess that is why they were so swayed by things like Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom sink -- it fit their narrative.

 

[Numbers]

If I understand this text from the recently translated acquittal, Donnino, the interpreter - mediator, actually did understand that the text message was a generic goodby, not the setting up of a meeting.

"The witness stated that Knox had, firstly, stated that she had not replied to the message received from Patrick Lumumba, although it is shown in the statement that Knox had stated, on the contrary, to have replied to Patrick that they would have seen each other later. In fact the witness confirmed that the phrase on record, see you later, should be understood as an invitation to a totally generic future meeting, equivalent to a presto [see you soon] or something similar, rather than to an imminent and certain invitation."

But essentially the interpreter - mediator Donnino went along with the police and prosecution plan with regard to Knox because she was a police officer supporting other police:

"The witness confirmed reporting that Knox's statements were considered as lies, but also stated not recalling if the affirmation of not having replied to Lumumba's message had been taken of her own initiative or because of a decision of the interrogators. Also this circumstance, insofar as it showed perplexity concerning the traceability of the qualification in question, nevertheless signals a non-indifferent condition of the interpreter, which inevitably suffers from analogous contamination of her role by an emotional involvement given that her colleagues were the police officers who were carrying out the investigation."


Source:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/
Boninsegna Report – Dismissal of Callunia -bis {in Miscellaneous table} page 16 - 17

 

[acbytesla]

Oh boy! The ECHR is going to LOVE this!

A couple of choice exerpts:

"The nature of the investigations, as reconstructed from the records of the investigative activities, from the testimonies heard and from the documents filed, particularly the rulings, shows they are not incompatible with what the girl said."

And ...

"Situations of this kind concern personal freedom as a fundamental and unshakable right of the individual (Constitution, article 13), a direct logical and legal consequence of the recognition of the fundamental human rights, both as those of a single human being and in the context of the society in which he or she lives (Constitution, article 2). Situations also connected to the ultimate recognition of the equal level of dignity between individual subjects - also in a context like the case here discussed and meant as a sum of rights and duties - and the authority of the State (Constitution, article 3).
Even more than that, this system of recognised individualities and of their interrelationships, includes also all the relationships between the citizen and the State, from a perspective shunning authoritarianism, which instead unilaterally privileges the State, with various justifications.

That is just a small portion.

I think this excerpt is priceless.

"However, they have been presented, and even stressed multiple times, by the witnesses heard, with the manifest aim of pointing out at the fair, indeed nice, treatment reserved for Knox. In this way the witnesses and the civil parties have, probably, meant to introduce an element of support to their case, disproving at the same time the defendant’s accusations against them. But they probably did not realise, and this too is likewise characteristic, that in such a professional context, the only correct approach required towards Knox, indeed the mandatory approach, was that of informing her of her legal rights, which have been proclaimed, not by chance, sacrosanct by our Constitution (article 24)."

Given this motivation, I really can't see how the ECHR could rule against Knox. But I've been wrong before.

 

[acbytesla]

If I understand this text from the recently translated acquittal, Donnino, the interpreter - mediator, actually did understand that the text message was a generic goodby, not the setting up of a meeting.

"The witness stated that Knox had, firstly, stated that she had not replied to the message received from Patrick Lumumba, although it is shown in the statement that Knox had stated, on the contrary, to have replied to Patrick that they would have seen each other later. In fact the witness confirmed that the phrase on record, see you later, should be understood as an invitation to a totally generic future meeting, equivalent to a presto [see you soon] or something similar, rather than to an imminent and certain invitation."

But essentially the interpreter - mediator Donnino went along with the police and prosecution plan with regard to Knox because she was a police officer supporting other police:

"The witness confirmed reporting that Knox's statements were considered as lies, but also stated not recalling if the affirmation of not having replied to Lumumba's message had been taken of her own initiative or because of a decision of the interrogators. Also this circumstance, insofar as it showed perplexity concerning the traceability of the qualification in question, nevertheless signals a non-indifferent condition of the interpreter, which inevitably suffers from analogous contamination of her role by an emotional involvement given that her colleagues were the police officers who were carrying out the investigation."


Source:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/
Boninsegna Report – Dismissal of Callunia -bis {in Miscellaneous table} page 16 - 17

Thanks Numbers. This motivation definitely supports Amanda's ECHR application. I read it and my confidence in her case skyrockets.

 

[bagels]

delete

 

[bagels]

Ain't that the truth. There are a lot of stupid people out there. I mean how else do you explain Donald Trump?

everything points to Rudy and Rudy alone. Sure he could have had an accomplice, ie: Kokomani, but the evidence is slim. But of course if you actually thought Raffaele's shoes matched those bloody shoe prints then how could you not think they were involved?

This really was bias compounded by stupidity compounded by mistakes.

That's my main interest in this case, people who know about Rudy but still think some other crime scenario occurred. There's two different categories of PGP. The first is low info types that just know some basic tabloid factoids, and they don't interest me much, lots of people have incorrect knowledge about lots of topics (including myself). But the second is what interests me. People who are both intelligent and highly informed about the case and all its nuances, and still believe a crime occurred they can't even describe 8+ years later.

The thing about cognitive biases is it isn't obvious you've succumbed to one internally, but a major clue might be if you can't put together a theory of the crime that doesn't significantly contradict itself and all the evidence, you may be on the wrong track.

Let's look at some of the PGP theories and how they routinely contradict themselves:

"Drugs, things got out of hand." So the night at the cottage started innocently or at least non-homicidally, but then escalated. I suppose they escalated so much that Amanda reached into a dimensional pocket and grabbed a kitchen knife from across town. Oops major contradiction. Let's ignore it because we suffer from cognitive bias.

"A planned murder." There was a plan to kill Meredith. Well the murder took place on a night when both Amanda and Raffaele had other plans that were only canceled at the last minute. I suppose they quickly improvised. Oops, contradiction, Rudy Guede was out scouting the cottage on CCTV by himself before these plans were canceled. Did they tell Rudy "check the cottage every single night in case we murder Meredith tonight." Never mind getting Rudy, a virtual stranger, involved in a premeditated murder scheme. Let's ignore this because we suffer from cognitive bias.

No point in discussing the alleged witnesses who contradict the tow truck and broken down cars packed with people,parked out in front of the house, confirmed by CCTV, that heard and saw nothing.

Included in the above list of reality deniers is a PHD mathematician. Wow!


It's easy to go back to the original thread by skeptigirl and make fun of people with the gift of hindsight, but there was a perfectly valid post on the very first page which should have ended all the discussion which was promptly ignored so people could argue for another 100,000 posts about cartwheels. I shall now quote it:

I still want to know what her motive was supposed to have been, and how Rudy Guede fits into a coherent narrative that has Knox also participating in the killing.

Years later we are still waiting for the answer.

 

[Kauffer]

Thanks Numbers. This motivation definitely supports Amanda's ECHR application. I read it and my confidence in her case skyrockets.

The motivation report for the Jan 2016 verdict definitively ends any possibility whatsoever that Italy will prevail at the ECHR.

It confirms:

-Knox was a suspect confronted with what the police presented as evidence against her including the text messages and the loss of her alibi witness before she named Lumumba and should have been appraised of her rights
-the misbehaviour of the interpreter (in fact, interpreters across all her interrogations)
-Knox was subjected to manipulation
-police procedures were poor and unprofessional with poor documentation and materially relevant omissions
-Knox's constitutional rights were compromised
-Knox's version of events is preferred over that of the police
-the police went at Knox for between 2 and 2 1/2 hours before Donnino arrived and another hour and a quarter after until they broke her
-Mignini was told at 11:30 pm that Knox no longer had an alibi

And much more besides.

Indeed, more of Donnino emerges in the report - she had more of an aggressive role than we thought. She was a participant in the whole "you are a liar" narrative.

It's shocking stuff.

This bit is really sweet:

.."it is noted that declarations made in the first statement, but also in the second statement of 6-Nov-2007, in the police station, were judged as not being usable by the Court of Cassation (decision made after a defense request) because the girl should have been heard with the guarantees reserved for persons under investigation from the beginning, and so not as a simple witness, given that substantially this was evident when considering the investigative developments as they evolved."

And this bit:

"Indeed the investigations performed immediately after the Kercher murder, which directly involved Knox, were characterised by multiple specific procedural irregularities, as already pointed out, which even led to the inadmissibility of the documents coming from said activities (see on this point Cassation ruling 04-Jan- 2008, Section 1, which, while ruling about the measures of preventive incarceration, deemed as not usable the 1:45 am and 5:45 am statements of 06-Nov-2007, since they had been collected “without the guarantees of the law from a person who had already formally assumed the status of a person under investigation”)."

And this bit:

.."the only correct approach required towards Knox, indeed the mandatory approach, was that of informing her of her legal rights, which have been proclaimed, not by chance, sacrosanct by our Constitution (article 24). And this because of the obvious and textbook-like reason that she was a subject who had to be enabled to defend, in an unhampered way, her personal freedom against the power of the State, since the latter had, through its law enforcement, already marked her as a person under investigation."

The ECHR is going to stuff Italy in small cut pieces into a small space. Having read this MR, the Justice Minister will know categorically that his country is done for in this matter.

 

[Matthew Best]

It's easy to go back to the original thread by skeptigirl and make fun of people with the gift of hindsight, but there was a perfectly valid post on the very first page which should have ended all the discussion which was promptly ignored so people could argue for another 100,000 posts about cartwheels. I shall now quote it:



Years later we are still waiting for the answer.

Thanks for that link. I just went back and re-read the first 20 pages of that thread. Most gratifying to see that I was correct right from the beginning and Fiona, stilicho, BobTheDonkey etc were wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

The motivation report for the Jan 2016 verdict definitively ends any possibility whatsoever that Italy will prevail at the ECHR.

It confirms:

-Knox was a suspect confronted with what the police presented as evidence against her including the text messages and the loss of her alibi witness before she named Lumumba and should have been appraised of her rights
-the misbehaviour of the interpreter (in fact, interpreters across all her interrogations)
-Knox was subjected to manipulation
-police procedures were poor and unprofessional with poor documentation and materially relevant omissions
-Knox's constitutional rights were compromised
-Knox's version of events is preferred over that of the police
-the police went at Knox for between 2 and 2 1/2 hours before Donnino arrived and another hour and a quarter after until they broke her
-Mignini was told at 11:30 pm that Knox no longer had an alibi

And much more besides.

Indeed, more of Donnino emerges in the report - she had more of an aggressive role than we thought. She was a participant in the whole "you are a liar" narrative.

It's shocking stuff.

This bit is really sweet:

.."it is noted that declarations made in the first statement, but also in the second statement of 6-Nov-2007, in the police station, were judged as not being usable by the Court of Cassation (decision made after a defense request) because the girl should have been heard with the guarantees reserved for persons under investigation from the beginning, and so not as a simple witness, given that substantially this was evident when considering the investigative developments as they evolved."

And this bit:

"Indeed the investigations performed immediately after the Kercher murder, which directly involved Knox, were characterised by multiple specific procedural irregularities, as already pointed out, which even led to the inadmissibility of the documents coming from said activities (see on this point Cassation ruling 04-Jan- 2008, Section 1, which, while ruling about the measures of preventive incarceration, deemed as not usable the 1:45 am and 5:45 am statements of 06-Nov-2007, since they had been collected “without the guarantees of the law from a person who had already formally assumed the status of a person under investigation”)."

And this bit:

.."the only correct approach required towards Knox, indeed the mandatory approach, was that of informing her of her legal rights, which have been proclaimed, not by chance, sacrosanct by our Constitution (article 24). And this because of the obvious and textbook-like reason that she was a subject who had to be enabled to defend, in an unhampered way, her personal freedom against the power of the State, since the latter had, through its law enforcement, already marked her as a person under investigation."

The ECHR is going to stuff Italy in small cut pieces into a small space. Having read this MR, the Justice Minister will know categorically that his country is done for in this matter.

Kind of obvious, isn't it. I read this motivation and started laughing. Mignini was definitely pressing his luck pursuing this case. This is a sample of the worst kind of vexatious criminal prosecution. But the judge was having none of it. His reasoning could easily be cut and pasted into the ECHR decision forthcoming.

I can't imagine whomever in Italy is responsible for dealing with the ECHR reading this thinking that Italy's case is defensible in any way. The reaction has to be "were screwed". I'd be shocked if Italy doesn't settle it. Although there may be some practical Italian bureaucratic reason that it's not that easy and italy can't or won't settle.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for that link. I just went back and re-read the first 20 pages of that thread. Most gratifying to see that I was correct right from the beginning and Fiona, stilicho, BobTheDonkey etc were wrong.

The very first page of that original thread reads like a textbook guide of "how to not think critically". I wonder if the authors of those blinkered, unsceptical slap-downs - especially those who used an appeal to authority to tell all pro-acquittal/pro-innocence posters that they were plain wrong and stupid to boot - have ever read back in the light of events. They ought to have done. And they ought to be rather embarrassed and ashamed of themselves, as well as perhaps wondering if they really can call themselves sceptics (hint: they cannot).

 

[Numbers]

The motivation report for the Jan 2016 verdict definitively ends any possibility whatsoever that Italy will prevail at the ECHR.

It confirms:

-Knox was a suspect confronted with what the police presented as evidence against her including the text messages and the loss of her alibi witness before she named Lumumba and should have been appraised of her rights
-the misbehaviour of the interpreter (in fact, interpreters across all her interrogations)
-Knox was subjected to manipulation
-police procedures were poor and unprofessional with poor documentation and materially relevant omissions
-Knox's constitutional rights were compromised
-Knox's version of events is preferred over that of the police
-the police went at Knox for between 2 and 2 1/2 hours before Donnino arrived and another hour and a quarter after until they broke her
-Mignini was told at 11:30 pm that Knox no longer had an alibi

And much more besides.

Indeed, more of Donnino emerges in the report - she had more of an aggressive role than we thought. She was a participant in the whole "you are a liar" narrative.

It's shocking stuff.

This bit is really sweet:

.."it is noted that declarations made in the first statement, but also in the second statement of 6-Nov-2007, in the police station, were judged as not being usable by the Court of Cassation (decision made after a defense request) because the girl should have been heard with the guarantees reserved for persons under investigation from the beginning, and so not as a simple witness, given that substantially this was evident when considering the investigative developments as they evolved."

And this bit:

"Indeed the investigations performed immediately after the Kercher murder, which directly involved Knox, were characterised by multiple specific procedural irregularities, as already pointed out, which even led to the inadmissibility of the documents coming from said activities (see on this point Cassation ruling 04-Jan- 2008, Section 1, which, while ruling about the measures of preventive incarceration, deemed as not usable the 1:45 am and 5:45 am statements of 06-Nov-2007, since they had been collected “without the guarantees of the law from a person who had already formally assumed the status of a person under investigation”)."

And this bit:

.."the only correct approach required towards Knox, indeed the mandatory approach, was that of informing her of her legal rights, which have been proclaimed, not by chance, sacrosanct by our Constitution (article 24). And this because of the obvious and textbook-like reason that she was a subject who had to be enabled to defend, in an unhampered way, her personal freedom against the power of the State, since the latter had, through its law enforcement, already marked her as a person under investigation."

The ECHR is going to stuff Italy in small cut pieces into a small space. Having read this MR, the Justice Minister will know categorically that his country is done for in this matter.

Thanks for pointing out all these important points from the MR acquittal for calunnia against the police.

There is still some question what "from the beginning" means to the Italian courts. It may mean different points in time to Boninsegna and to Gemelli. The way the MRs are written provides this ambiguity. That is why it is important to look at such elements as Giobbi's testimony and the actions of the police, such as seizing Amanda's phone and trying to get Raffaele to break Amanda's alibi. My opinion is that Amanda was a suspect before she entered the police station on Nov. 5, and that she was thus interrogated as suspect from the moment she entered the interrogation room.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's easy to go back to the original thread by skeptigirl and make fun of people with the gift of hindsight, but there was a perfectly valid post on the very first page which should have ended all the discussion which was promptly ignored so people could argue for another 100,000 posts about cartwheels. I shall now quote it:

I still want to know what her motive was supposed to have been, and how Rudy Guede fits into a coherent narrative that has Knox also participating in the killing.

Thanks for that link. I just went back and re-read the first 20 pages of that thread. Most gratifying to see that I was correct right from the beginning and Fiona, stilicho, BobTheDonkey etc were wrong.

The very first page of that original thread reads like a textbook guide of "how to not think critically". I wonder if the authors of those blinkered, unsceptical slap-downs - especially those who used an appeal to authority to tell all pro-acquittal/pro-innocence posters that they were plain wrong and stupid to boot - have ever read back in the light of events. They ought to have done. And they ought to be rather embarrassed and ashamed of themselves, as well as perhaps wondering if they really can call themselves sceptics (hint: they cannot).

Bagels: It's easy to go back to the original thread by skeptigirl and make fun of people with the gift of hindsight​

Be all that as it may, it does not make the hindsight any less valid, it just means that one has to a wee bit cautious in criticizing people early on for going too far.... the early posters (early-guilters who dominated the field) did not have the advantage of all the subsequent data.....

But of course this does not explain why some continue to this day. Some of those names cited by Bagels have long since retired from the field.

There was also another post way, way, way back when from a woman who noted that all the evidence against RS and AK was (to her way of thinking) judicially generated. That would be a good one to go find and reprint at this point, too.

But that early point by "maxpower1227" has been one to haunt guilters since day 1. They've gone through motives by the sackful - and yes, the prosecution or courts do not need one (just to get that canard out of the way - the typical response to outlining the wacky motives cited over the years has been the bleating of, "Well, motive is not important and you don't need one to prove guilt".

There have been tortuous unproven narratives which associate Knox with Guede. Curiously the one person who denies those connections is Guede himself. Be that as it may, the one statement form way way back that seems to have been ignored at the expense of thousands of posts, is .....

and how Rudy Guede fits into a coherent narrative that has Knox also participating in the killing.​

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for pointing out all these important points from the MR acquittal for calunnia against the police.

There is still some question what "from the beginning" means to the Italian courts. It may mean different points in time to Boninsegna and to Gemelli. The way the MRs are written provides this ambiguity. That is why it is important to look at such elements as Giobbi's testimony and the actions of the police, such as seizing Amanda's phone and trying to get Raffaele to break Amanda's alibi. My opinion is that Amanda was a suspect before she entered the police station on Nov. 5, and that she was thus interrogated as suspect from the moment she entered the interrogation room.

"A suspect" as deemed by who? The data seems to indicate that there was no consensus in the PLE about this, although, yes, some did suspect all that.

 

[Kauffer]

Thanks for pointing out all these important points from the MR acquittal for calunnia against the police.

There is still some question what "from the beginning" means to the Italian courts. It may mean different points in time to Boninsegna and to Gemelli. The way the MRs are written provides this ambiguity. That is why it is important to look at such elements as Giobbi's testimony and the actions of the police, such as seizing Amanda's phone and trying to get Raffaele to break Amanda's alibi. My opinion is that Amanda was a suspect before she entered the police station on Nov. 5, and that she was thus interrogated as suspect from the moment she entered the interrogation room.

It's pretty clear that Bonsegna thinks they targeted Knox from the earliest strand of investigative activity. Nevertheless, it doesn't really matter. The moment Profazio calls Mignini at 11:30 pm to report that Raffaelle has dumped Amanda's alibi is early enough. After all, who rousts the prosecutor from his bed to talk about a witness interrogation and who talks about witnesses' alibis? Donnino is also called for the same reason. It's all before Knox says anything they use against her.

The nuts at .nut simply cannot get the truth into their heads about 1:45. They think because Gemelli said it could be used for callunia, that's ok then - that Knox only had procedural rights after 1:45. It doesn't mean that at all. It means that her rights attached BEFORE she signed the statement (if she had no rights at this time, then 1:45 could be used for the murder) and Gemelli, recognising one part of the truth of this matter, somehow (and it is a mystery to me how exactly) reasoned that some use could be made of it - for criminal conviction purposes in the callunia case. It's crazy reasoning defying the whole notion of rights.

Bonsegna pushes the time back further to before Knox said anything of interest at all and goes to town on constitutional rights, manipulation, Donnino and the whole police narrative. He guts implicitly, the callunia verdicts of Massei and Hellmann, citing Hellmann's own reasoning, which Diocletus was the first to identify as a core argument in the case against Italy and hands Ficcara, napoleoni, Donnino and the rest, their arses (asses). But, notice, if you will, the gentle, nuanced handling of Mignini's role in the report. Bonsegna has acted bravely and intelligently, but we must never forget that all these judges and prosecutors in Italy are members of the same club. The tide has turned somewhat since Hellmann, in acquitting for murder was blackballed by the club, but Bonsegna will have known he must show some restraint as far as Mignini is concerned.

 

[acbytesla]

"A suspect" as deemed by who? The data seems to indicate that there was no consensus in the PLE about this, although, yes, some did suspect all that.

That is the $100,000 question isn't it? I believe that simply being asked to come down in the middle of the night screams suspect not witness. It's clearly adversarial this point. It's textbook treatment of a suspect. They call them down in the middle the night after a long day. They have a fresh army of detectives prepared to break the suspect. They put the suspect in the box ( A small windowless nondescript room) and apply the screws.

If it walks and taks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

Italy seems to play games with the term "suspect" Yes, suspects have constitutional rights like having a lawyer so we refuse to refer to the obvious suspect as a suspect.