Level quick is a substance when mixed with water can be poured on a subfloor. When it dries, it dries level and apparently "quick"-ly.
Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Agatha
- Start date
- Status
Level quick is a substance when mixed with water can be poured on a subfloor. When it dries, it dries level and apparently "quick"-ly.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Level quick is a substance when mixed with water can be poured on a subfloor. When it dries, it dries level and apparently "quick"-ly.
Wait a minute. ISF has established that "I heard it somewhere" is a standard of proof. I heard mine somewhere.
Where did you hear yours?
Why, at the Home Depot of course. Lol! But seriously folks, it's amazing watching the pgp spiraling into the abyss...
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Which aisle?
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
It's not really the origin of those terms that's relevant here. It's the fact that Quennell is talking in such ludicrous strategic terminology - and exhorting the True Believers to "take down" those involved in making the Netflix film with an attack based upon swift rebuttals ("Level Quick") and longer, more detailed attacks ("Level Deep").
And it's still both amusing and astonishing to me that so many pro-guilt commentators are employing such warped logic as to believe that the fact that the Netflix film makers came to pretty much exactly the same set of opinions and conclusions about this case as the prevailing pro-acquittal PoV therefore implies that either a) the film makers were ensnared by the all-powerful Knoxian PR behemoth, or b) the film makers were/are actively in cahoots with the Knoxian PR behemoth.
They can't understand (because they're, on the whole, both blinkered and stupid) that the real reason why the Netflix film makers came to their opinions and conclusions was that those opinions and conclusions are the ONLY ones that are rational and reasonable for any sane person who is of any measurable intellect and who is sufficiently well-informed about this case. It's a bit like a man who's never seen snow being shown some snow, being asked for his opinion on the colour of snow, and concluding that snow is white in colour. The cabal of weirdos who believe that snow is orange might believe that the man has been "led astray" by the group of people who have long concluded that snow is white. But the man has of course come to his conclusion because snow is, in fact, white
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I concede what I'm about to say applies to me as well......
But the likes of you and me, LJ, are the only people in the universe who even engage those folks. It's you and me who make them even remotely "important".
From Saul Kassim to John Douglas to Candace Dempsey to Peter Gill to Greg Hampikian to Nina Burleigh to .................... and on and on.......
I remember seeing Drew Griffin's face on CNN after reporting in 2010 about his own interview with Mignini, and interview which the present Netflix documentary only reinforces. I remember hearing CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on multiple occasions say in effect, "look, it really doesn't matter if you're in Italy or in the USA - you still can't be convicted of a crime unless there's evidence....." Truly, the only two reputable "anybodies" I've heard try to make a guilt-case are Paul Callan and Alan Dershowitz. After the March 2015 exonerations even Callan conceded that that was the right decision, and Dershowitz is nowhere to be found o this subject any more.
None of these people give either Quennell or Ergon the time of day, none of them. One look at their webpresences - one look - exposes them for the nuts they are. Without exception Quennell and Ergon have consigned some of the leading forensic experts in the world to conspiracy-hell for simply saying the blindingly obvious. It's the obvious which is blindingly so; leaving Ergon and Quennell no rhetorical room other than to suggest that the FOA has some magical hold over them, or that they are the most awful people to have ever lived.
Jim Clemente and John Douglas are currently feuding over the Ramsey case - Clemente's CBS's series which blamed Burke for the 1996 murder is a hatchet job on Burke...... but even Clemente and Douglas agreed on the circumstances of the Perugian prosecutions being a miscarriage of justice.
So here am I wasting keystrokes on two individuals who otherwise would not get any "ink" or "electrons" at all. It is us pushing them along.
Last edited:
Interesting article on Arstechnica, a tech site, regarding the DNA testing for this case.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/how-weak-dna-evidence-railroadedand-then-rescued-amanda-knox/
Upon further review, I realize that the main article was written in 2011, just after Hellman. Arstechnica reposted the article due to the Netflix documentary going live today. Doesn't change the analysis, but brings things into context.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/how-weak-dna-evidence-railroadedand-then-rescued-amanda-knox/
Upon further review, I realize that the main article was written in 2011, just after Hellman. Arstechnica reposted the article due to the Netflix documentary going live today. Doesn't change the analysis, but brings things into context.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
It is with immense satisfaction to hear his own words - Mignini's - muse about a woman who during one of the trials said to him:
Which, by the way, were the words he ended with intending them for Amanda and Raffaele. But he actually seemed to be considering it for himself.
I could see it in his eyes - especially with his body language, arms closed across his own chest.
1) During the trial there was a woman who....
2) She said I was the Devil.....
3) You are evil.
He really did seem to sit for a minute with the comment. Gotta hand it to the guy, he actually seemed to entertain that it was this for which he, himself, might face the final judgement from which there is no appeal.2) She said I was the Devil.....
3) You are evil.
Which, by the way, were the words he ended with intending them for Amanda and Raffaele. But he actually seemed to be considering it for himself.
I could see it in his eyes - especially with his body language, arms closed across his own chest.
Normally I don't judge people by their appearance. However, I've learned a bit about Mignini's inner life from his various written and spoken statements over the years, so I'm going to make an exception for him.
In the new movie, I was struck by his appearanccce. If I were going to imagine the face and figure of an utterly dissipated, depraved, carnally-obsessed middle-aged man, swollen and puffy from too much food and drink, then that face would look very much like Mignini's. He is the very picture of excessive indulgence in vice of one kind and another. Like Trimalchio in Fellini's Satyricon:
What does he see when he looks in the mirror? I don't think he's honest with himself. All that toxic fear and hatred of a sexual she-devil who leads men to "indulge her" had to bubble up from a very dark place in a very dark mind.
I don't think he's fit to serve in law enforcement. Too much crazy.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I don't strictly consider Mignini to be crazy. Rather, I believe he's extremely cunning and very bright. The problem (IMO) is that he has (or had) created his own subservient fiefdom in Perugia, where he was allowed to invent his own reality in a vacuum of accountability and where he wielded considerable personal power. I think he became more and more self-righteous and convinced of his own moral superiority, based in large part on his extreme Catholic beliefs.
I think he was probably deeply personally hurt and affronted by the MoF fiasco, and clearly felt the criticism of him to have been misplaced and misguided. So when the Kercher case came his way, he was all of a sudden handed an incredible platform to show his critics - as well as everyone else within and outside Perugia and Italy - just what a fantastic prosecutor and PM he was, and how his methods and his morality led to swift, just outcomes.
I certainly believe that he truly thought he'd masterminded the solving of this murder (along with the police detectives), when his and their tunnel vision and confirmation bias led them to become convinced that Knox was deeply involved, that Sollecito had lied to protect Knox, and that a third male (Lumumba) was the actual killer. So I am in little doubt that the leaks of information that he made to tame journalists (and his undoubted knowledge of leaks from within the police) were effectively a case of "noble cause corruption" in his mind, as well as an outlet for his ego and his sense of entitlement.
And once he'd firmly wedded himself to this theory of the murder, he realised it would be disastrous for him - both in terms of his career and (perhaps even more importantly to him) in terms of his own personal judgement and probity - if he were to admit that he'd got things horribly wrong. I think we see elements of this in the way Mignini and the police transferred the blame away from themselves over Lumumba to them having been "led a merry dance" by the evil, manipulative Knox, who was deliberately trying to misdirect the PM and police by naming an innocent man (we know the truth about all this, of course - and so does the ECHR).
I believe that Mignini still refuses to believe that he was ever wrong about that initial theory of the murder. I think his narcissistic and deeply moralistic personality defects will not allow him to admit any such failure. I don't think he's fit to hold public office - not only because of these (IMO) extreme character faults, but also because he provably lied and acted unlawfully at many points during this investigation and prosecution.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Oh, and I think it's a pretty potent example of Mignini's character failings that a) he agreed to participate in the Netflix documentary at all (given, let's remember, how the whole case reversed against him so spectacularly), and b) he appears to have said some incredibly stupid and hoist-by-his-own-petard things during his interview(s) for the film. I don't think the man can resist the chance to be in the limelight, and I also don't think the man can resist a platform to tell everyone again exactly why he is/was right and why everyone who disagreed with him or censured him or criticised him is wrong.
Nick Pisa in this film
Holy smokes. That right there is the face of evil, smirking in the present about his nearly orgasmic ecstasy at seeing his own name attached to stories he has to know did horrendous damage to innocent people.
Jeebus on a freaking pogo stick, I'm actually speechless.
Holy smokes. That right there is the face of evil, smirking in the present about his nearly orgasmic ecstasy at seeing his own name attached to stories he has to know did horrendous damage to innocent people.
Jeebus on a freaking pogo stick, I'm actually speechless.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
When even Pisa conceded the case against the pair was unraveling in 2011, it was put to him that he still put in pieces for publication which later turned out to be 180 degrees wrong.
He then defended not fact checking. He defended it by saying, by the time one assembled facts, another reporter would have beat him to the story and the paycheck.
Apparently he's now taking a well deserved Rubbishing on Twitter, More than Mignini.
To be fair, I think there are very few people who hold any illusions about tabloid journalists--especially British tabloid journalists, I'm sorry to say. We're not talking about investigative journalists like Seymour Hersh here. These unscrupulous tabloid hacks are legion.
When I lived in Europe, I would pick up some of those British rags and just marvel at the lies and fantasies contained therein. Publishers of those awful rags (all the red tops, The People, The Daily Fail, and so on) were constantly having to pay damages to this person or that person for printing damaging items that simply were not true. The publisher would have to pay a pile of money in damages, print a tiny retraction in their horrible fishwrap, and then go on his merry way.
There's no such thing as fact checking in those tabloids. As long as a story is attributed to somebody like "an unnamed source" or "a friend," the tabloids will rush to the presses with it. Any resulting lawsuits are considered just part of the cost of doing business. Nick Pisa is a slimy opportunist, but so are the rest of his kind (in the UK anyway).
Last edited:
Two particularly stomach-turning demonstrations of that aspect of his character from the movie are the scenes where he:
- struts down the street of his Perugia fiefdom puffed up with his importance and moist with pride, remarking that people everywhere are congratulating him on his investigative powers (but the Italian word translated as congratulating sounded more like "complimenti").
--mouthing and fondling that ridiculous mahogany-colored pipe as if he fancied himself the modern incarnation of Sherlock Holmes
What an odious man.
Last edited:
Clearly that's true. I just found it shocking to see him happily embracing that role in public.
"Why yes, I caused untold misery! What of it? Someone would have done it if I hadn't, right?"
You weapons-grade plum. Couldn't find a way to waste your life that didn't involve destroying others.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Mignini settled one thing with his revelations in the Netflix documentary. He settled for all time that he regarded Knox (and perhaps less so) Sollecito as suspects well, well before the interrogations of Nov 5/6 2007.
He said that on the afternoon of Nov 2nd he combined two fact(toid)s. One was that to him the break-in was obviously staged. With no mention of any evidence, he simply deemed it staged. To him, the staging of a crime is always done by an insider to the premises to divert attention to someone from the outside.
Second was the covering of the body with the comforter. For him in his vastly superior investigative powers, this always means a female perp. "A male never does this."
The knife pricks on the neck were, taken straight from who knows where, indications of a taunting game. (John Douglas would have said they were marks of hesitation from a perp who'd never done this before, but don't let us get delayed.)
Finally, when Amanda had been taken back to the cottage - the first time she was back since the murder - he asked her to identify knives in the drawers. She had earlier said it was at that point that she lost it.
To Mignini this was inappropriate behaviour to the point of him next requiring that all of Sollecito's and Knox's calls be tapped and recorded.
He makes a very compelling case that these two were suspects well before Sollecito was hauled in for questioning late Nov 5.
He said that on the afternoon of Nov 2nd he combined two fact(toid)s. One was that to him the break-in was obviously staged. With no mention of any evidence, he simply deemed it staged. To him, the staging of a crime is always done by an insider to the premises to divert attention to someone from the outside.
Second was the covering of the body with the comforter. For him in his vastly superior investigative powers, this always means a female perp. "A male never does this."
The knife pricks on the neck were, taken straight from who knows where, indications of a taunting game. (John Douglas would have said they were marks of hesitation from a perp who'd never done this before, but don't let us get delayed.)
Finally, when Amanda had been taken back to the cottage - the first time she was back since the murder - he asked her to identify knives in the drawers. She had earlier said it was at that point that she lost it.
To Mignini this was inappropriate behaviour to the point of him next requiring that all of Sollecito's and Knox's calls be tapped and recorded.
He makes a very compelling case that these two were suspects well before Sollecito was hauled in for questioning late Nov 5.
Sergei Walankov
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 195
Plainly I'm in the minority, but I found myself won over by Pisa's disinclination to believe his own ********. A refreshing contrast to Mignini, if nothing else.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
I concur completely. I never believed Mignini set out to knowingly frame two innocents. I think he totally believed they were guilty and believed in his own superior ability to discern this early on.
However, I do believe the police themselves have lied about the interrogation. I believe Amanda's version and the police are lying to protect both their careers and their personal honor.
- Status