• 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 31

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
No, and if his quotes in the Vogt article are accurate, he still thinks they are guilty. Mignini is a good example of someone incapable of admitting being wrong. We saw it in the Narducci case when he resorted to the ridiculous 'double body switch' claim and in the prosecution, and eventual acquittal, of 20 people in the case.



I agree. Sadly, I don't think his ego will ever allow him to admit he was wrong. His bragging about people coming up to him in the street and congratulating him on the first Knox/Sollecito conviction is very telling.
Click to expand...


Yes, absolutely.

I might go further still: I tentatively suggest that Mignini demonstrates personality attributes that are consistent with those of a sociopath*. I wouldn't be at all surprised if - for a very long time now, and currently - he actually truly believes that his theories on both cases (MoF and Kercher) are fundamentally correct. Certain personality traits/defects can result in people 1) reaching a conclusion on some matter; then 2) believing in the truth of their conclusion, while at the same time dismissing any & all dissent or contradictory viewpoints (even if there's good evidence either supporting different viewpoints or damaging/destroying the person's original conclusions); then 3) "concreting" their (original) conclusion in their own mind as the definitive factual conclusion.

In other words, while there are some people who are simply sufficiently stubborn and/or egotistic ever to admit they are wrong.... there are others (and I believe Mignini may be one of these others) who refuse to admit that they are wrong because they are certain they are right**.


* Note that I'm not saying - or even implying - that Mignini actually is a sociopath (my legal department advised me to add that caveat :D)

** Maybe a good example to illustrate the difference might be a person (let's call her Janet) arguing on this forum against a 9/11 Truther (god knows why she'd be bothered to argue against a Truther, but still....). Imagine that the Truther stated something to Janet such as "I've shown you exactly how and why the US Government brought down the Twin Towers: now admit you're wrong about the whole "The hijacked aircraft brought down both towers" nonsense!" Janet would, naturally, refuse to "admit she was wrong"...because Janet knows she's right to subscribe to the official explanation. It's not that Janet is being too stubborn or too egotistical to change her mind. QED re Mignini, IMO.
 
(Of course Mignini also does demonstrate attributes consistent with extreme stubbornness and egotism, but I think there's even more to it than that (as above).)
 
Methos said:
Slick Pete and his ilk - by now - haven't even noticed, that Guede's book is out and haven't even commented on anything case related for quite some time now. If things like Guede's book and all the stuff published around the 15th anniversary of the murder of Meredith Kercher by Rudy Gude isn't on their radar, I guess it must be very lonely there at TJMK (or what's left of it ;) )
Click to expand...


Maybe the Hudson River flooded his basement and ruined all those piled-high cuttings and papers....

More generally - and with reference to the posts I just wrote about Mignini - I wonder how many of the high-profile pro-guilt campaigners a) have changed their minds and recognised that they're wrong, b) still hold that they're correct to believe in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt, but have given up the urge to campaign any longer; or c) have lost all interest in the case while veering towards agnosticism on Knox's/Sollecito's culpability.

And referencing another post I wrote about Kercher's parents and family: I also can't help thinking that the most prominent pro-guilt campaigners (at least some of whom almost certainly had direct contact with the Kercher family) very probably played a contributory role in adding to the heartbreak, confusion, pain and cognitive dissonance that surely affected the Kercher family and friends.
 
If Mignini ever admitted that the two are innocent, it would mean he'd have to admit, not only to the public, but to himself that he wrongly persecuted and had imprisoned two people because of his own failures. After all, he was the head of the investigation so it was his responsibility to properly investigate and he didn't. I don't think this inability is indicative of sociopathy (not that you said he did), but of extreme narcissism.
 
Stacyhs said:
If Mignini ever admitted that the two are innocent, it would mean he'd have to admit, not only to the public, but to himself that he wrongly persecuted and had imprisoned two people because of his own failures. After all, he was the head of the investigation so it was his responsibility to properly investigate and he didn't. I don't think this inability is indicative of sociopathy (not that you said he did), but of extreme narcissism.
Click to expand...


Well yes..... but there are (IMO) two ways of looking at this:

Firstly, the scenario: the Supreme Court and the ECHR have utterly demolished Mignini's theory of the crime and his prosecution of Knox and Sollecito. The courts and multiple global experts have comprehensively trashed (to the point of near-ridicule) everything upon which he'd based his case against Knox and Sollecito - notably of course the forensic "evidence".

Now, Mignini might have experienced this demolition of his case, and might now be thinking to himself something like "Despite all of that, I'm never going to admit I was wrong, because it would be professionally damaging and ego-crushing to do so. So I'm going to stick to my guns and refuse to back down."

Or he might have experienced this demolition of his case, and might now be thinking to himself something like: "This evidence against my case, and the various verdicts trashing my case, are all completely bogus. They're all wrong, because I know I'm right. My original conclusion remains factually correct, so why on earth should I admit I was wrong - when I'm not wrong?!"

The difference between the two options is that the latter involves a level of unhealthy self-delusion and certitude (which are probably symptomatic of some form of higher-level personality disorder), while the former merely requires stubbornness, narcissism and a fragile ego (much lower-level personality traits).
 
Firstly, the scenario: the Supreme Court and the ECHR have utterly trashed Mignini's theory of the crime and his prosecution of Knox and Sollecito. The courts and multiple global experts have comprehensively trashed (to the point of near-ridicule) everything upon which he'd based his case against Knox and Sollecito - notably of course the forensic "evidence".

Now, Mignini might have experienced this demolition of his case, and might now be thinking to himself something like

"Despite all of that, I'm never going to admit I was wrong, because it would be professionally damaging and ego-crushing to do so. So I'm going to stick to my guns and refuse to back down."
Click to expand...

According to the article, "His position remains that media pressure and other outside influences compromised judges in the appeal court’s decision to acquit.

I don't think he knows he's wrong or thinks his ego can't handle it. I think he believes he's right not because the courts and multiple global experts have comprehensively trashed his case, but because they were pressured into their misguided acquittals by outside influences which he likely thinks include the US government, American forensic experts like Gill, and possibly even the Italian government itself. For him, it's not a case of being wrong because he was proved wrong, but because the system itself was corrupted.

The ECHR didn't demolish his murder case at all since they never had it brought before them.
 
LondonJohn said:
Well yes..... but there are (IMO) two ways of looking at this:

Firstly, the scenario: the Supreme Court and the ECHR have utterly demolished Mignini's theory of the crime and his prosecution of Knox and Sollecito. The courts and multiple global experts have comprehensively trashed (to the point of near-ridicule) everything upon which he'd based his case against Knox and Sollecito - notably of course the forensic "evidence".
Click to expand...

It must be said that the 2009 Massei court, with the 2010 motivations report accompanying it.....

It also completely demolished Mignini's theory(ies) of the crime, even in provisionally convicting the pair. For one thing, ALL convicting courts regarded the crime as unpremeditated. It's why the convicting courts had to substitute their own theories, for instance, of how Knox had allegedly left Raffaele's with that kitchen knife for innocent reason.

The Massei court said that the crime was Rudy's, it was his motivation which had caused the murder - although, Massei invents out of whole cloth how at that point an innocent AK and RS suddenly reversed field, out of a choice for evil.

It appears that no one believed Mignini. As Barbie Nadeau wrote, even co-prosecutor Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini went to trial with the Satanic rite motive....
 
'Amanda has changed a lot and I think I can say that I know her,' Mr Mignini told The Telegraph
Click to expand...

Hmmm...one would expect someone to 'change' from the age of 20 to 35. So, has she changed from being a jealous, cold-hearted, sex-crazed, friend-sexually-assaulting-murdering psycho to someone he likes and considers a friend?
 
Stacyhs said:
Very interesting. Bremner is so right: people make up their minds within a very short time of hearing about something and most simply cannot change that first belief. They filter out...handwave away... anything that doesn't confirm that bias. Some people's egos are so fragile that they'd rather continue to be wrong than to admit they are wrong. We see it all the time, including here on what is supposedly a "skeptics' " forum. Quote a motivation report's ruling and you'll be told it was a 'clerical error' or quote that the defendant was acquitted of a specific charge and you'll be told it was never adjudicated. So many people tend to dig in deeper rather than climb out of a hole and it's sent innocent people to jail or worse.
Click to expand...

The reddit forum is tragi-comic in its levels of denial. It seems that if one pro-guilter comes up with a theory and no one objects then it becomes a fact. You then have a sort of group compliance that breathes life into the most absurd theories. One of the more bizarre ones from Tony Kondaks is that Amanda only accompanied Raffaele to the questura on the 5th November since she knew that he was going to betray her to the cops. She tagged along to keep an eye on him. The general pro-guilt consensus on reddit is that Amanda implicated Lumumba when Raffaele withdrew her alibi in his 3.30 statement. I pointed out that the 3.30 statement places Raffaele at his flat with Amanda at Le Chic or elsewhere, which is totally incompatible with the prosecution theory that they were both at VDP and involved in the murder of Meredith. One of the posters over there (truth and taxes) didn't think that it mattered.

Hoots
 
Numbers said:
Has Mignini himself published any statement admitting he was wrong in prosecuting Knox and Sollecito?

Some may find my views too judgmental, but without a statement from Mignini admitting his errors and misdeeds - unlawful actions - I suggest that he has not adequately begun to redress them.

There is also the question of whether he and other Italian authorities who have committed errors of gross negligence and intentional unlawful acts have liability, should Italy award compensation to Knox and/or Sollecito, in accordance with CPP Article 647.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how public prosecutors work. They are advised by the police of a suspected crime. In the case of a murder, they will often attend the crime scene, together with forensic detectives to witness the body and its circumstances. The prosecutor has no powers beyond recommending a suspect be charged or remanded. It is then up to the remanding magistrate or judge to make further decisions. In both cases, the suspect gets to be represented by their own defence attorney and any decisions made are entirely by the court and not by the prosecutor. The prosecutor in the Nencini appeal was Crini, so the idea that 'it was Mignini what convicted the innocent lambs' is ridiculous sentimental nonsense.

Nothing at all to do with personalities. You have been watching too much Columbo or Perry Mason.
 
Methos said:
Slick Pete and his ilk - by now - haven't even noticed, that Guede's book is out and haven't even commented on anything case related for quite some time now. If things like Guede's book and all the stuff published around the 15th anniversary of the murder of Meredith Kercher by Rudy Gude isn't on their radar, I guess it must be very lonely there at TJMK (or what's left of it ;) )
Click to expand...

From what I have read about Guede's book, it appears to be the same sickly self-serving nonsense as Sollecito's and Knox' books.

Nothing to see here.
 
Bill Williams said:
Prosecute 'criminals'!?

Haven't 'criminals' already been prosecuted?

Shee-eeesh!
Click to expand...

Seriously, people here seem quite unaware that the Public Prosecutor is actually an entire department with literally hundreds of employees, clerks, lawyers, IT guys, mailroom staff, secretaries. The idea that Mignini is responsible for the gruesome twosome being found guilty (both in the merits trial and the Appeal court, with dozens of lay judges, jurors and any number of attorneys) is a product borne of naivety. Like the Prosecutor is some malevolent figure in a cardigan smoking a pipe and stroking his beard, like some Netflix horror film.

In the real world it is so much more dull and mundane than that. People are found guilty by due process because the evidence is stacked up against them beyond a reasonable doubt, the bar being ever higher the more serious the crime.
 
TomG said:
The reddit forum is tragi-comic in its levels of denial. It seems that if one pro-guilter comes up with a theory and no one objects then it becomes a fact. You then have a sort of group compliance that breathes life into the most absurd theories. One of the more bizarre ones from Tony Kondaks is that Amanda only accompanied Raffaele to the questura on the 5th November since she knew that he was going to betray her to the cops. She tagged along to keep an eye on him. The general pro-guilt consensus on reddit is that Amanda implicated Lumumba when Raffaele withdrew her alibi in his 3.30 statement. I pointed out that the 3.30 statement places Raffaele at his flat with Amanda at Le Chic or elsewhere, which is totally incompatible with the prosecution theory that they were both at VDP and involved in the murder of Meredith. One of the posters over there (truth and taxes) didn't think that it mattered.

Hoots
Click to expand...

Critical thinking and logic are not PGP strongpoints. Conspiracy theories are more their style.
 
Vixen said:
I don't think you understand how public prosecutors work. They are advised by the police of a suspected crime. In the case of a murder, they will often attend the crime scene, together with forensic detectives to witness the body and its circumstances. The prosecutor has no powers beyond recommending a suspect be charged or remanded. It is then up to the remanding magistrate or judge to make further decisions. In both cases, the suspect gets to be represented by their own defence attorney and any decisions made are entirely by the court and not by the prosecutor. The prosecutor in the Nencini appeal was Crini, so the idea that 'it was Mignini what convicted the innocent lambs' is ridiculous sentimental nonsense.

Nothing at all to do with personalities. You have been watching too much Columbo or Perry Mason.
Click to expand...

What does your post have to do with Numbers' post? He's asking if Mignini has made any statement saying the initial prosecution of Knox and Sollecito was incorrect. Your lecture on the role of the prosecutor only highlights that Mignini was in control of the murder investigation from the moment he was informed of Kercher's death. You know, the investigation that was a monumental screw up according the the final SC ruling.

I don't think you understand that, in Italy, the prosecutor directs the police investigation.

Article 358 Investigative activities of the Public Prosecutor 1. The Public Prosecutor shall carry out any activity necessary for the purposes referred to in Article 326 and shall also investigate facts and circumstances in favour of the suspected person.
Click to expand...

From CanestriniLex:
Investigations are carried out by the prosecutor and police, with the judge intervening only at the request of the parties.

However, the judge for the preliminary investigations does not have control of the investigation; on the contrary, he is a mere judge ad acta involved only in specific events at the request of the parties (usually the prosecutor); the trial judge is not presented with all of the typical information gathered by police and prosecutors during the investigation (e.g., witness statements).

Under Italian criminal procedure the whole investigation process is carried out under the supervision of the prosecutor, who disposes of criminal police. The police itself has autonomy only in the very first stage of investigation, until the prosecutor has been noticed. After prosecutors intervention, the police carries out delegated activity (with some limited exceptions).
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
It's his job. It is his frigging job to prosecute criminals. That's what prosecutors do. It is a career, not a tv role.


Shee-eeesh!
Click to expand...

Stop with the TV references as they are totally irrelevant to anything that has been said except in your imagination. Shee-eeesh!
 
Vixen said:
From what I have read about Guede's book, it appears to be the same sickly self-serving nonsense as Sollecito's and Knox' books.

Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

At least you got the first part regarding Guede's book right.

Pssst: It's "Knox's". After repeated requests, you've failed to present a single citation that x' is the, or even 'a', correct possessive form. Shee-eeesh!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom