Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

ARREST THEM BOTH THINK OF THE CHILDREN WHAT ARE YOU A MURDER GROUPIE/DRUG SMUGGLER?

I mean, seriously though, you're going to get some major cognitive dissonance if Vixen actually responds to this. It will almost certainly have some passive aggressive ad hominem insults and imply you don't understand luminol testing and/or drug sniffer dogs. And there is absolutely no way Vixen will actually answer your question directly. You're probing the deepest recesses of guilter minds here. Be careful.

Your name is, 'Vixen'?

 

[Vixen]

Question 3:
A Scientific Police lab gives a summary of findings to a court, such summary missing the necessary technical files so that other experts can assess if the conclusions arrived therein are accurate. The S.P.'s own video of their collection of key evidence 46 days after the crime show obvious forensic bungling.

• A) Convict the accused and send them to prison for life. Write in an official reason for judgement that even though one has never seen the necessary technical files of the forensic-DNA work done, these are important people submitting their conclusions who would never lie.
• B) Contract with an independent third party-forensic expert. When you hear that this expert actually expected necessary technical files to be part of the normal discovery/disclosure process, who then did not ask nicely to receive them, convict the accused and send them to prison for life.
• C) Contract with an independent third party-forensic expert. When they cast severe doubt on the conclusions of the Scientific Police, criticizing that there was no necessary technical files included to verify their conclusions, and when not one forensic-DNA expert in the world can be cited to agree with the Scientific Police, acquit the pair and tell them to get on with their lives.

You're my spokesperson?

 

[Vixen]

I have two question for you Vixen. It may helps to understand how science and crime scene investigation works in Vixens world...

Question 1:
A sniffer dog on the airport sniffs a suitcase for drugs. The dog sits and barks. This is the sign to show the handler he sniffed drugs. What's to do?

• A) Arrest the owner and send him to prison. No need to open the suitcase. Since the dog is trained to sniff drugs and do this quite accurate it must be drugs. What else would it be?
• B) Open the suitcase and check for drugs. If no drugs are found arrest the owner anyway and send him to prison.
• C) Open the suitcase and check for drugs. If no drugs are found let the owner go or do further investigations.

Question 2:
Footprints revealed by Luminol and attributed to the resident of an apartment are found near a bloody crime scene (apartment). What's to do?

• A) Arrest the resident and send him to prison. No need to check the source of the prints. Since Luminol reacts (amongst others) with blood it must be blood. What else would it be?
• B) Do a follow up test to check if the print was made in blood (e.g. TMB). If the follow up test is negative for blood arrest the resident anyway and send him to prison.
• C) Do a follow up test to check if the print was made in blood (e.g. TMB). If the follow up test is negative do further tests or do not consider it as evidence against the resident.

'It may helps'?

SCENE: Crown court / Assizes / Central Criminal Court

JUDGE: And who do I have in front of me?

BUD: Woof, woof!

Dog interpreter: We have 'ere, y'Honour, police dog Bud, sniffer division.

JUDGE: Tell us your rank and experience.

BUD: <fx series of low growls>

Police dog interpreter: Bud, 'ere, says 'e 'as been with said police force since four weeks old <fx clicks heels; voice raises a few pitches> Sir! Springer spaniel, sir!

JUDGE: <fx leans forward and says in kindly voice> Bud, please tell the court your version of events of 12th Sept 2016.

BUD: Ruff, ruff, grrr, yelp, <fx lifts muzzle> howls...

Dog Interpreter: 'E's says yer 'Honour, he was schlepping around Heathrow, as per normal, when 'e chanced upon a most unseemly waft...

JUDGE <fx leans forward eagerly> Drugs? A cadaver?

BUD: Woof! <fx shakes head, hunkers down>

Dog interpretor: 'E says 'e caught a waft of 'amburger, yer honour, an' it took all 'is willpower to hignore it, y'honour, as 'e was on shift and 'e didn't want Daddy 'urling abuse at 'im.

JUDGE: 'Daddy'?

BUD: <fx whimpers, looks pleadingly at his handler>

Dog Handler: That'll be Police Constable Smith, Sir, 'e gives Bud a treat every time 'e sniff out drugs, yer Honour.

JUDGE: And what might this treat be?

BUD: <fx salivates at memory, sniffs in the air> Grrr rrr woof!

Dog interpreter: 'E gets a mea'y treat, y'Honour.

JUDGE: I see. So every time 'e - er, he - sniffs some drugs, he gets a meaty treat?

BUD: <fx leaps over the dock, places his forelegs on judge's lap and gazes fawningly into the judge's eyes> Yelp.

JUDGE: Bud and I are now best friends.

ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENCE <fx rises to his feet> Ahem. If I may question the chief witness, M'Lud..

JUDGE: And who are you?

DEFENCE: Mr Wilson85 (for it is he). Now <fx coughs> Mr. er, Bud. I arrived at Heathrow from a holiday in Menorca and you came bounding over to my suitcase, sat down and howled...

BUD: <fx growls menacingly, sits on haunches and barks loudly>

JUDGE: Mr Wilson85, are you in possession of illegal drugs?

MR WILSON85: Er, no, m'Lud, that's Penhaligon's Quercus, a mix of lavender and citrus chypre, M'Lud.

JUDGE: Hmm. Well, get on with it, my good fellow.

MR WILSON85: Now, Mr Bud. You accosted me as I was making my way to baggage reclaim, you little beast.

JUDGE: Order!

MR WILSON85: - Everybody in the airport was staring at me as though I were a drug smuggler <fx grips his lapels; veins throb in his forehead, about to burst a blood vessel> -

JUDGE: You must put a question to the witness.

MR WILSON85: <fx shakes with rage> What about my right to smoke dope if I want to? I'm going to take it to the highest court about the ban on feeling free -

JUDGE <FX BANGS HIS GAVEL> Order, order, in my court.

<fx: Bud leaps down past the clerk and lunges towards the defence. Mr Wilson85 turns and runs for it. Bud races after, sinks his teeth into the seat of Mr Wilson85's trousers; tears off a metre of pinstripe pure new wool fabric and Mr Wilson85 makes a hasty exit out of the court>

------

<ends>

 

[Methos]

According to Candace Dempsey's book (pg 295), it was Maresca who first brought it up in court.

"Maresca then introduced into the court record,as a sign of Amanda's debauchery, the noise violation ticket she'd gotten for hosting a loud going-away party in Seattle."

That's why I prefer the transcripts to the books.

The ticket and the mail article were mentioned by PM Mignini in his questioning of Amanda Knox.
In Candace Dempsey's book it looks like Maresca brought it up after questioning Andrew Seliber who also was cross-examined on June 13th, 2009.
Haven't found that one in the transcript so far...

 

[HumanityBlues]

Oh look, Nick Pisa's twitter is protected.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not me, I have a life to live and a book to beta-read (our friend finally got past her writing block and is now working on her fifth. ), so I'll have to leave that snipe hunt to you.

On the highlighted part: Isn't that in line with Pisa's "It doesn't work like that." excuse from the new documentary, when he is asked about fact-checking?
He (Pisa) makes similar statements in the video I linked to above. Rambling about "You'll have to take things you get from a source (prosecutor/police) at face value .." and things like that...

It's a sad truth of hack journalism (Nick Davies' seminal exposition of the newspaper industry has plenty on this very subject) that reporters love to work "closely" with public authorities - especially bodies such as police, prosecutors and politicians. There are three chief reasons for cultivating such contacts: 1) these sorts of contacts are almost always useful for long-term repeat business (there are always new juicy criminal cases coming into the public eye; the world of politics never stops turning....); 2) these sorts of contacts are often privy to confidential information that can be impossible to get from any other source (police and prosecutors, for example, are the custodians of criminal investigations); and 3) there is an immediate comfort of attribution, and an associated lack of need to fact-check or double-source.

It's for precisely these reasons that hacks such as Pisa, Nadeau and Vogt made a beeline for Mignini, who was more than willing to use them as a conduit for his own agenda. An unholy alliance was therefore set in motion where the hacks uncritically printed (without any level of fact-checking) whatever Mignini (and various senior police officers involved in the case) told them. Fortunately for truth and justice, this house of cards eventually came crashing down.

 

[Stacyhs]

That's why I prefer the transcripts to the books.

The ticket and the mail article were mentioned by PM Mignini in his questioning of Amanda Knox.
In Candace Dempsey's book it looks like Maresca brought it up after questioning Andrew Seliber who also was cross-examined on June 13th, 2009.
Haven't found that one in the transcript so far...

I prefer transcripts, too. But, regardless whether it was Maresca or Mignini, the prosecution still used a horrendously inaccurate (Ok..let's call it what it was; full of lies) tabloid article as evidence in a murder trial. Incredible.

 

[Vixen]

Prosecutor Mignini Sets the Record Straight

A few posters on here claimed prosecutor Mignini expressed the flippant view, 'If they are innocent, sorry for their suffering.'

I pointed out this deliberately twisted and damaging quote was probably taken out of context and a whole load of PIP's jumped in to sneer at my use of 'probably'.

Mignini has now issued a hard-hitting rebuttal of the PR-spin machine lies of hackette Judy Bachrach, who wrote her disgusting revision of history - no, her complete fabrication - as there was nothing to reconstruct, when she rushed out a review in VANITY FAIR of the new netflix film Amanda Knox premiering at the Toronto Film Festival (TIFF) last week.

[excerpt] I was stunned by one statement by the end of the article, that says – in which I am reported to have said – that “if they were innocent, they should forget”. That is a statement which I said on request of one of the two interviewers, who asked “what would you say to those young persons in the event that they were actually innocent?”. So what could I say, what should I answer to a question framed and spun in such a way? I might say: “it’s an experience that unfortunately happened to you, something that may happen, try to forget, seek all legal ways” – but I was saying that in the abstract, purely in the abstract – “that you think you can follow if you deem that you suffered an injustice” – albeit the Cassazione ruling is in the dubitative formula (Art. 530 § 2. cpp).

You can find the full refutation here:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...n_innocence_fraudster_judy_bachrach/#comments


Moral: don't believe everything that comes out of the PR-machine. You are being hoaxed.

Amanda Knox fanatic, Stephen Robert Morse is one of the docu-film's producers!

 

[Stacyhs]

It's a sad truth of hack journalism (Nick Davies' seminal exposition of the newspaper industry has plenty on this very subject) that reporters love to work "closely" with public authorities - especially bodies such as police, prosecutors and politicians. There are three chief reasons for cultivating such contacts: 1) these sorts of contacts are almost always useful for long-term repeat business (there are always new juicy criminal cases coming into the public eye; the world of politics never stops turning....); 2) these sorts of contacts are often privy to confidential information that can be impossible to get from any other source (police and prosecutors, for example, are the custodians of criminal investigations); and 3) there is an immediate comfort of attribution, and an associated lack of need to fact-check or double-source.

It's for precisely these reasons that hacks such as Pisa, Nadeau and Vogt made a beeline for Mignini, who was more than willing to use them as a conduit for his own agenda. An unholy alliance was therefore set in motion where the hacks uncritically printed (without any level of fact-checking) whatever Mignini (and various senior police officers involved in the case) told them. Fortunately for truth and justice, this house of cards eventually came crashing down.

And the PGP have the gall to claim the Knox family hiring G-M is somehow wrong.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's a sad truth of hack journalism (Nick Davies' seminal exposition of the newspaper industry has plenty on this very subject) that reporters love to work "closely" with public authorities - especially bodies such as police, prosecutors and politicians. There are three chief reasons for cultivating such contacts: 1) these sorts of contacts are almost always useful for long-term repeat business (there are always new juicy criminal cases coming into the public eye; the world of politics never stops turning....); 2) these sorts of contacts are often privy to confidential information that can be impossible to get from any other source (police and prosecutors, for example, are the custodians of criminal investigations); and 3) there is an immediate comfort of attribution, and an associated lack of need to fact-check or double-source.

It's for precisely these reasons that hacks such as Pisa, Nadeau and Vogt made a beeline for Mignini, who was more than willing to use them as a conduit for his own agenda. An unholy alliance was therefore set in motion where the hacks uncritically printed (without any level of fact-checking) whatever Mignini (and various senior police officers involved in the case) told them. Fortunately for truth and justice, this house of cards eventually came crashing down.

Where Frank Sfarzo separated from these people was that he eventually figured out, and blogged extensively, that the police were simply stupid and out of their depth. **THEN** the persecution of Sfarzo began, with eventual intervention from the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Whatever you think of the Winterbottom film, you have to admit that it got Sfarzo (Edoardo) right.

When the main protagonist asked Edoardo why the police think that Amanda/Raffael were guilty, Edaordo says, "It's because they are stupid and do not read my blog."

When the Barbie Nadeau character played by Beckinsale brings the protagonist up to speed with who Edoardo is, she says, "He knows everybody in town. We all had to read his blog each morning just to keep up."

True, it's a film. For my money it got that part right.

 

[Bill Williams]

A few posters on here claimed prosecutor Mignini expressed the flippant view, 'If they are innocent, sorry for their suffering.'

I pointed out this deliberately twisted and damaging quote was probably taken out of context and a whole load of PIP's jumped in to sneer at my use of 'probably'.

Mignini has now issued a hard-hitting rebuttal of the PR-spin machine lies of hackette Judy Bachrach, who wrote her disgusting revision of history - no, her complete fabrication - as there was nothing to reconstruct, when she rushed out a review in VANITY FAIR of the new netflix film Amanda Knox premiering at the Toronto Film Festival (TIFF) last week.



You can find the full refutation here:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...n_innocence_fraudster_judy_bachrach/#comments


Moral: don't believe everything that comes out of the PR-machine. You are being hoaxed.

Amanda Knox fanatic, Stephen Robert Morse is one of the docu-film's producers!

Mignini is lying. It's pretty much the same as when Mignini was interviewed by Drew Griffin in 2010 about the conviction the previous year. Griffin was one of the few English language newspeople to get out of Mignini the conduct of the interrogation.

But the next day as Griffin was preparing to leave Perugia, he spied Mignini walking to work across the street. Through the interpreter who was with Griffin that morning, Mignini came over and asked, "Did I sound believable in the interview?"

The story I heard about this had Griffin thinking to himself, "This guy knows I'm a journalist, right!?" and Griffin couldn't believe that Mignini would say such an asinine thing.

Mignini has a track record of saying these dumb things - it was much the same as him imagining that Amanda had not even been in the murder room, as an explanation why her DNA was not found there. He opined that she was directing the slaughter from the hall.

Mignini has a track record of saying stupid things, and there is no reason to believe his comment in the documentary is not anything other than genuine. But the Mignini PR machine, TJMK, is out in full force.

 

[Vixen]

An Expert's Legal Opinion

Bill Williams keeps on asking for any expert in the world who supports Stefanoni. Mignini - more a legal expert than Bill Williams - confirms that Fifth Chambers Supreme Court (Cassazione) who acquitted the pair DID uphold and concretely confirm that legally:

Some facts recognized as certain by the Cassazione, not reported in the documentary, are that it is anyway a “proven fact” that Amanda Knox was present at the scene of crime when crime was committed. The same ruling also points out how it is proven beyond doubt that Meredith Kercher was murdered by more than one person, and Rudy Guede certainly acted together with others. The fact that Amanda Knox was certainly there is emphasized by the Court to the point of noting their agreement with the lower Court on the fact that Ms. Knox heard Meredith’s harrowing scream, and even noted that she had the victim’s blood on her hands, that she washed them in order to clean them from Meredith’s blood.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...n_innocence_fraudster_judy_bachrach/#comments


So, to sum up, NOT 'synoptic'. Not 'osmotic'. NOT 'talking about the morning after'.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill Williams keeps on asking for any expert in the world who supports Stefanoni. Mignini - more a legal expert than Bill Williams - confirms that Fifth Chambers Supreme Court (Cassazione) who acquitted the pair DID uphold and concretely confirm that legally:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...n_innocence_fraudster_judy_bachrach/#comments


So, to sum up, NOT 'synoptic'. Not 'osmotic'. NOT 'talking about the morning after'.

LOL!

All you've succeeded in doing is highlighted that you cannot find any expert to support Stefanoni!

And you consider Mignini an "expert" in this travesty of justice, as reported in the Marasca/Bruno report? LOL!!!

I think there's going to be a quote from Darkness Descending next or one from Nick van der Leek.

Vixen, you'e just made my day. Of course Mignini believes that! The one difference between him and me is that I have never been sanctioned by legal peers for denying suspects their rights.

What's next? You're going to quote Queen Elizabeth on why she holds royal prerogative?

Hoots! Mignini is lying. TJMK is the Mignini PR machine.

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL!

All you've succeeded in doing is highlighted that you cannot find any expert to support Stefanoni!

And you consider Mignini an "expert" in this travesty of justice, as reported in the Marasca/Bruno report? LOL!!!

I think there's going to be a quote from Darkness Descending next or one from Nick van der Leek.

Vixen, you'e just made my day. Of course Mignini believes that! The one difference between him and me is that I have never been sanctioned by legal peers for denying suspects their rights.

What's next? You're going to quote Queen Elizabeth on why she holds royal prerogative?

Hoots! Mignini is lying. TJMK is the Mignini PR machine.

It's hilarious that Vixen believes Mignini to be speaking objectively and dispassionately in his bizarre "collaboration" with a website run by an unhinged weirdo with a predilection for young Eastern European ballerinas. It's clear as day that Mignini realises he's let his ego and hubris run rampant in his interviews with the film makers, and that he's now desperately backtracking to try to spin it in the best possible light for him personally. The very fact that he, a public official of the Italian State, is giving statements to a crackpot website such as TJMK should raise a gigantic red flag in and of itself. And that applies to Mignini's warped and self-serving "interpretation" of the SC ruling too.

I look forward with anticipation to a scathing ECHR ruling, in which Mignini gets further excoriated. It would be good to think that he might be held properly accountable for his role in all of this (most particularly the way in which he so clearly abused the law in his refusal to grant Knox or Sollecito access to lawyers in the first days after their arrests, and the way in which he cunningly tried to obtain a "spontaneous declaration" from Knox). But, Italy being Italy, and well on its way to being a failed state, that's a pretty remote hope.

 

[LondonJohn]

And, by the way, the Marasca SC panel knew full well that if it had, for example, ruled that the murder was almost certainly committed by just one person - Guede - it would be flatly contradicting the SC-affirmed verdict from Guede's trial (in which the court concluded multiple killers within the bizarre situation where both the prosecution and defence desperately needed a verdict of multiple killers!!). This would have led to all sorts of constitutional issues, and an almost certain need to re-open Guede's case in order to try to square the verdicts. The Marasca SC panel likewise had its hands tied with Knox's criminal slander verdict and various other judicial facts established in the Guede trial process.

It's entirely reasonable to suspect (as I do) that the Marasca SC panel had no stomach for causing such judicial dissonance. They knew that the case against Knox and Sollecito was entirely flawed and without any substance, and therefore their overriding aim was to correct that injustice and annul without remand. They knew very well that they'd have been making an awful lot of work for themselves and for the SC and Constitutional courts if they'd gone the whole hog and attacked the rulings from Guede's trial process and from Knox's criminal slander conviction (neither of which were within its remit anyhow).

 

[Stacyhs]

LOL!

All you've succeeded in doing is highlighted that you cannot find any expert to support Stefanoni!

And you consider Mignini an "expert" in this travesty of justice, as reported in the Marasca/Bruno report? LOL!!!

I think there's going to be a quote from Darkness Descending next or one from Nick van der Leek.

Vixen, you'e just made my day. Of course Mignini believes that! The one difference between him and me is that I have never been sanctioned by legal peers for denying suspects their rights.

What's next? You're going to quote Queen Elizabeth on why she holds royal prerogative?

Hoots! Mignini is lying. TJMK is the Mignini PR machine.

"Thank you so much Dr.Mignini. More of this please.
Honesty and integrity always win and shine through
in the end."

Honesty and integrity?! LOL! Did his honesty and integrity include imprisoning Mario Spezi for 3 weeks, incluoding 5 days without access to a lawyer, and only releasing him when ordered by a judge?
Is that why Mignini claimed Amanda's bloody fingerprint was found on the bathroom faucet?

"Investigator Giuliano Mignini claimed a bloody fingerprint belonging to Amanda Knox had been found on a bathroom tap."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7116184.stm

 

[Stacyhs]

And, by the way, the Marasca SC panel knew full well that if it had, for example, ruled that the murder was almost certainly committed by just one person - Guede - it would be flatly contradicting the SC-affirmed verdict from Guede's trial (in which the court concluded multiple killers within the bizarre situation where both the prosecution and defence desperately needed a verdict of multiple killers!!). This would have led to all sorts of constitutional issues, and an almost certain need to re-open Guede's case in order to try to square the verdicts. The Marasca SC panel likewise had its hands tied with Knox's criminal slander verdict and various other judicial facts established in the Guede trial process.

It's entirely reasonable to suspect (as I do) that the Marasca SC panel had no stomach for causing such judicial dissonance. They knew that the case against Knox and Sollecito was entirely flawed and without any substance, and therefore their overriding aim was to correct that injustice and annul without remand. They knew very well that they'd have been making an awful lot of work for themselves and for the SC and Constitutional courts if they'd gone the whole hog and attacked the rulings from Guede's trial process and from Knox's criminal slander conviction (neither of which were within its remit anyhow).

I've asked in many forums, including this one, for a single example of an ISC overturning a previous ISC definitive ruling in the same case. I've never received one. This leads me to suspect that 1) they can't legally do so, or 2) they avoid doing so at all costs for the reason you listed.

 

[LondonJohn]

"Thank you so much Dr.Mignini. More of this please.
Honesty and integrity always win and shine through
in the end."

Honesty and integrity?! LOL! Did his honesty and integrity include imprisoning Mario Spezi for 3 weeks, incluoding 5 days without access to a lawyer, and only releasing him when ordered by a judge?
Is that why Mignini claimed Amanda's bloody fingerprint was found on the bathroom faucet?

"Investigator Giuliano Mignini claimed a bloody fingerprint belonging to Amanda Knox had been found on a bathroom tap."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7116184.stm

There's a tremendous amount of reliable evidence to support the contention that Mignini is a pompous, self-aggrandising egomaniac who is driven by a toxic combination of puritan religious fervour and his own self-interest and image. And there's already a significant amount of reliable evidence that he repeatedly acted unlawfully and unethically both in the way he ran the case and in the way he leaked to the media. "Honesty and integrity" are perhaps right down at the bottom of the list of character traits one would assign to Mignini...........

 

[LondonJohn]

I've asked in many forums, including this one, for a single example of an ISC overturning a previous ISC definitive ruling in the same case. I've never received one. This leads me to suspect that 1) they can't legally do so, or 2) they avoid doing so at all costs for the reason you listed.

I think it CAN procedurally happen - but if it does happen, it almost invariably results in the reopening of the case in which there was a contradictory ruling. Even in Italy one cannot have contradictory judicial facts sitting on the record.

I very strongly suspect that if one were to ask Marasca, Bruni or any of the other SC judges on that panel, they would confirm that their remit, role and aim was to rule on the guilt or non-guilt of Knox and Sollecito on the murder-related charges, and that once they determined that Knox and Sollecito clearly had to be acquitted on the grounds that there was zero case against them, their predominant aim was to annul the verdicts and clear Knox/Sollecito with as little complication as possible.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think it CAN procedurally happen - but if it does happen, it almost invariably results in the reopening of the case in which there was a contradictory ruling. Even in Italy one cannot have contradictory judicial facts sitting on the record.

I very strongly suspect that if one were to ask Marasca, Bruni or any of the other SC judges on that panel, they would confirm that their remit, role and aim was to rule on the guilt or non-guilt of Knox and Sollecito on the murder-related charges, and that once they determined that Knox and Sollecito clearly had to be acquitted on the grounds that there was zero case against them, their predominant aim was to annul the verdicts and clear Knox/Sollecito with as little complication as possible.

I suspect that is the case. They get the result they want without the hassle of overruling the previous court. I still cannot fathom how they can rule that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood when not a single shred of evidence supports that. But the Italian courts often boggle the imagination.