Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Ummm, linking to Mignini's self-serving attempt to defend himself in no way constitutes evidence of "what he really said" in that interview. Are you really so gullible as to think that Mignini wouldn't try to warp the truth, misdirect and even lie in order to try to rationalise what he actually said in those filmed interviews to minimise the damage to himself and his reputation....?

Rather, let's see and hear the exact words he actually spoke, together with their (reliable) English translation.

Oh dear.

For the record:

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).

But then the Vanityfair journalist does not report my *second* statement, that is, the other one I said just following: “And what about if they are guilty? If they were guilty I’d suggest them to remind that our human life ends as trial that has an irreversible sentence, that will last forever”. My answer was made of two statements, not of one. Both were rhetorical and hypothetical. The last statement was the one I thought would have unleashed criticism, but curiously it’s the one missing in the article, there is no comment about it.

Another thing: it is true that people in Perugia happened to come to shake my hand and compliment me, but that happened much later, around 2013 and later, and those people basically complimented me about the Narducci case. It was somehow satisfying because it came after many years of difficulties and attacks. The Perugian people expressed their support to me because of the Narducci case, and secondarily they also expressed their support because of my independency in facing the international media campaign that was mounted against me after the Kercher case.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, you mean Guede didn't sexually assault Meredith? I guess his DNA got in her vagina because she was letting him do some really heavy petting?

The court found that neither Amanda nor Raffaele killed Meredith. That leaves Guede. Or do you think Guede is innocent?

They were all found to be guilty in a court of law at the merits fact-finding trial stage (the final stage usually in the UK and USA) of aggravated murder, and Rudy as of being an accesssory to the fact.

None of them are factually innocent. However, on the balance of probabilities there is a 0.01% chance of Amanda and Raff being innocent, and a 0.05% of Rudy having really been out of the room when it happened. Seems to have described Raff quite well.

 

[LondonJohn]

For the record:

Like I said: what Mignini is claiming in his bizarre communication through his preferred conduit, Quennell, counts for......... precisely nothing. Mignini has plenty of form twisting words, lying, re-inventing history and misdirecting/misrepresenting in order to protect or bolster himself. I wouldn't trust anything coming out of his mouth right now at face value.

Once again: what Mignini says he said (and/or didn't say) is of zero value to anyone trying to find the truth. The truth in this matter can only be found by watching and listening to the actual interviews given by Mignini. I wouldn't be one tiny bit surprised if much or even all of Mignini's subsequent claims turn out to be partial or wholesale lies.

 

[LondonJohn]

They were all found to be guilty in a court of law at the merits fact-finding trial stage (the final stage usually in the UK and USA) of aggravated murder, and Rudy as of being an accesssory to the fact.

None of them are factually innocent. However, on the balance of probabilities there is a 0.01% chance of Amanda and Raff being innocent, and a 0.05% of Rudy having really been out of the room when it happened. Seems to have described Raff quite well.

0.01% chance of Knox and Sollecito being innocent, you say....?

You're aware that there's zero credible, reliable evidence of their participation in the murder, aren't you?

And with that in mind, it would be absolutely fascinating to understand exactly how you arrived at that "0.01%" number. Please enlighten!

 

[Vixen]

In passing, it's rather transparently obvious why most of the pro-guilt community likes to propagate the lie that Knox and Sollecito were acquitted on the grounds of "insufficient evidence": it allows them to resolve cognitive dissonance (as well as try to persuade others, of course), by interpreting that to mean "there was lots of evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt, but just (by a tiny margin) not enough to convict them on a BARD basis, but in any case that evidence shows that they in fact were involved".

And this demonstrates not only a (deliberate or born of ignorance) failure to understand the philosophical and ethical meanings of "not guilty", but also a (deliberate or born of ignorance) inability to understand the relevant sections of the Italian CPP. Yes, there's one section (Para 1) which accounts for "factual innocence" (e.g. the accused can actually prove they couldn't have committed the crime, or the court finds that no crime was ever committed). But the other section (Para 2) - the one under which Knox and Sollecito were acquitted - accounts for pretty much everything else. And that ranges from "zero evidence of guilt" right up to "plenty of evidence of guilt, but just insufficient to find for guilt BARD".

And if one were reading across from the Italian system to the current Scottish system, then Para 1 would fit into the "not guilty" category. But most of Para 2 would also fit into the "not guilty" category. Only the portion of Para 2 which covers serious evidence of guilt which just fails to meet the BARD requirement would equate to the Scottish "not proven".

In any case, both the Scottish and Italian systems are currently an affront to modern concepts of justice in a liberalised democracy. The strangest part of all this, interestingly, is that the revised Italian constitution only allows for verdicts of "guilty" and "not guilt" - as so it should. It's only because the Italian legislature and judiciary are so FUBAR and unfit for purpose that these codes have been allowed to stay illogically in the CPP.

In a modern, liberalised democracy, there should only ever be two possible verdicts: "guilty" and "not guilty". And unless/until a court can be convinced BARD that the accused committed the crime(s), the verdict must always be "not guilty". There are extremely sound and strong ethical and philosophical reasons why this must be so. One day, both Scotland and Italy will modernise their criminal justice systems. Well, I will revise that: one day, Scotland will do so. Italy is such a failing nation, riven with corruption, patronage and non-accountability, that nothing will probably ever get done, in spite of the repeated institutional failings of the system.

As Biscotti said, when Italy's first court house rose up in 1308, the Americans were still drawing buffaloes on the walls of caves.

The Scottish lawyer was very succinct when he said it is more logical to have 'not proven' than 'not guilty', as it reflects on whether the prosecutor has successfully put his case.

 

[Vixen]

0.01% chance of Knox and Sollecito being innocent, you say....?

You're aware that there's zero credible, reliable evidence of their participation in the murder, aren't you?

And with that in mind, it would be absolutely fascinating to understand exactly how you arrived at that "0.01%" number. Please enlighten!

The sheer amount of facts left out by the PR commercial 'Amanda Knox' Netflix film. An innocent person doesn't need to lie on that scale.

 

[LondonJohn]

As Biscotti said, when Italy's first court house rose up in 1302 iirc, the Americans were still drawing buffaloes on the walls of caves.

The Scottish lawyer was very succinct when he said it is more logical to have 'not proven' than 'not guilty', as it reflects on whether the prosecutor has successfully put his case.

It's a matter of semantics as to whether the single acquittal verdict is termed "not guilty" or "not proven" - since in a single-acquittal system they are exactly synonymous.

If a state charges and tries a person, then a court must be convinced that the case for that person's guilt has been proven BARD in order to return a "guilty" verdict. And everything else that does not meet that requirement must result in a "not guilty" (or "not proven") verdict. That's everything from the prosecution not offering a single piece of evidence of guilt; to the accused being able to show that (s)he was elsewhere at the time of the crime; to the court finding that no crime was committed (sometimes the case in rape trials, for instance); to the prosecution offering some evidence of guilt but not enough to prove guilt BARD.

And any person found "not guilty" (or "not proven") must be considered innocent in law and ethics.

 

[Bill Williams]

Like I said: what Mignini is claiming in his bizarre communication through his preferred conduit, Quennell, counts for......... precisely nothing. Mignini has plenty of form twisting words, lying, re-inventing history and misdirecting/misrepresenting in order to protect or bolster himself. I wouldn't trust anything coming out of his mouth right now at face value.

Once again: what Mignini says he said (and/or didn't say) is of zero value to anyone trying to find the truth. The truth in this matter can only be found by watching and listening to the actual interviews given by Mignini. I wouldn't be one tiny bit surprised if much or even all of Mignini's subsequent claims turn out to be partial or wholesale lies.

Let's put it this way.

Mignini was legally required to record the interrogations of Nov 5/6 2007. Depending on which version of his you believe, he was also required to record the first interrogation - both for Sollecito and for Knox.

While neglecting the applicable law, there's no way, really, to tell if the documents both signed are even remotely accurate.

Conversely, Mignini IS recorded by the documentary team. It's there for all to see.

The ONLY person now complaining is Mignini, and doing so on an obscure, English language website in NY/NJ.

People in Italian and in English can judge this. I for one will simply let the majority - vast vast majority - make the call on this one.

Otherwise we are into Trump territory where he can look at a blue sky and say, "I've heard many people say the sky is green. You now need to prove it isn't."

 

[LondonJohn]

The sheer amount of facts left out by the PR commercial 'Amanda Knox' Netflix film. An innocent person doesn't need to lie on that scale.

That's not really a very good answer to the question, is it? I'll ask it again:

How exactly did you arrive at the (very precise) figure of 0.01% chance of Knox's/Sollecito's innocence?

 

[Vixen]

It's a matter of semantics as to whether the single acquittal verdict is termed "not guilty" or "not proven" - since in a single-acquittal system they are exactly synonymous.

If a state charges and tries a person, then a court must be convinced that the case for that person's guilt has been proven BARD in order to return a "guilty" verdict. And everything else that does not meet that requirement must result in a "not guilty" (or "not proven") verdict. That's everything from the prosecution not offering a single piece of evidence of guilt; to the accused being able to show that (s)he was elsewhere at the time of the crime; to the court finding that no crime was committed (sometimes the case in rape trials, for instance); to the prosecution offering some evidence of guilt but not enough to prove guilt BARD.

And any person found "not guilty" (or "not proven") must be considered innocent in law and ethics.

Given Amanda and Raff were found guilty at both trial level and appeal court level (and it wasn't even Mignini involved, here), it would be legally impossible for the Supreme Court to find someone convicted of a serious crime, 'innocent', without remitting the matter back to the Appeal Court.

There was no 'new evidence' (i.e., the 'real' murderers to step forward) nor any finding of a 'miscarriage of justice'.

The trial and appeal - apart from Hellmann - was fair and balanced.

 

[Vixen]

That's not really a very good answer to the question, is it? I'll ask it again:

How exactly did you arrive at the (very precise) figure of 0.01% chance of Knox's/Sollecito's innocence?

Heuristically.

 

[Vixen]

It's a matter of semantics as to whether the single acquittal verdict is termed "not guilty" or "not proven" - since in a single-acquittal system they are exactly synonymous.

If a state charges and tries a person, then a court must be convinced that the case for that person's guilt has been proven BARD in order to return a "guilty" verdict. And everything else that does not meet that requirement must result in a "not guilty" (or "not proven") verdict. That's everything from the prosecution not offering a single piece of evidence of guilt; to the accused being able to show that (s)he was elsewhere at the time of the crime; to the court finding that no crime was committed (sometimes the case in rape trials, for instance); to the prosecution offering some evidence of guilt but not enough to prove guilt BARD.

And any person found "not guilty" (or "not proven") must be considered innocent in law and ethics.

No, that is not so; that is completely false. For example, Ryan Ferguson is celebrated in the press as being 'exonerated', when the truth is, his conviction was merely 'vacated.'

That is NOT an exoneration. Please don't show your ignorance of US law by claiming a 'vacated conviction' is an 'exoneration'.

 

[Bill Williams]

Given Amanda and Raff were found guilty at both trial level and appeal court level (and it wasn't even Mignini involved, here), it would be legally impossible for the Supreme Court to find someone convicted of a serious crime, 'innocent', without remitting the matter back to the Appeal Court.

There was no 'new evidence' (i.e., the 'real' murderers to step forward) nor any finding of a 'miscarriage of justice'.

The trial and appeal - apart from Hellmann - was fair and balanced.

They may have been fair and balanced, but the Supreme Court acquitted them, on the grounds that the evidence in front of those courts was not such as to justify a conviction.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, that is not so; that is completely false. For example, Ryan Ferguson is celebrated in the press as being 'exonerated', when the truth is, his conviction was merely 'vacated.'

That is NOT an exoneration. Please don't show your ignorance of US law by claiming a 'vacated conviction' is an 'exoneration'.

Court's subsequent to the Supreme Court acquittal 18 months ago said it was a judicial truth that the kids were exonerated.

 

[Vixen]

Court's subsequent to the Supreme Court acquittal 18 months ago said it was a judicial truth that the kids were exonerated.

Oh no, we're not back to the pipsqueak Bonsegnor (_sp?) whom considers himself higher than the Supreme Court.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh no, we're not back to the pipsqueak Bonsegnor (_sp?) whom considers himself higher than the Supreme Court.

Oh please. Judge Boninsegna, in his motivations report with regard to the acquittal of Knox for defamation against the police, started out listing the judicial facts that were brought to that trial.

I suppose you're going to say that Judge Boninsegna had an editting problem, too - or is this one of your legendary "it's a typo" excuses for trying to spin something 180 degrees?

One of the judicial facts he listed to begin his explanation for why his court acquitted Knox of defamation is that the Supreme Court had exonerated her in the murder charges.

Exonerated. Lurkers please note the way Vixen deals with facts she does not like.

 

[Stacyhs]

For the record:

But then the Vanityfair journalist does not report my *second* statement, that is, the other one I said just following: “And what about if they are guilty? If they were guilty I’d suggest them to remind that our human life ends as trial that has an irreversible sentence, that will last forever”. My answer was made of two statements, not of one. Both were rhetorical and hypothetical. The last statement was the one I thought would have unleashed criticism, but curiously it’s the one missing in the article, there is no comment about it.

Notice it's in the Vanity Fair review that second statement isn't reported. It is heard in the actual documentary. Which you, I'd bet, have not seen.

 

[Vixen]

Oh please. Judge Boninsegna, in his motivations report with regard to the acquittal of Knox for defamation against the police, started out listing the judicial facts that were brought to that trial.

I suppose you're going to say that Judge Boninsegna had an editting problem, too - or is this one of your legendary "it's a typo" excuses for trying to spin something 180 degrees?

One of the judicial facts he listed to begin his explanation for why his court acquitted Knox of defamation is that the Supreme Court had exonerated her in the murder charges.

Exonerated. Lurkers please note the way Vixen deals with facts she does not like.

A lower court does not have the power to overturn a higher court decision. The Supreme Court ruled it was an Art 230 para II acquittal, of 'insufficent evidence' (cf. USA 'vacated'; Scottish, 'Not Proven').

Whilst Boninsegna might have said it, it has no meaning or effective power in law. It's merely his idiom.

 

[Stacyhs]

For the record:

"Another thing: it is true that people in Perugia happened to come to shake my hand and compliment me, but that happened much later, around 2013 and later, and those people basically complimented me about the Narducci case. It was somehow satisfying because it came after many years of difficulties and attacks. The Perugian people expressed their support to me because of the Narducci case, and secondarily they also expressed their support because of my independency in facing the international media campaign that was mounted against me after the Kercher case. "

Um...no. He was speaking about after the 2009 conviction. You haven't seen the docu, have you?

 

[Vixen]

Notice it's in the Vanity Fair review that second statement isn't reported. It is heard in the actual documentary. Which you, I'd bet, have not seen.

I was quoting Mignini in context.

We do not hear the interviewer asking him 'what if the pair were innocent' so the PIP glee over VF's Bachrach of Mignini's supposed callous answer was inappropriate and based on a lie.