The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[LondonJohn]

If you work as a professional with literally hundreds of thousands of clients a year, sooner or later someone will complain that service fell short. Enter the independent regulatory bodies (ombudsmen) who are there to ensure standards are upheld. When you have staff of several hundred, sooner or later someone will cut corners or fail in a duty owing to (a) ignorance, (b) a disappointed client who didn't get the outcome they wanted (especially in the legal profession: we had an arch lever file of bankrupts furious that their property was worth less than they believed on the free market or angry at the legal fees) or other complaint, such as timeliness.

The fact redress is available and is transparent and independent, with compensation where necessary and censure of the offender then that shows a fair and ethical system.

You have no idea what you're talking about regarding Mignini's censure. Just so you're aware, it absolutely was not a simple, harmless case of an administrative lapse. It was Mignini deliberately omitting to supply the required signed documentation stating precisely how & why, and on precisely what grounds, he'd denied Knox and Sollecito access to legal counsel.

See, Vixen: the reason Mignini had to deliberately refuse to supply this signed documentation was that..... he had acted unlawfully in refusing Knox and Sollecito access to legal counsel.

You see, the section of the CPP that he'd (ab)used was the one which (sensibly) allows PMs to deny access to legal counsel to those who are being held under suspicion of involvement in organised crime. See, when people are part of an organised criminal network - whether drugs gangs, the Mafia, or terrorist groups - there's a real risk that lawyers (and such groups are known to use corrupt lawyers in Italy....) will be used to ferry messages to and from those being held, in order to attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Mignini used this section of the CPP, entirely improperly and unlawfully, to deny Knox and Sollecito (who very clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with organised crime) access to legal counsel. Mignini also knew perfectly well that what he was doing was corrupt and unlawful malpractice. And that's exactly why he knew he had to refuse to provide the necessary written documentation. See: had he filled out that required documentation, this would have forced him to put in writing the reason why he'd invoked that section of the code. And as such, he'd either have had to put that Knox and Sollecito were suspected of involvement in organised crime - which would have been immediately exposed as an absurd and easily-debunked lie; or he'd have had to put the truth about Knox's/Sollecito's alleged criminal activity - which would immediately have proven that he was not entitled to use that section of the CPP.

 

[LondonJohn]

I researched and wrote the piece myself. All my own work.

'Arrested' was the word newspapers use colloquially. Whether he really was arrested who knows but he was stopped AFAIAA.

Show us all your primary sources then. Because we don't trust your commitment to accuracy and objectivity.

(And that is amply illustrated by your cavalier, improper and incorrect usage of the term "arrested" to which you've bizarrely just admitted. So much for any commitment to accuracy in your "research"...)

 

[Numbers]

Wow. Yes 'the system' worked. It censured Mignini for the breach. That's been the claim all along, and now even you are in agreement!

Seriously it's a bit of a surprise to have you arguing that Mignini was found to be corrupt!

If you work as a professional with literally hundreds of thousands of clients a year, sooner or later someone will complain that service fell short. Enter the independent regulatory bodies (ombudsmen) who are there to ensure standards are upheld. When you have staff of several hundred, sooner or later someone will cut corners or fail in a duty owing to (a) ignorance, (b) a disappointed client who didn't get the outcome they wanted (especially in the legal profession: we had an arch lever file of bankrupts furious that their property was worth less than they believed on the free market or angry at the legal fees) or other complaint, such as timeliness.

The fact redress is available and is transparent and independent, with compensation where necessary and censure of the offender then that shows a fair and ethical system.

1. Let's ignore all the elements required in the system, and then proclaim, with good intent, "Yes 'the system' worked".

But only part of the system worked. Magnini's unlawful actions required that a nullity be declared by a judge. A nullity would mean some or all of a trial would be canceled, or statements could not be used against the person unlawfully denied defense rights. For example, at a minimum it would mean that an Italian compensation court could not lawfully use Sollecito's unlawfully obtained statements against him.

2. A system may be fair and ethical in theory but not in practice. The Italian system, as demonstrated by the Knox - Sollecito case - and all the cases where Italy has been judged in violation of international law by the ECHR, is certainly not fair and ethical in practice. Furthermore, it lacks certain provisions that should be included in Italian law to be fully fair and ethical. For example, Italian law fails to state that each interpreter in a criminal case must function as a fair and neutral party, from the first questioning to the end of a series of trials.

In addition, before one becomes too confident that the Italian legal system works and can produce results consistently fair and ethical, consider that Mignini was also brought before the CSM for his alleged misconduct in the Monster of Florence case, and his actions were found not censurable - the CSM found no wrongful acts. This finding is in contrast to Mignini's provisional conviction on criminal charges of abuse of office by a first-instance court. The criminal case was dismissed when the statute of limitations ran out (because the trial was to be held at a court district where one of the judges had been one of Mignini's alleged victims), so Mignini was in effect acquitted of the criminal charges.

See:

http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/inda...isti-ex-pm-perugia-assolto-da-tribunale-toghe

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

 

[Bill Williams]

I researched and wrote the piece myself. All my own work.

'Arrested' was the word newspapers use colloquially. Whether he really was arrested who knows but he was stopped AFAIAA.

It's a strange use of the term 'research'. Research, as I understand it, is footnoted.

Most certainly the tabloid papers back in 2014 reported it as you claim. IIRC even Time magazine said that Sollecito was in the process of fleeing the country.

What everyone, including you, got wrong was that he'd actually been in Slovenia, across the border, and came back into Italy where he met up with police and surrendered his passport, as ordered. If he'd been fleeing, he wouldn't have been in Italy! Look what Rudy Guede did, now there was a guy who fled!

Okay, I'd just typed that out, me citing no sources, other than my memory. I don't think I'd cite 'my memory' as a part of 'research' though.

 

[Bill Williams]

Acc. to Vixen who never argues with merits courts findings, in Italy it is now a judicial fact that women carry Y-chromosomes. Because that's what one court wrote!

I researched and wrote the piece myself. All my own work.

'Arrested' was the word newspapers use colloquially. Whether he really was arrested who knows but he was stopped AFAIAA.

It's also strange the way you give nuance to 'judicial facts'. If you agree with them, you type, "it's now factual!"

If you disagree with them, you regard it as a typo.

No matter. You now agree that in Italy is is now legally true that women have Y-haplotypes. I'm glad that that is settled.

 

[Vixen]

You have no idea what you're talking about regarding Mignini's censure. Just so you're aware, it absolutely was not a simple, harmless case of an administrative lapse. It was Mignini deliberately omitting to supply the required signed documentation stating precisely how & why, and on precisely what grounds, he'd denied Knox and Sollecito access to legal counsel.

See, Vixen: the reason Mignini had to deliberately refuse to supply this signed documentation was that..... he had acted unlawfully in refusing Knox and Sollecito access to legal counsel.

You see, the section of the CPP that he'd (ab)used was the one which (sensibly) allows PMs to deny access to legal counsel to those who are being held under suspicion of involvement in organised crime. See, when people are part of an organised criminal network - whether drugs gangs, the Mafia, or terrorist groups - there's a real risk that lawyers (and such groups are known to use corrupt lawyers in Italy....) will be used to ferry messages to and from those being held, in order to attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Mignini used this section of the CPP, entirely improperly and unlawfully, to deny Knox and Sollecito (who very clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with organised crime) access to legal counsel. Mignini also knew perfectly well that what he was doing was corrupt and unlawful malpractice. And that's exactly why he knew he had to refuse to provide the necessary written documentation. See: had he filled out that required documentation, this would have forced him to put in writing the reason why he'd invoked that section of the code. And as such, he'd either have had to put that Knox and Sollecito were suspected of involvement in organised crime - which would have been immediately exposed as an absurd and easily-debunked lie; or he'd have had to put the truth about Knox's/Sollecito's alleged criminal activity - which would immediately have proven that he was not entitled to use that section of the CPP.

That is your perception. I am not saying you are wrong. However, bear in mind that defence lawyers will look for any loophole to get their client off, no matter how vexatious. At the time, it could well have been a fear of organised enterprise, given there were two of them and drugs seemed to be involved. I don't know. You haven't provided Mignini's excuse or what the regulators said. See.

 

[Vixen]

Show us all your primary sources then. Because we don't trust your commitment to accuracy and objectivity.

(And that is amply illustrated by your cavalier, improper and incorrect usage of the term "arrested" to which you've bizarrely just admitted. So much for any commitment to accuracy in your "research"...)

My resources were The Murder of Meredith Kercher com. Court reporting. Press.

As for Sollecito's Arrest, a simple google search comes up with dozens of headlines, such as:

Sollecito tried to flee to Austria: Police arrest Knox's ex-boyfriend after finding him at hotel near the border

Raffaele Sollecito's 25-year sentence for the murder of Meredith Kercher was reinstated by an Italian court yesterday

Sollecito was in court for final submissions but left before the verdict

After leaving court, he then traveled towards the north-east Italian border

He was apprehended by police at a hotel in Venzone - 40km from the Italian border - with his girlfriend at around 1am this morning

Sollecito's lawyer said 'stunned is an understatement' when asked about his client's reaction to the verdict on Friday

DM 31.1.2014

 

[LondonJohn]

My resources were The Murder of Meredith Kercher com. Court reporting. Press.

As for Sollecito's Arrest, a simple google search comes up with dozens of headlines, such as:

DM 31.1.2014

1. Any opinion (or, for that matter, anything that is not explicitly and directly linked to a primary source) copied from that partisan pro-guilt website is untrustworthy and invalid.

2. You should know very well by now that the Daily Mail is not considered a trustworthy source. Don't use it.

3. Even in that Mail piece, I'm not seeing the words "arrest" or "arrested". You know that in the context of law enforcement, those words mean something quite different from "apprehended", don't you? Or maybe you don't even know that.

 

[Vixen]

1. You should know very well by now that the Daily Mail is not considered a trustworthy source. Don't use it.

2. Even in that Mail piece, I'm not seeing the words "arrest" or "arrested". You know that in the context of law enforcement, those words mean something quite different from "apprehended", don't you? Or maybe you don't even know that.

Er, look again. Eight words along.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is your perception. I am not saying you are wrong. However, bear in mind that defence lawyers will look for any loophole to get their client off, no matter how vexatious. At the time, it could well have been a fear of organised enterprise, given there were two of them and drugs seemed to be involved. I don't know. You haven't provided Mignini's excuse or what the regulators said. See.

What? We already know Mignini's "excuse". You parroted it, for example.

And we also already know why he was censured and reprimanded. Perhaps it's you who should be looking further into that one, before parroting Mignini's "excuse". After all, research is your strong suit, isn't it?

 

[LondonJohn]

Er, look again. Eight words along.

Yes, you're right. Daily Mail headlines (for that is what the word was in) never fail to exaggerate for salacious effect. Didn't you know that?

And I refer back to my overarching point about the Daily Mail. Don't use it as a source. Ever. It's simply unreliable. As is excellently evidenced here, since Sollecito wasn't arrested in this scenario. (If you'd done some better research, you'd easily have been able to ascertain this.)

 

[Bill Williams]

My resources were The Murder of Meredith Kercher com. Court reporting. Press.

This is an anonymous site. It proports to be the successor to the fake wiki, the one that 'Edward McCall' opened, just after Wikipedia started to correct it's own 'The Murder of Meredith Kercher' Wiki-entry, which from 2009 to late 2010, into 2011, had been taken over by people with no neutral point of view. One of the chief reader-editors at that time was completely open, that he was one of the chief posters to the .ORG hate site, run from Seattle.

No one knows who 'Edward McCall' is/was. The Guardian reporter Nicky Wolff wrote about him as part of Wolff's coverage of the 'internet war' coincident with the March 2015 acquittals. Wolff had traveled to Seattle and tried to get face-to-face meetings with as wide a wide variety of pro/con as he could.

Only the innocentisi would talk to Wolff on the record. McCall was the only one, apparently, who would talk to Wolff, but only if his anonymity was maintained.

The main fake Wiki-site had not had an upgrade-edit since 2014, and the main editor until then was a Toronto based astrologer. One reason to call the fake-Wiki 'fake' was because unlike other Wikis, it was not reader editable.

At least the one you pointed two had one of its last entries in 2019. However, once again, all that material IS ANONYMOUS.

So, you have not revealed your sources. It may very well be that you don't know who they are. Still, it is clear that you just cut-and-pasted other people's unverified and anonymous views.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is an anonymous site. It proports to be the successor to the fake wiki, the one that 'Edward McCall' opened, just after the Wikipedia started to correct it's own 'The Merder of Meredith Kercher' Wiki-entry.

No one knows who 'Edward cCall' is. The Guardian reporter Nicky Wolff wrote about him as part of Wolff's coverage of the 'internet war' coincident with the March 2015 acquittals. Wolff had traveled to Seattle and tried to get face-to-face meetings with a wide variety of pro/con.

Only the innocentisi would talk to Wolff on the record. McCall was the only one, apparently, who would talk to Wolff, but only if his anonymity was maintained.

The main fake Wiki-site had not had an upgrade-edit since 2014, and the main editor was a Toronto based astrologer. One reason to call the fake-Wiki 'fake' was because unlike other Wikis, it was not reader editable.

At least the one you pointed two had one of its last entries in 2019. However, once again, all that material IS ANONYMOUS.

So, you have not revealed your sources. It may very well be that you don't know who they are.

Yes.

And not only that, of course. Any person who knows anything about this case, and who is capable of looking at things objectively, has known for a very long time that this fake-wiki is trying a smoke-and-mirrors trick of bundling its own author's/authors' unsourced, subjective, partisan opinion together with primary-sourced facts.

And this means that anyone trying to use that fake-wiki as a secondary source will find it extremely difficult (often impossible) to separate properly-sourced fact from wholly-invented interpretation/observation/conclusion. The natural take-away therefore is that nobody should be using that fake-wiki as a source in the first place. However I guess it's hardly surprising that pro-guilt commentators seem to turn to it so often.........

 

[Vixen]

This is an anonymous site. It proports to be the successor to the fake wiki, the one that 'Edward McCall' opened, just after Wikipedia started to correct it's own 'The Murder of Meredith Kercher' Wiki-entry, which from 2009 to late 2010, into 2011, had been taken over by people with no neutral point of view. One of the chief reader-editors at that time was completely open, that he was one of the chief posters to the .ORG hate site, run from Seattle.

No one knows who 'Edward McCall' is/was. The Guardian reporter Nicky Wolff wrote about him as part of Wolff's coverage of the 'internet war' coincident with the March 2015 acquittals. Wolff had traveled to Seattle and tried to get face-to-face meetings with as wide a wide variety of pro/con as he could.

Only the innocentisi would talk to Wolff on the record. McCall was the only one, apparently, who would talk to Wolff, but only if his anonymity was maintained.

The main fake Wiki-site had not had an upgrade-edit since 2014, and the main editor until then was a Toronto based astrologer. One reason to call the fake-Wiki 'fake' was because unlike other Wikis, it was not reader editable.

At least the one you pointed two had one of its last entries in 2019. However, once again, all that material IS ANONYMOUS.

So, you have not revealed your sources. It may very well be that you don't know who they are. Still, it is clear that you just cut-and-pasted other people's unverified and anonymous views.

What happened was the owner of the site could not remember the password to renew and then died. In the meantime, volunteers quickly moved to transfer the valuable archives of court documents, police notes, police photos, phone logs, testimony, English translations, originals, motivational reports, etc., etc., onto a new site. That is why it is plainer looking than the original.

 

[Bill Williams]

What happened was the owner of the site could not remember the password to renew and then died. In the meantime, volunteers quickly moved to transfer the valuable archives of court documents, police notes, police photos, phone logs, testimony, English translations, originals, motivational reports, etc., etc., onto a new site. That is why it is plainer looking than the original.

And this deals with the problem of cutting and pasting from anonymous, potentially unsourced sources.....

...... how?

I'm not sure you comprehend what transparency is. There's no way for a disinterested third party to verify the claims you've just made.

 

[Stacyhs]

I researched and wrote the piece myself. All my own work.

I suggest you research more thoroughly as your creative post contains factual errors.

'Arrested' was the word newspapers use colloquially. Whether he really was arrested who knows but he was stopped AFAIAA.

It was exactly the word used and there's nothing 'colloquial' about it.

Sollecito tried to flee to Austria: Police arrest Knox's ex-boyfriend after finding him at hotel near the border

We do know for a fact that he was not arrested, something your research should have easily discovered:

Sollecito has not been taken into detention but his passport has been confiscated, his lawyer has confirmed, according to Reuters.

"In a statement, the police said Sollecito had been found between the northern towns of Udine and Tarvisio, which is less than six miles (10km) from Italy's border with Austria."

"The court in Florence on Thursday upheld the conviction against Knox and Sollecito. It did not immediately order Sollecito's arrest."

"The note said Sollecito had reached the area in the early afternoon of Thursday, hours before the guilty verdict was announced.

"Raffaele Sollecito … was notified of the cautionary measures of the travel ban and the confiscation of his passport in the first hours of this morning," the note read.

"Sollecito has not been taken into custody. According to the court's judgment, he can move freely within Italy, as the sentence is not yet definitive. He would begin his sentence if and when it was confirmed by Italy's highest court."

 

[Stacyhs]

TMofMK is good for one thing only: their official court records library. Other than that, it's nothing more than a guilter website. They still have the "mixed blood" nonsense up and still misrepresent evidence always with a guilt bias.

 

[LondonJohn]

TMofMK is good for one thing only: their official court records library. Other than that, it's nothing more than a guilter website. They still have the "mixed blood" nonsense up and still misrepresent evidence always with a guilt bias.

Indeed. It's quite sad and desperate really. Both the originator of that website and whoever oversees it now obviously have some sort of psychological affliction through which they think it's fine to try to convince people of their point of view through misinformation, misdirection and outright lies*.

When I first scrolled through that fake-wiki, it took me about 4 seconds to realise that right alongside & among factual information on the case, there sat partisan opinion masquerading as fact. And it's that last bit which is particularly invidious: if that website had had the honesty to separate fact from opinion, and flag each accordingly, that would have been acceptable (although the opinion would still have been based entirely on misinterpretation and incorrect assumption). But of course one cannot really construct a fake-wiki to look like that - which is of course the reason why it exists as a fake-wiki in the first place. It was conceived and built as a "foil" to the official Wikipedia page on the Kercher murder, over which the pro-guilt nutters had rightly lost all editorial control owing to exactly the same types of errant behaviour.

So the fake-wiki was born, clearly in an attempt to fool casual readers who alighted upon the URL that this - like the actual Wikipedia page - was entirely properly sourced and fact-checked throughout, merely because it looked like a Wikipedia page and followed the general format of a Wikipedia page. And because Wikipedia has by-and-large become a trusted secondary source - for the very reason that everything on every Wikipedia page should have itself been directly referenced from a reputable and reliable source - the aim of those behind the fake-wiki obviously was, and is, to fool people into thinking the same is true of their website. But it is not. And if those behind the fake-wiki did not want to try to deceive people, they would have clearly demarcated fact from (mis)interpretation and invented fake-news "facts".

The very fact that they continue to intermingle fact and fiction, while presenting the whole as fact, tells you all you need to know about those running that site and their intentions.


* And yes Stacy, we can draw clear parallels with an OT political actor, but..... that would be OT of course

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Wait wait wait, Vixen, are you claiming that systemic racism is only in the USA?

 

[Stacyhs]

That is your perception. I am not saying you are wrong. However, bear in mind that defence lawyers will look for any loophole to get their client off, no matter how vexatious.

What does this have to do with anything LondonJohn wrote?

At the time, it could well have been a fear of organised enterprise, given there were two of them and drugs seemed to be involved. I don't know. You haven't provided Mignini's excuse or what the regulators said. See.

Nuh-uh. There was no suggested connection to organized crime except for those invented directly by guilt websites like TJMK, their contributors like Ergon, and individual PGP. The original source was claimed to the Italian paper OGGI, but when read, nothing in that article suggested RS was hanging out with mafioso. In fact, we saw at least one of them right here on ISF using an unrelated photo falsely claiming to show Dr. Sollecito at gangster Rocco Sollecito's memorial. False claims of Rocco being a close relative, "probably a brother, or cousin" to Dr. Sollecito were made, too. In case anyone needs reminding:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12301626#post12301626

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12301711#post12301711

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12301778#post12301778

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12301877#post12301877

Not only were there inventions that Dr. Sollecito attended Rocco S's memorial, and that Rocco was closely related to Dr. S and Raffaele, but that Raffaele had "hung out with the Italian mafioso" when he went on vacation to the Dominican Republic:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=329263&page=9

I easily proved that the photo showing Dr. S at Rocco's 2016 memorial was taken years before in 2007:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12302001#post12302001