• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
Numbers said:
If Preston or anyone were charged with a crime by Italy, and that person were in another country, the Italian authorities - that is, the Minister of Justice - would seek extradition in accordance with CPP Article 720.

The statute of limitation in Italy is different in legal structure from that in the US and some other countries.

Here's a short description of the statute of limitations in Italy:

"The Italian criminal system has a statute limiting the time for prosecution of all crimes, apart from felonies punishable by life imprisonment, to a period of time equalling the maximum penalty provided for by law, which cannot, though, be less than six years for delitti (felonies) and four years for contravvenzioni (misdemeanours).

It is not enough that the criminal suit {charge} be started before the statute of limitations run out: it is the definitive sentence (possibly involving three {or more} trials) that must be handed down before the term expires.

There is also another statute of limitations, limiting the time for enforcing a penalty, to a period of time provided for by law: twice the time to be served, or ten years in the case of a fine, when dealing with a felony; five years, when dealing with misdemeanours."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure#Statute_of_limitations

So, questions would be: 1. was the person actually charged, 2. was there an attempt by Italy to extradite, 3. what is the period of time of the maximum penalty of the crime charged.

Since there is no information with credible citations provided with respect to any of these questions, it is clear that the posts relating to Preston are PGP fantasies. There is no evidence he was ever charged with any crime, and no citation claiming such a charge in the PGP posts.
Click to expand...

Thanks to the citation from Stacyhs, here is some relevant information on charges which were apparently brought against Preston:

"The next day Preston returned to the US. Since then, the charges have increased: they include criminal libel, attempted obstruction of a police investigation and other, secret charges. On advice from the State Department, he has hired an Italian lawyer at huge expense to defend him. He was advised not to return to Italy, or any EU country, to avoid the risk of arrest or extradition. Spezi was shocked that an American citizen could be subjected to such procedures. "It meant Giuttari and Mignini were deadly serious, and an attack on him could not be far behind," says Preston."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/14/italy.ukcrime

It's very clear from the article that Mignini pursues prosecutions for his own personal, unethical, reasons.
 
Last edited:
I think this from Douglas Preston is about as good a description of PGP fanatics as I've ever read. It brings to mind several PGPs we here are all familiar with:


I have no doubt that when this piece is published, the Amanda-haters will go incandescent once again. It made me wonder: Who are these people? Why would so many people, with no skin in the game, devote their time and energy to seeing this girl punished—and to vilifying all those who came to her defense

I did some research. The anti-Amanda universe coalesced around three websites devoted to seeing her punished. The administrators of these sites and their followers were utterly and completely obsessed by hatred for Amanda. It had literally taken over their lives. The chief moderator of one, according to statistics on her profile, has blogged about Amanda an average of seven times per day, every day, for the past five years. The anti-Amanda writings of another add up to more words than the Bible, War and Peace, Finnegans Wake, The Iliad, and The Odyssey combined. Five years later, these websites are spewing more than ever.


The answer to this human behavior lies, as many such answers do, in evolutionary biology. Experiments show that when some people punish others, the reward part of their brain lights up like a Christmas tree. It turns out we humans avidly engage in something anthropologists call “altruistic punishment.”


What is altruistic punishment? It is when a person punishes someone who has done nothing against them personally but has violated what they perceive to be the norms of society. Why “altruistic”? Because the punisher is doing something that benefits society at large, with no immediate personal gain. Altruistic punishment is normally a good thing. Our entire criminal justice system is based on it. In our evolutionary past, small groups of hunter-gatherers needed enforcers, individuals who took it upon themselves to punish slackers and transgressors to maintain group cohesion. We evolved this way. As a result, some people are born to be punishers. They are hard-wired for it.


What does all this have to do with Amanda Knox? Almost all the nasty comments about her follow a pattern. Even though she did nothing to them, they are all demanding her punishment. This is altruistic punishment gone haywire, in which the anti-Amanda bloggers have become a cybermob not unlike the witch-hunts of medieval Europe or lynch mobs in the American South. These mobs form all over the Internet, and not just in the Amanda case, assailing everyone from Anne Hathaway to Katie Roiphe. Everywhere you look on the Internet you find self-appointed punishers at work. Never in human history has a system developed like the Internet, which allows for the free rein of our punishing instincts, conducted with complete anonymity, with no checks or balances, no moderation, and no accountability. On the Internet, our darkest evolutionary biology runs riot.
Click to expand...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...he_meredith_kercher_murder_why_do_people.html
 
Numbers said:
Thanks to the citation from Stacyhs, here is some relevant information on charges which were apparently brought against Preston:

"The next day Preston returned to the US. Since then, the charges have increased: they include criminal libel, attempted obstruction of a police investigation and other, secret charges. On advice from the State Department, he has hired an Italian lawyer at huge expense to defend him. He was advised not to return to Italy, or any EU country, to avoid the risk of arrest or extradition. Spezi was shocked that an American citizen could be subjected to such procedures. "It meant Giuttari and Mignini were deadly serious, and an attack on him could not be far behind," says Preston."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/14/italy.ukcrime

It's very clear from the article that Mignini pursues prosecutions for his own personal, unethical, reasons.
Click to expand...

Since the charges against Spezi were dropped and shown to be utterly baseless, I doubt any charges against Preston would have held up, had they ever been filed. Of course, all of this took place almost 11 years ago now. It's just more sophistry from Vixen. And here I thought Michael from dotnut could never be outdone.

I'm with bagels - I'm incredibly thankful I'm PIP and not 'required' to respect this idiot.
 
Stacyhs said:
I think this from Douglas Preston is about as good a description of PGP fanatics as I've ever read. It brings to mind several PGPs we here are all familiar with:


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...he_meredith_kercher_murder_why_do_people.html
Click to expand...

Only problem is, Preston himself is the source of the GUARDIAN and INDEPENDENT press releases.

Coming into this narrative, I hardly knew anything about Douglas Preston. And invariably when his name popped up, it had to do with a separate case [The Monster of Florence], and an ongoing spat with Mignini.

The point was, Preston seemed irrelevant to the Knox narrative.

But in researching Douglas, and in searching [often fruitlessly] for hard to find online residues and artefacts, the other Douglas would invariably pop up. Each time he did I closed the article in frustration. And then I noticed something.

See if you notice it too.

Of all the praise, John Douglas chose only one to fly across the banner space of his own book. That’s right, Douglas Preston. Not Patricia Cornwell [who appears on the blurb at the rear], or James Patterson [whom Stephen King described as “a terrible writer but very successful.”]

So why Preston? Going through his bio, Preston is fairly prolific. He’s produced 35 books, a bunch have around 1000 reviews, one over 2000. Not bad for a former editor at the Museum of Natural History, but what does Preston have to do with Amanda Knox? Well, a lot actually.

If you were David Marriott, Preston was arguably a silver bullet just as good as John Douglas, perhaps even better. Because of Preston’s massive readership, his ability to shift sentiment in the Knox case amongst his American faithful was enormous. The McCann’s had [and used] J.K. Rowling to the same purpose, Oscar Pistorius had John Carlin [who briefly liaised with me, or I with him however you wish to see it]. The Ramseys had Lawrence Shiller, and so did O.J. More recently, convicted criminals have gained more traction out of television documentaries, as Steven Avery did through the Making a Murderer Apologia, but that was hardly the first time television changed minds across America when it came to a criminal case. The Paradise Lost series effectively won Damien Echols huge PR points, which led to his and the remainder of the West Memphis Threes’ acquittal. If you think the effects of Making a Murderer were bad [and most apparently don’t], then Paradise Lost had at least three times the effect. It even roped in celebs like Johnny Depp, Peter Jackson and rock musicians like Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder.
Being part of this PR conveyer can be exceedingly good for one’s exposure in the media. One simply gets onto the train and one’s profile is raised tenfold, then a hundredfold, then a thousand…

Which is why, on the day Knox was acquitted, Douglas Preston was back to hog the “I told you so” and “I knew she was innocent” headlines. Perhaps one of the best examples of Preston’s impact on the narrative, is this scathing tabloid piece from the Daily News in New York.

The Prosecutor of Perugia is a balding, portly Italian who has a thing for conspiracy theories involving Satanic sects.

That says it all, doesn’t it? Knox is innocent because the prosecutor is a screwed up *******, seems to be the gist of the argument. Forget the evidence against Knox, who even knows why there was a trial, the prosecutor is the real scumbag here.

Really? Was the prosecutor ever a suspect in a bloody murder, where someone in his own home had her throat cut and she drowned in her own blood?

Giuliano Mignini, the 60-year-old magistrate who oversaw the failed Amanda Knox prosecution, has put forth wild and bizarre hypotheses about the murder of [Knox’s] roommate, Meredith Kercher.

Wild and bizarre – is this really a description of Mignini or Knox?

[Mignini’s] actions, according to many observers, not only laid the groundwork for Knox’s Monday acquittal by an Italian appeals court-but were outright unprofessional and bordering on the criminal. He was even censured last year for abusing his office.

This cuts a little closer to the bone. As sneaky as the argument is, it’s a nonstarter. Mignini didn’t “lay the groundwork” for Knox’s acquittal, her scheming defense did that. The PR did that. The contrived theatrics in court did that. The crooked DNA report, fielded by questionable experts and cheerled every step of the way by a cleverly orchestrated media, and the right pundits at their beck and call from the first leak, was half of why the defense won. The other half was Judge Hellmann. I dealt with him and the two checkers in his career as a criminal court judge in Foxy Knoxy Fights Back.

One wonders whether the hysteria against Mignini wasn’t meant to divert inquiring minds and straying curiosities from the true source of the acquittal – Gogerty and Marriott. Once again this was controlling the narrative away from any cogent analysis of the verdict. Instead there is [and very ironically] a histrionic rush to judgement that it’s all the prosecutors fault within hours of the verdict.
Click to expand...
Excerpt from EXTRADITION

Put it this way. Suppose you are an Ugly American with a massive readership of 350K per book and you get sucked into solving a sensItive crime. You confidently assert the prosecutors and police are corrupt. They perceive this as an attempt to pervert or subvert the investigation. They call the UA in for questioning to warn him off what they perceive to be an attempt at 'obstruction of justice' ( a serious federal offence even in the USA, attracting up to five years in jail for waylaying FBI investigations).

He takes the hint leaves the country.

Does he ever consider he might be in the wrong? Heck no! He is a super celeb pulp fiction writer.

He's going to pull together all the journalists and hacks in the US, including the influential FBI profiler John Douglas, and take revenge on his Italian prosecutor Mignini via the Amanda Knox case.

You dear Reader, judge who is ethically in the wrong.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Only problem is, Preston himself is the source of the GUARDIAN and INDEPENDENT press releases.

Excerpt from EXTRADITION

Put it this way. Suppose you are an Ugly American with a massive readership of 350K per book and you get sucked into solving a sensItive crime. You confidently assert the prosecutors and police are corrupt. They perceive this as an attempt to pervert or subvert the investigation. They call the UA in for questioning to warn him off what they perceive to be an attempt at 'obstruction of justice' ( a serious federal offence even in the USA, attracting up to five years in jail for waylaying FBI investigations).

He takes the hint leaves the country.

Does he ever consider he might be in the wrong? Heck no! He is a super celeb pulp fiction writer.

He's going to pull together all the journalists and hacks in the US, including the influential FBI profiler John Douglas, and take revenge on his Italian prosecutor Mignini via the Amanda Knox case.

You dear Reader, judge who is ethically in the wrong.
Click to expand...

Wow! You've solved it. Your solution is so tight you never once had to resort to ad hominem.
 
Vixen said:
You only have Preston's side of the story.
Click to expand...

Nope, there's Mario Spezi's side of the story, supported by the courts that absolved him of all charges, ruling an illegal imprisonment and no substantiating evidence. I would also imagine the 20 people falsely arrested by Mignini might also have a few stories to offer about Mignini which would support Preston's side of the story.

But you go on admiring and defending Mignini...
 
TruthCalls said:
Nope, there's Mario Spezi's side of the story, supported by the courts that absolved him of all charges, ruling an illegal imprisonment and no substantiating evidence. I would also imagine the 20 people falsely arrested by Mignini might also have a few stories to offer about Mignini which would support Preston's side of the story.

But you go on admiring and defending Mignini...
Click to expand...

There is zero evidence he is or was in any way corrupt.

Having people file vexatious complaints about you, as a prosecutor, is a hazard of the job.

When I worked in Insolvency Practice, we used to get fifteen complaints a week from disgruntled bankrupts convinced their house had been undersold by the IP, or complaining of rudeness.

Well, one of my colleagues did threaten to put a drycleaner into liquidation after a row about his drycleaning... but usually, the complaints are without any foundation and in bad faith.
 
Vixen said:
To borrow from Shakespeare, a thing is neither good nor bad, only thinking makes it so.
Click to expand...

Stop tap dancing. You have not answered the question:

Do you think it is right for a person not to be told if there are even charges against him in a country? Serious charges?
 
TruthCalls said:
But you go on admiring and defending Mignini...
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
There is zero evidence he is or was in any way corrupt.
Click to expand...
You, then, do not know even the basic items on Mignini's resume.

For one, when he prosecuted this case in 2007-2009, he himself was under abuse of office charges. IIRC he was "cleared" of those charges when one of the courts in the multi-level process that Italy has ruled it did not have jurisdiction.

He also was sanctioned by his own professional association for denying Raffaele Sollecito his rights at interrogation.

And before you argue these points, please remember that your claim was that there was "zero" evidence he was/is corrupt. Zero.

That's where your PR offensive on his behalf falls down.
 
Vixen said:
Only problem is, Preston himself is the source of the GUARDIAN and INDEPENDENT press releases.

Excerpt from EXTRADITION

Put it this way. Suppose you are an Ugly American with a massive readership of 350K per book and you get sucked into solving a sensItive crime. You confidently assert the prosecutors and police are corrupt. They perceive this as an attempt to pervert or subvert the investigation. They call the UA in for questioning to warn him off what they perceive to be an attempt at 'obstruction of justice' ( a serious federal offence even in the USA, attracting up to five years in jail for waylaying FBI investigations).

He takes the hint leaves the country.

Does he ever consider he might be in the wrong? Heck no! He is a super celeb pulp fiction writer.

He's going to pull together all the journalists and hacks in the US, including the influential FBI profiler John Douglas, and take revenge on his Italian prosecutor Mignini via the Amanda Knox case.

You dear Reader, judge who is ethically in the wrong.
Click to expand...

So why Preston? Going through his bio, Preston is fairly prolific. He’s produced 35 books, a bunch have around 1000 reviews, one over 2000. Not bad for a former editor at the Museum of Natural History, but what does Preston have to do with Amanda Knox?
Click to expand...

You don't see the irony is this statement, do you? This coming from a guy who pumps out an under $6 e-book about once a month on Amazon. Not bad for a freelance photographer and a feature writer for GQ, Ironman Magazine, Sawubona and Country Life. His attempt at undermining Preston's credentials as an author by declaring him "a former editor at the Museum of Natural History" falls short as Preston was also a writer there including penning a history of the museum. Preston also taught writing at Princeton University and has received many awards for his writing. Unlike NvdL who is still trying to hawk his Pistorius series to filmmakers, Preston has had one novel turned into a movie and another is in production now. Why, Nickie almost sounds jealous of someone who actually has books published in hardback and sold in real bookstores.

As for your little "suppose" scenario above, what a load of nonsense. Preston wasn't given a "a hint" to leave the country. He was told to leave under threat of perjury charges. As already explained to you by TruthCalls, Mignini's claims were dismissed. What he did to Preston and Spezi was illegal and vindictive. I know Mignini is a PGP hero, but how you can defend what he did to these two men, including accusing Spezi of being the Monster of Florence, just demonstrates the depth of your blindness.
 
Vixen said:
There is zero evidence he is or was in any way corrupt.

Having people file vexatious complaints about you, as a prosecutor, is a hazard of the job.When I worked in Insolvency Practice, we used to get fifteen complaints a week from disgruntled bankrupts convinced their house had been undersold by the IP, or complaining of rudeness.

Well, one of my colleagues did threaten to put a drycleaner into liquidation after a row about his drycleaning... but usually, the complaints are without any foundation and in bad faith.
Click to expand...

It is. Which is why filing numerous lawsuits against anyone who does is ridiculous. Face it, it's an intimidation tactic.
 
Stacyhs said:
It is. Which is why filing numerous lawsuits against anyone who does is ridiculous. Face it, it's an intimidation tactic.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You must not attempt to interfere with a criminal investigation, or tamper with witnesses, even if you are a paperback writer.

If you do, don't be surprised if you get threatened with obstruction of justice.
 
Vixen said:
Wrong. You must not attempt to interfere with a criminal investigation, or tamper with witnesses, even if you are a paperback writer.

If you do, don't be surprised if you get threatened with obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Except neither Spezi or Preston did any of that as confirmed by the courts.

Why not explain why he filed charges against Amanda's parents for repeating what their daughter said took place during the interrogation, or why he did not file charges against the magazine which published the exact same information. He wanted to intimidate them. He didn't have an issue with the magazine so he didn't bother with them.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.
 
Vixen said:
Wrong. You must not attempt to interfere with a criminal investigation, or tamper with witnesses, even if you are a paperback writer.

If you do, don't be surprised if you get threatened with obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

How exactly dud they 'attempt to interfere with a criminal investigation or tamper with any witnesses? Bogus claim that went nowhere.
 
Vixen said:
Wrong. You must not attempt to interfere with a criminal investigation, or tamper with witnesses, even if you are a paperback writer.

If you do, don't be surprised if you get threatened with obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. You think that bringing lawsuits against Knox's parents for simply repeating what their daughter had told them about being hit during her interrogation is "obstructing justice"?

Is suing US newspapers like the Seattle Herald or American blog writers like Joe Cottonwood who expressed his opinion on the case due to their "obstructing justice"?

Were Oggi magazine or journalists like Francesca Bene "obstructing justice"?

NONE of these lawsuits resulted in a conviction. But they all have one thing in common: they dared to criticize Mignini. They were intimidation tactics by a man with a very fragile ego who never forgets a slight. That's why he had a list on his computer of those who dared criticize him.

As for Preston and Spezi, neither of them were "obstructing justice". Spezi was cleared of all Mignini's charges. Mignini is a conspiracy nut. Or do you really think Spezi was the Monster of Florence and he and Preston were conspiring to plant evidence? REALLY?

Love the "paperback writer" comment. Preston publishes in hardback in real stores unlike your Nickie.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
You, then, do not know even the basic items on Mignini's resume.

For one, when he prosecuted this case in 2007-2009, he himself was under abuse of office charges. IIRC he was "cleared" of those charges when one of the courts in the multi-level process that Italy has ruled it did not have jurisdiction.

He also was sanctioned by his own professional association for denying Raffaele Sollecito his rights at interrogation.

And before you argue these points, please remember that your claim was that there was "zero" evidence he was/is corrupt. Zero.

That's where your PR offensive on his behalf falls down.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Superior Council of the Judiciary, which censured Mignini, is the part of the judicial branch of government which, with the Ministry of Justice, is responsible for supervising the judiciary in Italy. Its role is specified in the Italian Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom