Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
Excellent theory, LJ.

" So when they seized Sollecito's kitchen knife, then instructed Stefanoni to find incriminating evidence on it, and then Stefanoni (owing to contamination and/or malpractice at some point in the chain of evidence and her own improper lab methods/protocols) "found" Kercher's DNA on the knife,"

It's always amazed me that Vixen, Quennell, and other PGP claim over and over again that world respected experts like Gill, Hampikian, and Douglas, who had no personal or professional stake in the case, were "bent" and "shills" for Knox. On the other hand, those (of much less renown) like Stefanoni (who worked for the cops) and the cops who fried the 3 computers were totally above board, competent, and unerringly honorable.
 
To add to the point that the police had orchestrated the timing of the Nov 5/6 interrogation and the media, this from Burleigh's book:

The police and Mignini always maintained that the questioning on the night of November 5 didn’t require either videotaping or the presence of lawyers because the students were still only “persons informed about the facts,” not suspects. But the police and their contacts knew better. Erika Pontini, who covered the case in Perugia for La Nazione of Florence and who was close to Officer Napoleoni, recalled, “On the night of the fifth, we knew, journalists knew, something was going to happen. They thought Sollecito was the fragile link in the chain.”
Burleigh, Nina. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 190).
 
....

2) Mignini (and a small subsection of the police in this case) had previously found themselves in the national (and lower-key international) spotlight in respect of the Monster of Florence case - and Mignini in particular had suffered professional (and some personal) humiliation over his handling of that case; IMO this made Mignini determined to show everyone that his handling of the Kercher case.

....
4) I think Mignini and Giobbi in particular thought of themselves as highly intuitive sleuths, who could figure out crimes by connecting abstract pieces of "evidence" and the behaviours of potential suspects; IMO this was a crucially important factor in the way that they decided so early on (in the total absence of any proper evidence, of course) that Knox in particular was heavily involved in the murder.

5) I believe that Mignini and the police had a well-practised system for "solving" crimes, which they employed in the Kercher case: they intuitively figured out who the culprits were, they brought the culprits in - without formally declaring them a suspect - and extracted a confession from them*, they then tried to get a trial-admissible confession by engineering a "spontaneous declaration" to the PM, and they then went searching for physical evidence to bolster their case; I'm sure that they'd secured many legitimate convictions using this method, and in Italy's unfit-for-purpose justice system where courts still acted in a quasi-inquisitorial manner where prosecutors were impartial "truth seekers" and it was effectively the defence's job to disprove the prosecution case, this would have been a highly effective method.


So what do I think most probably happened in this case? Well, I genuinely believe that Mignini and Giobbi sincerely thought they'd correctly identified Knox as a prime culprit in the Kercher murder. ....

So Mignini and the police thought this one was totally in the bag, that corroborating evidence would clearly be forthcoming, that the convictions in court would be a slam-dunk, and that their (Mignini and the senior police) reputations would be gilded and elevated by their brilliance in the way they'd solved this case.
Until

Two things happened: it turned out that Lumumba had a very strong alibi (despite the police's active attempts to frustrate the alibi - and indeed to find a "witness" to state that Lumumba had left his bar at around the time of the murder (when in fact he'd stayed in his bar all that evening), and one of Guede's friends came to them to tell them that Guede had effectively made a form of confession to being at the murder scene (and that Guede had mysteriously fled to Germany).

Now, by this time, I believe that Mignini and the police had huge amounts of professional and personal pride invested in their version of events. To have radically changed their position at that point would IMO have seemed like professional suicide to them. And (improper) physical evidence was starting to come in which apparently cemented the Knox/Sollecito link. What to do? Well, the answer was obvious: the PM and police could effectively maintain their version of events (and thus safeguard their reputations of super-sleuthing in this case) by simply swapping out Lumumba and swapping in Guede - and (darkly brilliantly) blaming the "evil and manipulative" Knox for the initial focus on Lumumba.

All of this only scratches the surface IMO, and it's before we even address the improper and unlawful ways in which the convicting lower courts heard and assessed the evidence and reached their verdicts (mistakes which, fortunately for justice, the Supreme Court was ultimately able to identify and correct). But I've already written a gargantuan post and it's getting late!


* And remember (as I've linked to several times in these threads) the European Criminal Bar Association long ago identified this institutionalised malpractice in Italy of the police/PM deliberately failing to declare as a suspect people whom they actually did view as a suspect, meaning that they could question those people without any access to a lawyer or understanding of their rights, in order to obtain confessions.

LondonJohn, I mostly agree with your post. Here are some comments:

1. Mignini, in his cases relating to the Monster of Florence, showed a propensity to charge innocent persons with crimes and to concoct wildly improbable or impossible - and complicated - theories of crimes, while ignoring simple and obvious explanations. He did the same in the Kercher / Knox - Sollecito - Lumumba case.

While some of these absurdities of illogic and unfairness may be Mignini conforming to alleged Italian cultural practice, Mignini's tendency for convolutions of logic and pathological legal misconduct remains noteworthy.

2. I hesitate to examine the mind of Mignini. He may have thought all the innocent people he accused of crimes to be guilty, simply because otherwise, why would he be arresting or accusing them? But I suggest he did not accept the ECHR's mandatory concept of "reasonable suspicion" - which is defined as a recognizable objective preliminary indication of guilt - as a requirement to arrest someone.

3. The police and Mignini would and should have known as of about Nov. 8, 2007, that Lumumba had not raped Kercher. The rape kit DNA would have been profiled by then and compared to Lumumba's DNA profile and there would have been no match. Nor did the rape kit DNA match Knox or Sollecito. What action, if any, did the police and Mignini take upon learning of this giant discrepancy between the evidence, Knox's coerced statement about Lumumba, and the police and prosecution theory of the crime? Did they initiate charges against Knox for calunnia against Lumumba then, or otherwise correct the course of the investigation base on the rape kit DNA profile? Or did they wait until Guede's friend implicated Guede? Or was there some other police/prosecution action? When were the charges of calunnia against Lumumba first issued against Knox?

4. I agree that professional pride and a desire not to admit mistakes played a role in the police and prosecution continuing their prosecution against Knox and Sollecito. But also, one should not forget that admitting their "mistakes" would imply that Knox would by free and would possibly be able, with the help of an independent prosecutor, to credibly lodge serious criminal charges against the police and possible Mignini. See the discussion of calunnia against the police and the Boninsegna motivation report for the possible criminal charges, according to Mignini and other Italian prosecutors.
 
Last edited:
I believe that the processes and psychology driving the actions of Mignini and the State Police during November/December 2007 can all be reasonably explained with reference to the following propositions, with my suggested inferences alongside each one:

1) Mignini and the police were in the truly international spotlight from November 2nd onwards, with the whole of Perugia in uproar, the prospect of hoards of students deserting the city in panic, and the world's media rolling into town; IMO this made Mignini and the police extremely eager to be seen to be competent "super sleuths", solving the crime in quick time and basking in the glory of their achievements in doing so.

2) Mignini (and a small subsection of the police in this case) had previously found themselves in the national (and lower-key international) spotlight in respect of the Monster of Florence case - and Mignini in particular had suffered professional (and some personal) humiliation over his handling of that case; IMO this made Mignini determined to show everyone that his handling of the Kercher case.
3) The Perugia prosecutors and police had dismally failed to solve what had, in fact, almost certainly been a straightforward murder case almost exactly a year previously, when an Italian female student had been killed: the PM and police abjectly failed to investigate the woman's boyfriend properly or collect evidence in a timely/professional fashion, when he almost certainly was the culprit; IMO this also fed into the desire/need to solve the Kercher murder quickly, professionally and brilliantly.

4) I think Mignini and Giobbi in particular thought of themselves as highly intuitive sleuths, who could figure out crimes by connecting abstract pieces of "evidence" and the behaviours of potential suspects; IMO this was a crucially important factor in the way that they decided so early on (in the total absence of any proper evidence, of course) that Knox in particular was heavily involved in the murder.

5) I believe that Mignini and the police had a well-practised system for "solving" crimes, which they employed in the Kercher case: they intuitively figured out who the culprits were, they brought the culprits in - without formally declaring them a suspect - and extracted a confession from them*, they then tried to get a trial-admissible confession by engineering a "spontaneous declaration" to the PM, and they then went searching for physical evidence to bolster their case; I'm sure that they'd secured many legitimate convictions using this method, and in Italy's unfit-for-purpose justice system where courts still acted in a quasi-inquisitorial manner where prosecutors were impartial "truth seekers" and it was effectively the defence's job to disprove the prosecution case, this would have been a highly effective method.

This, particularly this.

* And remember (as I've linked to several times in these threads) the European Criminal Bar Association long ago identified this institutionalised malpractice in Italy of the police/PM deliberately failing to declare as a suspect people whom they actually did view as a suspect, meaning that they could question those people without any access to a lawyer or understanding of their rights, in order to obtain confessions.

Don't forget Mignini's practise of upgrading the suspect's detention to include precautions against their even seeing a lawyer until minutes before their first appearance in front of a judge. Douglas Preston wrote about that in his The Atlantic article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/07/the-monster-of-florence/304981/ (Scroll down to where Preston, in 2006!!! - - in 2006! - described how he'd been treated by Mignini at interrogation.)

But in discussing Mignini's vendetta against Mario Spezi:

Preston in 2006 said:
The day of (Spezi's) arrest, Mignini asked for and received a special dispensation to invoke a law that is normally used only for terrorists or Mafia dons who pose an imminent threat to the state. For a period of five days Spezi was denied access to his lawyers, kept in a tiny isolation cell under conditions of extreme deprivation, and grilled mercilessly. It was noted in the press that Spezi’s treatment was harsher than that of Bernardo Provenzano, the Mafia “boss of bosses” captured in Sicily a few days later.
Spezi spent three weeks in Capanne, one of Italy’s grimmest prisons. On April 29, a three-judge panel in Perugia surprised everyone by annulling his imprisonment and setting him free. It was a decisive slap in the face for Mignini and Giuttari. A week later, Florence hosted a demonstration for freedom of the press, and Spezi was the guest of honor. That same day our book hit the best-seller lists across Italy.​

Mignini, it seems, had "go to" strategies.
 
Last edited:
This, particularly this.



Don't forget Mignini's practise of upgrading the suspect's detention to include precautions against their even seeing a lawyer until minutes before their first appearance in front of a judge. Douglas Preston wrote about that in his The Atlantic article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/07/the-monster-of-florence/304981/ (Scroll down to where Preston, in 2006!!! - - in 2006! - described how he'd been treated by Mignini at interrogation.)

But in discussing Mignini's vendetta against Mario Spezi:


Mignini, it seems, had "go to" strategies.

Bill, thanks for this post.

Now, some posters here have suggested that Mignini thought Amanda Knox was guilty.

Do these posters also suggest that Mignini thought Mario Spezi was guilty?

Can one reliably judge the state of mind of a prosecutor? For example, in the Kirstin Lobato case, we see this about a prosecutor's court actions:

"The state’s theory of the crime fell apart this past October, when Potkin and a team from the Innocence Project presented nearly a week’s worth of testimony from several renowned entomologists and a medical examiner, each of whom demonstrated why the state’s narrative never made any scientific sense. In short, had Bailey been slaughtered in the pre-dawn hours and his body left outside all day in the summer heat, as the state claimed, blowflies — nature’s swift and ubiquitous first responders to scenes of death — would have quickly colonized his remains, leaving visible clusters of eggs in his various wounds.

Still, the prosecution would not be bowed: At the October hearing, prosecutor Sandra DiGiacomo tried to peddle the notion that flies in Las Vegas behave unlike flies everywhere else in the world. ...."

Are we to judge that in prosecutor DiGiacomo's mind, she really believed that flies in Las Vegas actually behaved differently than flies elsewhere on earth (in similar climate zones)?

Did prosecutor DiGiacomo present any evidence on this assertion, or was it simply a pro forma assertion to save face or to hopefully score a "win" for the prosecution, regardless of the guilt or innocence of Lobato?

I suggest that we have no real knowledge of what Mignini or the other Italian prosecutors in the Knox - Sollectio case thought and that it is, instead, more relevant and indeed critical to focus on their actions, and whether or not the prosecutors and police followed Italian law, the Italian Constitution, and ECHR case-law.

Source of the quoted excerpt: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/29/las-vegas-murder-kirstin-lobato-wrongful-conviction/
 
Last edited:
Bill, thanks for this post.

Now, some posters here have suggested that Mignini thought Amanda Knox was guilty.

Do these posters also suggest that Mignini thought Mario Spezi was guilty?

Can one reliably judge the state of mind of a prosecutor? For example, in the Kirstin Lobato case, we see this about a prosecutor's court actions:

"The state’s theory of the crime fell apart this past October, when Potkin and a team from the Innocence Project presented nearly a week’s worth of testimony from several renowned entomologists and a medical examiner, each of whom demonstrated why the state’s narrative never made any scientific sense. In short, had Bailey been slaughtered in the pre-dawn hours and his body left outside all day in the summer heat, as the state claimed, blowflies — nature’s swift and ubiquitous first responders to scenes of death — would have quickly colonized his remains, leaving visible clusters of eggs in his various wounds.

Still, the prosecution would not be bowed: At the October hearing, prosecutor Sandra DiGiacomo tried to peddle the notion that flies in Las Vegas behave unlike flies everywhere else in the world. ...."

Are we to judge that in prosecutor DiGiacomo's mind, she really believed that flies in Las Vegas actually behaved differently than flies elsewhere on earth (in similar climate zones)?

Did prosecutor DiGiacomo present any evidence on this assertion, or was it simply a pro forma assertion to save face or to hopefully score a "win" for the prosecution, regardless of the guilt or innocence of Lobato?

I suggest that we have no real knowledge of what Mignini or the other Italian prosecutors in the Knox - Sollectio case thought and that it is, instead, more relevant and indeed critical to focus on their actions, and whether or not the prosecutors and police followed Italian law, the Italian Constitution, and ECHR case-law.

Source of the quoted excerpt: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/29/las-vegas-murder-kirstin-lobato-wrongful-conviction/

I emphasize this point because it relates to the possible future judgments of the ECHR on the Knox case and the potential Sollecito case.

The ECHR, not surprisingly, in its judgments pays great attention to the actions of state agents and does not speculate excessively about their motivations or state of mind.

For example, the ECHR pays considerable attention to determining whether or not state agents who arrest and detain someone may have acted in "bad faith". However, the ECHR does not attempt to analyze the state of mind of the agents, but relies solely on the observable actions of the agents.

If someone has been arrested and/or detained under "bad faith" or other arbitrary condition, the ECHR holds that such arrest and/or detention is a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, and, therefore, the affected individual must be appropriately compensated for the violation of rights.

Here's the wording the ECHR generally uses to discuss bad faith and arbitrariness in arrest and/or detention, excerpted from Saadi v. the United Kingdom 13229/03 29 Jan 2008 (internal citations omitted for clarity):

"67. It is well established in the Court’s case-law under the sub-paragraphs of Article 5 § 1 that any deprivation of liberty must, in addition to falling within one of the exceptions set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f), be “lawful”. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness.... It is a fundamental principle that no detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1 and the notion of “arbitrariness” in Article 5 § 1 extends beyond lack of conformity with national law, so that a deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law but still arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention.

68. While the Court has not previously formulated a global definition as to what types of conduct on the part of the authorities might constitute “arbitrariness” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, key principles have been developed on a case-by-case basis. It is moreover clear from the case-law that the notion of arbitrariness in the context of Article 5 varies to a certain extent depending on the type of detention involved (see further below).

69. One general principle established in the case-law is that detention will be “arbitrary” where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities .... The condition that there be no arbitrariness further demands that both the order to detain and the execution of the detention must genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 .... There must in addition be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention ....

70. The notion of arbitrariness in the contexts of sub-paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) also includes an assessment whether detention was necessary to achieve the stated aim. The detention of an individual is such a serious measure that it is justified only as a last resort where other, less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or public interest which might require that the person concerned be detained .... The principle of proportionality further dictates that where detention is to secure the fulfilment of an obligation provided by law, a balance must be struck between the importance in a democratic society of securing the immediate fulfilment of the obligation in question, and the importance of the right to liberty.... The duration of the detention is a relevant factor in striking such a balance....

71. The Court applies a different approach towards the principle that there should be no arbitrariness in cases of detention under Article 5 § 1 (a), where, in the absence of bad faith or one of the other grounds set out in paragraph 69 above, as long as the detention follows and has a sufficient causal connection with a lawful conviction, the decision to impose a sentence of detention and the length of that sentence are matters for the national authorities rather than for the Court under Article 5 § 1 ...."
 
Bill, thanks for this post.

Now, some posters here have suggested that Mignini thought Amanda Knox was guilty.

Do these posters also suggest that Mignini thought Mario Spezi was guilty?

Did Giuliano Mignini think that Douglas Preston was guilty?

Judging from Mignini's words during Preston's interrogation: yes. Judging by Mignini's actions: no. Preston was let go.
 
Bill, thanks for this post.

Now, some posters here have suggested that Mignini thought Amanda Knox was guilty.

Do these posters also suggest that Mignini thought Mario Spezi was guilty?

Believing Knox was guilty does not preclude Mignini thinking Spezi was not guilty. However, the whole Spezi/Preston incident was just plain nuts and, to me, indicates Mignini was quite willing to abuse his powers for his own advantage.
 
Believing Knox was guilty does not preclude Mignini thinking Spezi was not guilty. However, the whole Spezi/Preston incident was just plain nuts and, to me, indicates Mignini was quite willing to abuse his powers for his own advantage.

Yes.
But "for his own advantage as a prosecutor."

And a pattern of abuse of authority by a state agent implies that that new activity of that agent may be considered untrustworthy.

So, one should examine the Knox - Sollecito case from its beginning to see where and when Mignini (and the police and other prosecutors and also judges) abused power - denied defense rights and violated laws - to achieve a seeming professional goal.

For example, according to ECHR case-law, an arrest hearing must be an adversarial hearing. This means, among other things, that the defense lawyer must be given adequate time to meet with the accused prior to the hearing to review the case and organize the defense. When the accused is denied the right to meet the defense lawyer until immediately before the arrest hearing, the amount of time to organize a defense is necessarily inadequate, and there has been a violation of Convention Article 6.3b (the defense must be provided with adequate time and facilities).

The aggregate of such items of abuse of power then indicates bad faith by the authorities, which renders the arrest and detention a violation of Convention Article 5.1c (arrests and detentions must be in accordance with law). This then necessarily implies a violation of Convention Article 5.5 (violation of any provision of Article 5.1 - 5.4 requires adequate compensation) if someone, such as Sollecito - or, anticipating possible future events, Knox, is denied compensation for wrongful detention.
 
Last edited:
And now for the laugh of the day from TJMK:

Why did the Mainstream Media Enable a Takeover by the Conspiracy Nuts?

posted by The Machine

This is the same group that claims the Masons, the Mafia, the US State Dept., "bent" judges, and world respected experts "shills" are responsible for the Knox and Sollecito acquittals. Does it get any more ironic?
 
It's so easy to get away with murder all you have to do is take over a nation's entire media, get a criminal stranger to come to your crime scene and roll around in it leaving all the evidence and then refuse to testify against you for no reason, then hope your dorky boyfriend you knew for five days has secret high level mafia contacts that for unknown reasons follow his every whim as if hes the don himself and will use these contacts to subvert a nation's highest court and overturn a life sentence.

Hard to believe there's still anyone in prison for murder :D
 
It's so easy to get away with murder all you have to do is take over a nation's entire media, get a criminal stranger to come to your crime scene and roll around in it leaving all the evidence and then refuse to testify against you for no reason, then hope your dorky boyfriend you knew for five days has secret high level mafia contacts that for unknown reasons follow his every whim as if hes the don himself and will use these contacts to subvert a nation's highest court and overturn a life sentence.

Hard to believe there's still anyone in prison for murder :D

True. And don't forget the Masons' connection. I'm sure it's all explained over on TJMK.
 
And now for the laugh of the day from TJMK:
Why did the Mainstream Media Enable a Takeover by the Conspiracy Nuts?

posted by The Machine

This is the same group that claims the Masons, the Mafia, the US State Dept., "bent" judges, and world respected experts "shills" are responsible for the Knox and Sollecito acquittals. Does it get any more ironic?

How dim can these people be?

For the first while the media landscape was owned by luminaries like Nick Pisa, Barbie Nadeau, and Andrea Vogt. It was only when the American media sent Tim Egan, the NYTimes and Rolling stone that reporting not laced with Mignini's theories was done.

The "Conspiracy Nuts" "took over" because the obvious truth was on their side. Eventually, apparently, the truth wins out. Some people just need a scapegoat when that happens.
 
Bill, thanks for this post.

Now, some posters here have suggested that Mignini thought Amanda Knox was guilty.

Do these posters also suggest that Mignini thought Mario Spezi was guilty?

Can one reliably judge the state of mind of a prosecutor? For example, in the Kirstin Lobato case, we see this about a prosecutor's court actions:

"The state’s theory of the crime fell apart this past October, when Potkin and a team from the Innocence Project presented nearly a week’s worth of testimony from several renowned entomologists and a medical examiner, each of whom demonstrated why the state’s narrative never made any scientific sense. In short, had Bailey been slaughtered in the pre-dawn hours and his body left outside all day in the summer heat, as the state claimed, blowflies — nature’s swift and ubiquitous first responders to scenes of death — would have quickly colonized his remains, leaving visible clusters of eggs in his various wounds.

Still, the prosecution would not be bowed: At the October hearing, prosecutor Sandra DiGiacomo tried to peddle the notion that flies in Las Vegas behave unlike flies everywhere else in the world. ...."

Are we to judge that in prosecutor DiGiacomo's mind, she really believed that flies in Las Vegas actually behaved differently than flies elsewhere on earth (in similar climate zones)?

Did prosecutor DiGiacomo present any evidence on this assertion, or was it simply a pro forma assertion to save face or to hopefully score a "win" for the prosecution, regardless of the guilt or innocence of Lobato?

I suggest that we have no real knowledge of what Mignini or the other Italian prosecutors in the Knox - Sollectio case thought and that it is, instead, more relevant and indeed critical to focus on their actions, and whether or not the prosecutors and police followed Italian law, the Italian Constitution, and ECHR case-law.

Source of the quoted excerpt: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/29/las-vegas-murder-kirstin-lobato-wrongful-conviction/

I believe in many of these cases you can boil it down to;

1 - Jump to a conclusion
2 - Realize the conclusion was wrong
3 - Defend the conclusion rather than admit it was wrong

I'm going to go out on a limb here and proclaim DiGiacomo KNOWS Lobato is innocent. Further, I'm pretty certain she knows blowflies are the same in Vegas as they are everywhere else in the world. Yet publicly she says the exact opposite. Defense of the failed system is more important to her than justice for Lobato as well as ensuring the real killer(s) are taken off the street and held accountable. Circumstances were different in the Knox/Sollecito case but the theme remains the same. CYA

I'm not suggesting I know what was going on in Mignini's head. When and how things came together for him only he can know, but I am fairly certain that at some point he began to question his own initial belief of their guilt and at that point, instead of adjusting his theory, he dug in and the case went sideways. The exact same thing can be said for the Kirstin Lobato case, or the WM3 case, or the Julie Rae Harper case, or the Marty Tankleff case, or the...

But with Spezi I think Mignini was trying to suppress criticism of his handling of the MoF case. Spezi and Preston were targeted. I don't think he ever thought he would prosecute them, just scare them enough to stop digging into the case.
 
How dim can these people be?

For the first while the media landscape was owned by luminaries like Nick Pisa, Barbie Nadeau, and Andrea Vogt. It was only when the American media sent Tim Egan, the NYTimes and Rolling stone that reporting not laced with Mignini's theories was done.

The "Conspiracy Nuts" "took over" because the obvious truth was on their side. Eventually, apparently, the truth wins out. Some people just need a scapegoat when that happens.

As in the recent Lobato case being overturned with prejudice, the truth finally came out despite the best attempts of the prosecution and police.

Vegas blowflies are unlike blowflies anywhere else = TMB negative doesn't really indicate no blood is present.
 
Yes.
But "for his own advantage as a prosecutor."

And a pattern of abuse of authority by a state agent implies that that new activity of that agent may be considered untrustworthy.

So, one should examine the Knox - Sollecito case from its beginning to see where and when Mignini (and the police and other prosecutors and also judges) abused power - denied defense rights and violated laws - to achieve a seeming professional goal.

For example, according to ECHR case-law, an arrest hearing must be an adversarial hearing. This means, among other things, that the defense lawyer must be given adequate time to meet with the accused prior to the hearing to review the case and organize the defense. When the accused is denied the right to meet the defense lawyer until immediately before the arrest hearing, the amount of time to organize a defense is necessarily inadequate, and there has been a violation of Convention Article 6.3b (the defense must be provided with adequate time and facilities).

The aggregate of such items of abuse of power then indicates bad faith by the authorities, which renders the arrest and detention a violation of Convention Article 5.1c (arrests and detentions must be in accordance with law). This then necessarily implies a violation of Convention Article 5.5 (violation of any provision of Article 5.1 - 5.4 requires adequate compensation) if someone, such as Sollecito - or, anticipating possible future events, Knox, is denied compensation for wrongful detention.

To this it should be added that the procedure used to deny a lawyer to Sollecito was found to be in violation of Italian law by the Italian Superior Council of the Judiciary, and that Council - which is the disciplinary body for the Italian judiciary - censured Mignini for the violation.

Presumably, Knox was denied a lawyer under a similar procedural violation of Italian law.

In another aspect, the arrest warrant signed by Mignini significantly misquoted the text message on Knox's phone by leaving out the ending, "buona sera" (have a good evening).

Thus, along with the actions and inactions (such as not keeping proper notes or making a record of the the questions and answers) of the police and Mignini during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, shows that there was a pattern of unlawful actions by the authorities in the arrest and detention of Sollecito and Knox.

It is thus irrelevant, from the viewpoint of ECHR case-law, whether or not the police "sincerely" believed Knox and Sollecito to be guilty or merely pretended to believe them to be guilty. The judgment of the ECHR would be based upon the observable actions of the authorities; the ECHR would not be driven to speculate on the state of mind of those authorities.
 
Last edited:
I believe in many of these cases you can boil it down to;

1 - Jump to a conclusion
2 - Realize the conclusion was wrong
3 - Defend the conclusion rather than admit it was wrong

I'm going to go out on a limb here and proclaim DiGiacomo KNOWS Lobato is innocent. Further, I'm pretty certain she knows blowflies are the same in Vegas as they are everywhere else in the world. Yet publicly she says the exact opposite. Defense of the failed system is more important to her than justice for Lobato as well as ensuring the real killer(s) are taken off the street and held accountable. Circumstances were different in the Knox/Sollecito case but the theme remains the same. CYA

I'm not suggesting I know what was going on in Mignini's head. When and how things came together for him only he can know, but I am fairly certain that at some point he began to question his own initial belief of their guilt and at that point, instead of adjusting his theory, he dug in and the case went sideways. The exact same thing can be said for the Kirstin Lobato case, or the WM3 case, or the Julie Rae Harper case, or the Marty Tankleff case, or the...

But with Spezi I think Mignini was trying to suppress criticism of his handling of the MoF case. Spezi and Preston were targeted. I don't think he ever thought he would prosecute them, just scare them enough to stop digging into the case.

Mario Spezi was prosecuted, for impeding justice. "He was even jailed on charges of impeding the investigation by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, though the charges were overturned on appeal."

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

Douglas Preston left Italy very soon after he was questioned by Mignini and thereby escaped prosecution.

According to Wikipedia: "Preston has criticized the conduct of Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in the trial of American student Amanda Knox, one of three convicted, and eventually cleared, of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007. In 2009, Preston argued on 48 Hours on CBS that the case against Knox was "based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories". In December 2009, after the verdict had been announced, he described his own interrogation by Mignini on Anderson Cooper 360° on CNN. Preston said of Mignini, "this is a very abusive prosecutor. He makes up theories. He's ... obsessed with satanic sex." {See references cited within the Wikipedia article.}

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Preston#Involvement_in_the_"Monster_of_Florence"_case
 
Mario Spezi was prosecuted, for impeding justice. "He was even jailed on charges of impeding the investigation by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, though the charges were overturned on appeal."

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

Douglas Preston left Italy very soon after he was questioned by Mignini and thereby escaped prosecution.

According to Wikipedia: "Preston has criticized the conduct of Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in the trial of American student Amanda Knox, one of three convicted, and eventually cleared, of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007. In 2009, Preston argued on 48 Hours on CBS that the case against Knox was "based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories". In December 2009, after the verdict had been announced, he described his own interrogation by Mignini on Anderson Cooper 360° on CNN. Preston said of Mignini, "this is a very abusive prosecutor. He makes up theories. He's ... obsessed with satanic sex." {See references cited within the Wikipedia article.}

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Preston#Involvement_in_the_"Monster_of_Florence"_case

"Between 1974 and 1985, seven couples—fourteen people in all—were murdered while making love in parked cars in the hills of Florence. The case was never solved, and it has become one of the longest and most expensive criminal investigations in Italian history. More than 100,000 men have been investigated and more than a dozen arrested, and scores of lives have been ruined by rumor and false accusations. There have been suicides, exhumations, poisonings, body parts sent by post, séances in graveyards, lawsuits, and prosecutorial vendettas. The investigation has been like a malignancy, spreading backward in time and outward in space, metastasizing to different cities and swelling into new investigations, with new judges, police, and prosecutors, more suspects, more arrests, and many more lives ruined.

It was an extraordinary story, and I {Douglas Preston} would—to my sorrow—come to share Spezi’s obsession with it. We became friends after that first meeting, and in the fall of 2000 we set off to find the truth. We believed we had identified the real killer. We interviewed him. But along the way we offended the wrong people, and our investigation took an unexpected turn. Spezi has just emerged from three weeks in prison, accused of complicity in the Monster of Florence killings. I have been accused of obstruction of justice, planting evidence, and being an accessory to murder. I can never return to Italy.

.... {A summary of the Monster of Florence case and Preston's involvement with Spezi in some investigative journalism on the case. The following excerpt is from near the end of the article and gives an account of his interrogation by Mignini.}

{Mignini says:} “You and Spezi either planted, or were planning to plant, false evidence at that villa in an attempt to frame an innocent man for being the Monster of Florence, to derail this investigation, and to deflect suspicion from Spezi. That is what you were doing. This comment—We did it all’—that is what he meant.” {The comment was from an intercepted phone conversation between Spezi and Preston.}

I {Preston} was floored. I stammered that this was just a theory, but Mignini interrupted me and said, “These are not theories. They are facts!” He insisted I knew perfectly well that Spezi was being investigated for the murder of Narducci, and that I knew more about the murder than I was letting on. “That makes you an accessory. Yes, Dottor Preston,” Mignini insisted, “I can hear it in your voice. I can hear the tone of knowledge, of deep familiarity with these events. Just listen.” His voice rose with restrained exaltation. Listen to yourself!”

And, for maybe the tenth time, he replayed the phone conversation. “Perhaps you have been duped, but I don’t think so. You know! And now, you have one last chance—one last chance—to tell us what you know, or I will charge you with perjury. I don’t care; I will do it, even if the news goes around the world tomorrow.”

I felt sick, and I had the sudden urge to relieve myself. I asked for the way to the bathroom. I returned a few minutes later, having failed to muster much composure. “I’ve told you the truth,” I managed to croak. “What more can I say?”

Mignini waved his hand and was handed a legal tome. He placed it on his desk with the utmost delicacy, opened it, and, in a voice worthy of a funeral oration, began to read the text of the law. I heard that I was now “indagato” (an official suspect under investigation) for the crime of reticence and making false statements. He announced that the investigation would be suspended to allow me to leave Italy, but that it would be reinstated when the investigation of Spezi was concluded.

The secretary printed out a transcript. The two-and-a-half-hour interrogation had been edited down to two pages, which I amended and signed.

“May I keep this?” I asked.

“No. It is under seal.”

Very stiffly, I picked up my International Herald Tribune, folded it under my arm, and turned to leave.

“If you ever decide to talk, Dottor Preston, we are here.”

On rubbery legs I descended to the street, into a wintry drizzle.

I left Italy the next day. ...."


Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/07/the-monster-of-florence/304981/
 
Last edited:
Mario Spezi was prosecuted, for impeding justice. "He was even jailed on charges of impeding the investigation by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, though the charges were overturned on appeal."

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

Douglas Preston left Italy very soon after he was questioned by Mignini and thereby escaped prosecution.

According to Wikipedia: "Preston has criticized the conduct of Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in the trial of American student Amanda Knox, one of three convicted, and eventually cleared, of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007. In 2009, Preston argued on 48 Hours on CBS that the case against Knox was "based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories". In December 2009, after the verdict had been announced, he described his own interrogation by Mignini on Anderson Cooper 360° on CNN. Preston said of Mignini, "this is a very abusive prosecutor. He makes up theories. He's ... obsessed with satanic sex." {See references cited within the Wikipedia article.}

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Preston#Involvement_in_the_"Monster_of_Florence"_case

I know this. The only point I was trying to make was that in the case of Preston and Spezi, Mignini did not jump to a false conclusion and then try to defend it... he was using his position to go after them because they were doing harm to his reputation and credibility. So to ask if anyone thought Mignini "thought Mario Spezi was guilty" is irrelevant. However, I do think Mignini's actions against Preston and Spezi does prove he won't hesitate to make false claims and abuse his position to further his agenda. He is scary. Amanda and Raffaele never had a chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom