The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

[acbytesla]

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.

I'm pretty sure she is referring to Spiezi and Preston.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

I stand (or in this case "sit") corrected.

 

[Bill Williams]

I bet Vixen will claim Mignini never claimed the murder was due to a satanic rite, either.

If she were claim that, she'd be technically correct. When Machiavelli corrected me on this point, his correction (way back when) included a snippet he attributed to Mignini talking specifically about some sort of rite associated with Hallowe'en (strictly speaking, not a Satanic rite) - which those who Mignini accused were supposed to have purposely and with malice aforethought delayed their plan because, of course, Nov 1 is not Hallowe'en.

Of note - Mignini never gave up the notion that this had been a planned murder. That's notable because every court thought of it as a spontaneous act - even the ones who wrongly convicted AK and RS of the murder. That's why the two convicting, lower courts had to invent out of whole cloth why it had been that AK had brought a kitchen-knife with her from Raffaele's.

Yes, an innocent reason for carrying it, without implying in the least that they were carrying it with intent.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

It is. Which is why filing numerous lawsuits against anyone who does is ridiculous. Face it, it's an intimidation tactic.

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.

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.

I'm pretty sure she is referring to Spiezi and Preston.

Note the highlighted part in Vixen's first post above. She was not talking about Spezi and Preston but rather that receiving vexatious comments is a hazard of the job of being a prosecutor. I agreed and said that's why its ridiculous to sue everyone who does and that's it's an intimidation tactic. Vixen then says I'm wrong and brings up obstruction of justice, witness tampering, etc without naming Spezi or Preston. I then pointed out that the people Mignini was suing had nothing to do with obstruction of justice or witness tampering etc. Vixen was trying to divert from the original subject (Mignini's numerous intimidation lawsuits) to just Spezi and Preston.

 

[Stacyhs]

If she were claim that, she'd be technically correct. When Machiavelli corrected me on this point, his correction (way back when) included a snippet he attributed to Mignini talking specifically about some sort of rite associated with Hallowe'en (strictly speaking, not a Satanic rite) - which those who Mignini accused were supposed to have purposely and with malice aforethought delayed their plan because, of course, Nov 1 is not Hallowe'en.

Of note - Mignini never gave up the notion that this had been a planned murder. That's notable because every court thought of it as a spontaneous act - even the ones who wrongly convicted AK and RS of the murder. That's why the two convicting, lower courts had to invent out of whole cloth why it had been that AK had brought a kitchen-knife with her from Raffaele's.

Yes, an innocent reason for carrying it, without implying in the least that they were carrying it with intent.

Mignini told the Micheli court in Oct 2008 that the murder:

...was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier” — on Halloween itself — “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day.

Halloween/Devil's Night is associated with the Devil and satanic rites in popular myth and among the very religious...which Mignini is. He also had a history of believing in satanic sects murdering women. In 2001 he claimed that Dr. Narducci was a member of a satanic sect that killed women for their body parts to be used in satanic rites. From the wording of his court statement in 2008, it's clear he was referring to a satanic rite even if he did not use the word "satanic" itself.

 

[Welshman]

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.

When it comes to the PGP I often think to myself “I didn’t know it is humanly possible for people to be this stupid” and the extract Vixen has provided from NVDLK proves this. The extract shows how deluded the PGP are and how they make claims which totally contradict the facts.

NVDLK claims there was a slam dunk case against Amanda and it was only because the influence of the PR firm hired by Amanda and if it wasn’t for the PR firm, scheming defence and theatrics, the Hellman acquittal would not have occurred and the supreme court would not have annulled the conviction. The fact the prosecution had to resort to the tactics described below indicated the prosecution had no case or evidence against Amanda.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11071314#post11071314

The fact that Vixen has to resort to using falsehoods on an industrial scale detailed below also indicates there was no case or evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023

The Hellman report and the Supreme Court report were able to rip the prosecution’s case to shreds. In addition as detailed in the links below the defence were able to write powerful appeals which punched holes in the prosecution’s case. How is this explained if the case against Amanda was such a slam dunk? The claim made by NVDLK that there was a slam dunk case against Amanda and she was only acquitted because of a scheming defence, theatrics in court and a PR firm is ludicrous. When PGP have to resort to arguing that someone has only been acquitted due to a PR campaign, this is a clear sign there was no case or evidence against Amanda.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html

The PR firm was hired by Amanda’s parents to deal with media interviews. Is NVDL seriously suggesting that Hellman and the supreme court were thinking along the lines of “there is a mountain of evidence against Amanda and a slam dunk case but we have decided to acquit because of a PR firm hired by Amanda’s family”.

NVDLK complains that a crooked DNA report by C&V played a part in freeing Amanda. As my post below shows the knife had no credibility as evidence and the characteristics of the knife would have made it impossible for the knife to have been used to stab Meredith or for any DNA to exist on the knife. According to NVDLK C&V had to resort to crooked methods to cover up DNA on the knife which could not exist. NVDLK accuses C&V of being crooked whilst conveniently forgetting the massive level of corruption and misconduct carried out by the prosecution as detailed in the above links. NVDLK is too stupid to see his hypocrisy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11506683#post11506683

NVDLK argues that Mignini has been unfairly portrayed as a scumbag. If this was the case, how does NVDLK explain Mignini’s well documented history of misconduct and corruption?

NVDLK talks about a well orchestrated media campaign in Amanda’s favour. If this was true how does NVDLK explain that a lot of the media coverage of Amanda was very hostile as detailed in the link below.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/media.html

 

[Stacyhs]

After reading excerpts from NvdL's attempts at writing a book, I will say that only the ignorant, deluded, or truly stupid would give him any credence. Anyone associated with these pieces of drivel should be embarrassed. Earning a buck/pound/rand isn't worth it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mignini told the Micheli court in Oct 2008 that the murder:


Halloween/Devil's Night is associated with the Devil and satanic rites in popular myth and among the very religious...which Mignini is. He also had a history of believing in satanic sects murdering women. In 2001 he claimed that Dr. Narducci was a member of a satanic sect that killed women for their body parts to be used in satanic rites. From the wording of his court statement in 2008, it's clear he was referring to a satanic rite even if he did not use the word "satanic" itself.

I think he holds a view of "Satanism" which is different from what you've meant above, but.....

some years ago, but after his first conviction against RA and AK, he attended a conference of Satanism and the Law, and was pulled from the attendees to speak. I do not know if the YouTube video of it is stlll available, but I got screen shots.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here's the best one.....

 

[Vixen]

Mignini told the Micheli court in Oct 2008 that the murder:


Halloween/Devil's Night is associated with the Devil and satanic rites in popular myth and among the very religious...which Mignini is. He also had a history of believing in satanic sects murdering women. In 2001 he claimed that Dr. Narducci was a member of a satanic sect that killed women for their body parts to be used in satanic rites. From the wording of his court statement in 2008, it's clear he was referring to a satanic rite even if he did not use the word "satanic" itself.

What does 'satanic' mean, anyway? I am reliably informed from the WM3 thread that Aleister Crowley - one of the most notorious 'masters of the dark arts' - is not a satanist, but....wait for it...a 'ceremonial magician'.

So by that measure, satanists do not exist.

 

[Bill Williams]

What does 'satanic' mean, anyway? I am reliably informed from the WM3 thread that Aleister Crowley - one of the most notorious 'masters of the dark arts' - is not a satanist, but....wait for it...a 'ceremonial magician'.

So by that measure, satanists do not exist.

What a dumb post. It was Mignini who brought the concept into the case - as the first of a never ending parade of theories.

 

[Stacyhs]

What does 'satanic' mean, anyway? I am reliably informed from the WM3 thread that Aleister Crowley - one of the most notorious 'masters of the dark arts' - is not a satanist, but....wait for it...a 'ceremonial magician'.

So by that measure, satanists do not exist.

What does Aleister Crowley have to do with Mignini and what he said in court in 2008? Or that Mignini believed that women were being murdered for their body parts to be used in satanic rites? Hint: absolutely nothing.

 

[acbytesla]

What does 'satanic' mean, anyway? I am reliably informed from the WM3 thread that Aleister Crowley - one of the most notorious 'masters of the dark arts' - is not a satanist, but....wait for it...a 'ceremonial magician'.

So by that measure, satanists do not exist.

What a seriously moronic post. Apparently, Mignini is obsessed with it. And you'd have to be a serious idiot to believe that Amanda or Raffaele were involved in the occult. Two of the most middle class white bread people you could ever meet. Amanda may have a bit of a tomboy and hippie in her, she still isn't the type and nothing about the murder pointed in that direction.

 

[Bill Williams]

So by that measure, satanists do not exist.

Tell this to Mignini.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

Excerpt from EXTRADITION

Wow, that's some terrible, sensationalist writing (complete with several sloppy syntax and punctuation errors in that short except alone; indicative of an uneducated writer and/or a similarly uneducated "editor" of his "book"). But nice touch to put the title of the "book" as a link to the Amazon website where said "book" can be purchased.......

To take a cursory look at the actual content of this excerpt from the "book", one piece caught my eye as a prime example of the combined lack of intellectual honesty (indeed, apparently the lack of any intellectual rigour whatsoever), the inherent bias, and the sensationalist tone of our "author":


The Prosecutor of Perugia is a balding, portly Italian who has a thing for conspiracy theories involving Satanic sects. (NB: this is vdL quoting Preston)

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.


Now, it appears here that our "author" van der Leek cannot understand causation and correlation. Nowhere is Preston stating or implying that it's because Mignini is "screwed up" that Knox is "innocent". Nor is Preston stating or implying that one should "forget the evidence against Knox" etc. This is writing and opinionating that would struggle to even qualify as tabloid trash. And the rest of the excerpt is in similar vein. Dreadfully poor, and patently unobjective.

 

[LondonJohn]

What does 'satanic' mean, anyway? I am reliably informed from the WM3 thread that Aleister Crowley - one of the most notorious 'masters of the dark arts' - is not a satanist, but....wait for it...a 'ceremonial magician'.

So by that measure, satanists do not exist.

Errr.... "satanic" means being a practiser/follower of Satanism, which is a form of religion based upon the worship of Satan.

Crowley did not practise Satanism. Thus he was not a Satanist. But in no way can that possibly imply that "by that measure, Satanists do not exist".

It's clear from various pieces of evidence that Mignini has a form of mission to identify and confront Satanism, and that he also believes that Satanism is a real malign force in Italy. It's also clear that Mignini, at least at one time, held the view that Satanism was a potential motivating factor in his narrative of the Kercher murder.

 

[Numbers]

Errr.... "satanic" means being a practiser/follower of Satanism, which is a form of religion based upon the worship of Satan.

Crowley did not practise Satanism. Thus he was not a Satanist. But in no way can that possibly imply that "by that measure, Satanists do not exist".

It's clear from various pieces of evidence that Mignini has a form of mission to identify and confront Satanism, and that he also believes that Satanism is a real malign force in Italy. It's also clear that Mignini, at least at one time, held the view that Satanism was a potential motivating factor in his narrative of the Kercher murder.

I think that "satanism" as used by sensationalist prosecutors such as Mignini may not refer to a formal religion, but rather to any supposed set of practices (real or imagined) they perceive as "heretical" and which they wish to associate with some infamous crime, such as child abuse or murder.

"Accusations that various groups have been practicing Satanism have been made throughout much of Christian history. During the Middle Ages, the Inquisition attached to the Roman Catholic Church alleged that various heretical Christian sects and groups, such as the Knights Templar and the Cathars, performed secret Satanic rituals. In the subsequent Early Modern period, belief in a widespread Satanic conspiracy of witches resulted in mass trials of alleged witches across Europe and the North American colonies....

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Satanic ritual abuse hysteria spread through the United States and United Kingdom, amid fears that groups of Satanists were regularly sexually abusing and murdering children in their rites. In most of these cases, there is no corroborating evidence that any of those accused of Satanism were actually practitioners of a Satanic religion or guilty of the allegations levelled at them. "

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

For more details, including some discussion of the 1983 McMartin case in California, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

 

[Vixen]

What does Aleister Crowley have to do with Mignini and what he said in court in 2008? Or that Mignini believed that women were being murdered for their body parts to be used in satanic rites? Hint: absolutely nothing.

It's a good a guess as any for a senseless crime.

In Italy, prosecutors are obliged to construct a possible motive for the crime.

 

[Vixen]

What a seriously moronic post. Apparently, Mignini is obsessed with it. And you'd have to be a serious idiot to believe that Amanda or Raffaele were involved in the occult. Two of the most middle class white bread people you could ever meet. Amanda may have a bit of a tomboy and hippie in her, she still isn't the type and nothing about the murder pointed in that direction.

I doubt it.

 

[Vixen]

Wow, that's some terrible, sensationalist writing (complete with several sloppy syntax and punctuation errors in that short except alone; indicative of an uneducated writer and/or a similarly uneducated "editor" of his "book"). But nice touch to put the title of the "book" as a link to the Amazon website where said "book" can be purchased.......

To take a cursory look at the actual content of this excerpt from the "book", one piece caught my eye as a prime example of the combined lack of intellectual honesty (indeed, apparently the lack of any intellectual rigour whatsoever), the inherent bias, and the sensationalist tone of our "author":


The Prosecutor of Perugia is a balding, portly Italian who has a thing for conspiracy theories involving Satanic sects. (NB: this is vdL quoting Preston)

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.


Now, it appears here that our "author" van der Leek cannot understand causation and correlation. Nowhere is Preston stating or implying that it's because Mignini is "screwed up" that Knox is "innocent". Nor is Preston stating or implying that one should "forget the evidence against Knox" etc. This is writing and opinionating that would struggle to even qualify as tabloid trash. And the rest of the excerpt is in similar vein. Dreadfully poor, and patently unobjective.

Oh dear some terrible, sloppy spelling.

Preston, Douglas and Marriott et al are arguing exactly that.