Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Vixen]

My end game is to enjoy the laughs of watching you fumble you're way through life with no real purpose except to hate Amanda.

Now, it's your turn.

As you know, my special interest area here is in criminology.. The idea that one should worship someone as a 'celebrity' just because they were charged with a horrendous crime, is entirely alien to me. AFAIAA the objective, fairly balanced, trial hearings found the three persons involved guilty as charged, as based on factual objective evidence, including pathological, forensic, scientific, technical logs and circumstantial evidence, such as chronological time lines. The fact that a PR campaign together with politics managed to wrangle an acquittal without the case being sent down to reassess 'errors' in evidence finding doesn't change the facts that were established at the trial and appeal. It fascinates me as to why people swallow information which is so obviously untrue. I get that in your case it is 'obviously Guede alone' because obviously <fx Little Britain> "How can I describe him...?" Would this be a correct assumption?

 

[AmyStrange]

As you know, my special interest area here is in criminology.. The idea that one should worship someone as a 'celebrity' just because they were charged with a horrendous crime, is entirely alien to me. AFAIAA the objective, fairly balanced, trial hearings found the three persons involved guilty as charged, as based on factual objective evidence, including pathological, forensic, scientific, technical logs and circumstantial evidence, such as chronological time lines. The fact that a PR campaign together with politics managed to wrangle an acquittal without the case being sent down to reassess 'errors' in evidence finding doesn't change the facts that were established at the trial and appeal. It fascinates me as to why people swallow information which is so obviously untrue. I get that in your case it is 'obviously Guede alone' because obviously <fx Little Britain> "How can I describe him...?" Would this be a correct assumption?

That's Interesting, because the rest of your post proves you know very little about it.

You need to concentrate more on facts instead of biased opinion.

That's what a REAL criminologist does.

 

[AmyStrange]

As you know, my special interest area here is in criminology.. The idea that one should worship someone as a 'celebrity' just because they were charged with a horrendous crime, is entirely alien to me. AFAIAA the objective, fairly balanced, trial hearings found the three persons involved guilty as charged, as based on factual objective evidence, including pathological, forensic, scientific, technical logs and circumstantial evidence, such as chronological time lines. The fact that a PR campaign together with politics managed to wrangle an acquittal without the case being sent down to reassess 'errors' in evidence finding doesn't change the facts that were established at the trial and appeal. It fascinates me as to why people swallow information which is so obviously untrue. I get that in your case it is 'obviously Guede alone' because obviously <fx Little Britain> "How can I describe him...?" Would this be a correct assumption?

Nope. That is just your biased opinion that isn't based on one single fact.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Not of itself but for the duration of a murder with one thousand and one other pieces of evidence, together with Sollecito's blatant lie about his phone being in a position that couldn't be registered by mast pings means it doesn't pass the sniff test. If you want to take time off to canoodle with a love interest to watch a soppy film, just send your boss a text saying, sorry won't be in today, not feeling well. End of.

What if your 1,001 other pieces of evidence are also garbage? The innocent parties might even get acquitted. Oh, wait, They did.

I see you still defiantly refuse to accept the simple reality, that people who work in small teams routinely turn their phone off so the boss can't yank them in to work at short notice. Your "why don't they just..." attitude exhibits your total lack of empathy for people who want to avoid having to say "no" to their boss, as that would inevitably be a mark against them.

You don't think things through. Not from the point of view that Amanda may not be guilty. You just fixate on confirmation for your biases. Do you really think that Amanda, having been given the day off, might message her boss to lie about being ill instead of just switching off her phone? Why lie? What if she bumped into him later?

Your version makes no sense.

 

[Vixen]

What if your 1,001 other pieces of evidence are also garbage? The innocent parties might even get acquitted. Oh, wait, They did.

I see you still defiantly refuse to accept the simple reality, that people who work in small teams routinely turn their phone off so the boss can't yank them in to work at short notice. Your "why don't they just..." attitude exhibits your total lack of empathy for people who want to avoid having to say "no" to their boss, as that would inevitably be a mark against them.

You don't think things through. Not from the point of view that Amanda may not be guilty. You just fixate on confirmation for your biases. Do you really think that Amanda, having been given the day off, might message her boss to lie about being ill instead of just switching off her phone? Why lie? What if she bumped into him later?

Your version makes no sense.

...And Sollecito's reason for switching off his phone? ...And then lying about it to police investigating the very serious and horrible murder of his girlfriend's 'friend'? Was Patrik about to send him an unwelcome text any time soon..?

 

[Welshman]

...And Sollecito's reason for switching off his phone? ...And then lying about it to police investigating the very serious and horrible murder of his girlfriend's 'friend'? Was Patrik about to send him an unwelcome text any time soon..?

As almost two decades have passed since Meredith's murder, you would think that Vixen could come up with something better than switching phones off to argue her case considering Vixen is constantly banging about solid and objective evidence.

 

[Numbers]

As almost two decades have passed since Meredith's murder, you would think that Vixen could come up with something better than switching phones off to argue her case considering Vixen is constantly banging about solid and objective evidence.

To lawfully convict someone of a crime in Italy, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime. For the murder/rape of Kercher, no such proof exists against Knox and Sollecito. That's why they were finally and definitively acquitted by the Marasca CSC panel.

The guilters (PGP) can't or won't accept the above facts and so they - or at least some of them - go on indefinitely trying to weave a case against Knox and Sollecito out of non-probative events or false claims. It's not clear what motivates those guilters who continue arguing for the guilt of Knox and Sollecito in the crimes against Kercher, since the final definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito can never be lawfully altered.

 

[AmyStrange]

To lawfully convict someone of a crime in Italy, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime. For the murder/rape of Kercher, no such proof exists against Knox and Sollecito. That's why they were finally and definitively acquitted by the Marasca CSC panel.

The guilters (PGP) can't or won't accept the above facts and so they - or at least some of them - go on indefinitely trying to weave a case against Knox and Sollecito out of non-probative events or false claims. It's not clear what motivates those guilters who continue arguing for the guilt of Knox and Sollecito in the crimes against Kercher, since the final definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito can never be lawfully altered.

This thread is the whole reason I joined ISF, and to be honest, I was obsessed with it from the very beginning, mostly because I had doubts about their innocence.

The difference between myself and most guilters is that I critically analyzed everyone's response until I realized there was nothing there to honestly put them at the scene, and I've studied enough false confession cases to realize that Amanda's matched up with many of the salient points that define them.

Anyone who's read Amanda's "confession" critically should realize it sounds more like a dream than anything else, and then they went out and arrested Lumumba without doing any kind of investigation, and that alone convinced me of their incompetence.

As anyone who has read my thread on missing person cold cases (and my work with the Doe Network) knows that I'm a great admirer of Law Enforcement, but this appalled me, and as usual, this is all just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course.

 

[Stacyhs]

Of course she would say that wouldn't she?

She said it because it makes sense.

As if you need to switch off your phone in order to ignore a message,

Has it ever occurred to you that he might CALL her if he texted but received no reply? In fact, Lumumba's call log shows he called...not texted...Knox on Oct. 12, Oct. 18, Oct. 20, and Nov. 2 so he had a history of not only texting her but directly calling her.

and as if any boss ever said take the day off and then call back later to say come in. What rot!

Oh, come on! If business picked up, he would call her to come in because it was her normal night to work. He wouldn't call someone who wasn't even scheduled to work that day instead. Besides, she didn't request the "day off". He even testified he was trying to be considerate of her:

ANSWER - It often happened that on Sundays I worked alone, because there were only a few customers, because of costs, because otherwise you pay the staff and there weren't many people, it wasn't worth it. And when I was at the place, I realized that even though it was Thursday, it was still November 1st, All Souls' Day, so I thought I'd let Amanda come to the place and then see if there were no customers, telling her to come back. For me, I thought it would be, no, kind of me. So I thought: maybe she had her own things to do and it would be better to send a text, and I'll text her.

It was hardly key work, handing out leaflets.

That's what she did BEFORE going back to the bar to waitress. Sheesh.

You falsely claimed, or tried to give people the impression, that the PR Agency interference in the case was all a 'conspiracy theory'.

You've moved the goalpost and misrepresented what I said:

1. First you posted this: "It is factual Curt Knox invested in Gogerty-Marriott PR team. Your pretending he didn't doesn't make the fact go away." Now you've moved that to the rubbish above.
2. I never claimed or implied any such thing because I don't believe there was any PR conspiracy or interference in the court case. Ironically, YOU are the one who has falsely claimed that as part of YOUR conspiracy theory:

(and see also the DNA results of Knox and Guede's presence on Mez' bra, which US journalist Ted Simon quickly hushed up after an intervention from Gogerty-Marriott PR agency, with Knox & Sollecito's counsels walking off the case).). So in the world of the conspiracy theorist, or in this case, the PR spinners, facts are no longer facts. Truth is no longer the truth.

Likewise Trump's involvement. And you added a load of 'crazy' emoji for effect in your usual reasoning-free playground style. .For those want to know more you can read about both here as being far from conspiracy theories:

NBC News
LA Times

How is a PR agency doing its job a "conspiracy" or "interference"? The objective of any PR agency is to influence the public to have a positive view of their client to counteract and correct the negative view the media may be presenting as we saw in this case. For example, informing the public of the true origins of "Foxy Knoxy". That does NOT mean they lie or conspire to interfere in a court case.

BTW What are you talking about? I clearly stated IN THE QUESTURA not Battistelli and the cottage. Once again pretending I said something other than what I did say. It really is like trying to pin jelly to a tree.

Ahem...I don't believe for a second you meant QUESTURA at all. Why in the world would anyone be "visibly shocked at the Questura when police pulled it up"? That's like saying people were shocked when firemen showed up at the fire station or shocked when an ambulance showed up at a hospital. No, you meant at the cottage because you've banged on for years that AK and RS where surprised when the postal police showed up because they hadn't called the carabinieri yet. For example:

"The next morning, the postal police found AK and RS at 12:30 hanging around at the scene, surprised to see him."
(Vixen #3968, May 16, 2025)

"...but then a surprise appearance by the postal police, completely unexpected. ".
(Vixen Post #3,469 May 5, 2025

You just can't admit you mistyped because then you'd have to deal with the evidence I presented that Battistelli and Marsi never said the pair were "shocked".

And you know very well Lumumba had expressed appreciation at Mez' ability to shake a Mojito cocktail (real bar work).

And you know very well that I never said otherwise. In fact, I quoted him saying exactly that in the Sunday Times in my first response to your false claim that

So, powerful emotions being stirred by Mez seeming to ‘steal’ her job and going out without her. Lumumba confirmed he was on the verge of firing Knox and taking on Mez, who shook a great mojito cocktail.

I know you are not unaware of the fact that we can actually go back and read what was really said so your habit of misrepresentation fails spectacularly. But you just keep on doing it anyway.

 

[Stacyhs]

...And Sollecito's reason for switching off his phone? ...And then lying about it to police investigating the very serious and horrible murder of his girlfriend's 'friend'?

What exactly did he lie about? He never denied he turned off his phone. But what you want us to believe is that by not mentioning an innocent pre-dawn listening to some music on it, he was LYING in order to hide it. It's the same thing you try to do when you imply he was lying about what time he got up that morning because he didn't mention that. If the police ask what time you got up that morning, they mean got up and stayed up. Not mentioning you got up at 4:00 AM to go to the bathroom isn't part of what time you got up that morning.

Was Patrik about to send him an unwelcome text any time soon..?

No. But his father or someone else calling or texting him was. What part of not wanting to be disturbed while watching Amelie, having dinner, smoking some weed, and having sex with his girlfriend is so unbelievable for you?

 

[Stacyhs]

This thread is the whole reason I joined ISF, and to be honest, I was obsessed with it from the very beginning, mostly because I had doubts about their innocence.

When the case was first being reported in the media, I not only doubted their innocence, I assumed they were guilty. I think that's a common assumption the majority of people make because all we know is what the police and prosecution are telling us. But the only thing the defense usually can do in the early days is deny guilt. The defense has to wait until the police investigation reveals what they claim is the evidence and then do their own investigation of that alleged evidence. They are in a constant case of catch-up. By that time, the public has already made up their minds and, as is so often demonstrated here, once an opinion is formed, some people just can't admit they were wrong.

The difference between myself and most guilters is that I critically analyzed everyone's response until I realized there was nothing there to honestly put them at the scene, and I've studied enough false confession cases to realize that Amanda's matched up with many of the salient points that define them.

Same with me. It was only after studying the evidence and reading expert's opinions on the validity of that evidence, did I realize the prosecution's case was not supported by that evidence.

Anyone who's read Amanda's "confession" critically should realize it sounds more like a dream than anything else, and then they went out and arrested Lumumba without doing any kind of investigation, and that alone convinced me of their incompetence.

Agreed. It was a cock-up from the very beginning starting with Mignini refusing Lalli access to Kercher's body to determine TOD, assuming the break-in was staged, that only a woman would cover the body, and therefore, it was an "inside job by a woman".

As anyone who has read my thread on missing person cold cases (and my work with the Doe Network) knows that I'm a great admirer of Law Enforcement, but this appalled me, and as usual, this is all just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course.

I also am a supporter of law enforcement as I believe most police are honest and really do want to 'serve and protect'. But I also realize there are bad apples in every profession. I recognize that LE is particularly attractive to bullies and those who enjoy having a sense of power over others. My brother-in-law was a police officer and the stories he told about some of his fellow officers were hair-raising.

 

[Vixen]

She said it because it makes sense.

Has it ever occurred to you that he might CALL her if he texted but received no reply? In fact, Lumumba's call log shows he called...not texted...Knox on Oct. 12, Oct. 18, Oct. 20, and Nov. 2 so he had a history of not only texting her but directly calling her.

Oh, come on! If business picked up, he would call her to come in because it was her normal night to work. He wouldn't call someone who wasn't even scheduled to work that day instead. Besides, she didn't request the "day off". He even testified he was trying to be considerate of her:


That's what she did BEFORE going back to the bar to waitress. Sheesh.

You've moved the goalpost and misrepresented what I said:

1. First you posted this: "It is factual Curt Knox invested in Gogerty-Marriott PR team. Your pretending he didn't doesn't make the fact go away." Now you've moved that to the rubbish above.
2. I never claimed or implied any such thing because I don't believe there was any PR conspiracy or interference in the court case. Ironically, YOU are the one who has falsely claimed that as part of YOUR conspiracy theory:



How is a PR agency doing its job a "conspiracy" or "interference"? The objective of any PR agency is to influence the public to have a positive view of their client to counteract and correct the negative view the media may be presenting as we saw in this case. For example, informing the public of the true origins of "Foxy Knoxy". That does NOT mean they lie or conspire to interfere in a court case.

Ahem...I don't believe for a second you meant QUESTURA at all. Why in the world would anyone be "visibly shocked at the Questura when police pulled it up"? That's like saying people were shocked when firemen showed up at the fire station or shocked when an ambulance showed up at a hospital. No, you meant at the cottage because you've banged on for years that AK and RS where surprised when the postal police showed up because they hadn't called the carabinieri yet. For example:

"The next morning, the postal police found AK and RS at 12:30 hanging around at the scene, surprised to see him."
(Vixen #3968, May 16, 2025)

"...but then a surprise appearance by the postal police, completely unexpected. ".
(Vixen Post #3,469 May 5, 2025

You just can't admit you mistyped because then you'd have to deal with the evidence I presented that Battistelli and Marsi never said the pair were "shocked".


And you know very well that I never said otherwise. In fact, I quoted him saying exactly that in the Sunday Times in my first response to your false claim that


I know you are not unaware of the fact that we can actually go back and read what was really said so your habit of misrepresentation fails spectacularly. But you just keep on doing it anyway.

No, go back and read it carefully: I said she was visibly shocked when they pulled it up at the Questura. I meant questura and not anything else.

 

[Vixen]

For the avoidance of doubt, I wrote: It was an insiders view that AK believed Mez had stolen her job, when Patrik said, don't come in. If you recall, within minutes AK had switched off her phone for the next sixteen hours. Deleted Patrik's message. Was visibly shocked at the Questura when police pulled it up.

 

[Welshman]

Not every instance of facts found is entered into the Motivational Report, only the ones that are to be strict legal facts bound in stone. Part of the judges' job is sifting out what is absolutely germane to the case and leaving out ones that can be ignored as a 'benefit of doubt' as it doesn't swing the verdict one way or another.

When I pointed out false claims about several pieces of evidence which the prosecution never mentioned or mentioned in any motivation report, Vixen tries to explain her lies by claiming judges decided not to use them in motivation reports. Are we seriously expected to believe that Amanda's DNA on the clasp, size 37 footprints, the bloody imprint matching Raffaele's knife and Amanda's hair in Meredith's room would not be crucial evidence. Again why would you need to constantly lie about non existent evidence if there was solid evidence as Vixen constantly boasts?

 

[Stacyhs]

No, go back and read it carefully: I said she was visibly shocked when they pulled it up at the Questura. I meant questura and not anything else.

I admit I did not see the "it" so you are correct. Unlike some people...ahem...I can admit error when I'm wrong.
Saying that, will you now admit that you moved the goalpost and I never said what you claimed below?

1. First you claimed this:
"It is factual Curt Knox invested in Gogerty-Marriott PR team. Your pretending he didn't doesn't make the fact go away."
Then you moved the goalpost to this"
"You falsely claimed, or tried to give people the impression, that the PR Agency interference in the case was all a 'conspiracy theory'.

I never claimed, or tried to imply, any of the above.

 

[Stacyhs]

Dyed blonde hair is exactly the same as natural blond hair. It is simply hair bleached of its melanin, which blonde hair has little to none of. You have been told this several times already. Stop claiming that Knox' bleached hair can't have been the two long golden-coloured hairs, one gripped in Mez' hand and the other across the top of Mez' bag (therefore, AFTER Guede had rummaged through it).

100% WRONG.
From the FBI Forensic Science Communication:

The presence of artificial treatment such as dyes or rinses can be identified through microscopical examination. Inasmuch as head hairs grow at the rate of one centimeter per month, the approximate time of this treatment can be determined by measuring the length of untreated area of the hair.

From Science Direct:

A trained forensic examiner can use light microscopy to classify hair and identify alterations to hair, such as if a hair was dyed, burned, or cut

From Research Gate:

Electron microscope (EM) pictures of the natural, dyed, and permed hair shaft are depicted here. Picture (A) shows the morphology of the natural hair shaft under EM: Cuticles of the hair shaft are flat and covered with each other like imbrications. In comparison with picture (A), picture (B) shows the morphology of the dyed hair shaft under EM: The hair cuticle cells are slightly disordered; layers of cuticles are damaged and broken, and the cortex is exposed.

Natural blonde is most certainly NOT the same as dyed blonde in appearance or under the microscope.

 

[Stacyhs]

You tried to make out the PR hoax was a conspiracy theory and now you have to back track because the fact of the matter is, it is in the public domain as a well-known fact.

False. I never said or implied any such thing. THAT was YOU:

(and see also the DNA results of Knox and Guede's presence on Mez' bra, which US journalist Ted Simon quickly hushed up after an intervention from Gogerty-Marriott PR agency, with Knox & Sollecito's counsels walking off the case).). So in the world of the conspiracy theorist, or in this case, the PR spinners, facts are no longer facts. Truth is no longer the truth.

Curt Knox said it was the best investment he ever made

And he's right. He needed someone to fight the dissemination of lies and misinformation being produced in the media...much of it coming from the police.

(taking the case outside the courts to disseminate misinformation and disinformation to reconstruct Knox' image as the girl next door and the Italians as a backward third world country that tortured young girls into admitting murder).

LOL. If mis- and disinformation was coming from anyone, it was the police and prosecution. For example:

1. Knox had sex with seven men WHILE IN ITALY: False.

2. Mignini: "It is reasonable to hypothesize that she herself felt the need to eliminate the traces of her presence from an apartment in which she lived." False. No evidence of any attempt remove traces of herself were ever presented in court. The print expert, Privitera, said he saw no evidence suggesting any attempt was made to remove evidence.

3. Police: A photo of a supposedly 'blood covered' bathroom was released with no explanation that the pink color was NOT a chemical reaction to blood. That photo vs actual police photo:


4. Raffaele called 112 after the postales arrived: False. Even Massei found otherwise.
5. The Harry Potter German edition book was found in Amanda's apartment showing she lied when she said they read it at RS's apt.: False. The police video shows it at RS's apartment like she said.

That's only a sample.

ETA: Let's not forget the Knox "admitted she was there" lie when it was clear and accepted by the court that she was referring to Raffaele's, not the cottage. THAT could only have come from someone who had access to her recorded prison visits with her parents.

Truth is, teams of agents were commissioned to flood the internet, such as amazon book reviews and forums, with positive reviews and opinions gushing about Knox' 'innocence', which is still going on today.

You have ZERO evidence of any of the above. Assfacts.

(Those of you doing it for free should demand your fair share of the commission available, up to US$2m by all accounts.)

By YOUR unsupported by any evidence account. Another assfact.

And your adopting a familiar tone with me is not welcome.

And your adopting Meredith's familiar name of "Mez" is not welcome with me.
Your constant misrepresentation of what I say is not welcome either.

 

[Myriad]

As you know, my special interest area here is in criminology.

That's the same thing all the women who write love letters to serial killers in prison say. It's remarkable how often "interest in criminology" translates to "hot for the bad boys."

 

[Numbers]

When the case was first being reported in the media, I not only doubted their innocence, I assumed they were guilty. I think that's a common assumption the majority of people make because all we know is what the police and prosecution are telling us. But the only thing the defense usually can do in the early days is deny guilt. The defense has to wait until the police investigation reveals what they claim is the evidence and then do their own investigation of that alleged evidence. They are in a constant case of catch-up. By that time, the public has already made up their minds and, as is so often demonstrated here, once an opinion is formed, some people just can't admit they were wrong.

Same with me. It was only after studying the evidence and reading expert's opinions on the validity of that evidence, did I realize the prosecution's case was not supported by that evidence.


Agreed. It was a cock-up from the very beginning starting with Mignini refusing Lalli access to Kercher's body to determine TOD, assuming the break-in was staged, that only a woman would cover the body, and therefore, it was an "inside job by a woman".

I also am a supporter of law enforcement as I believe most police are honest and really do want to 'serve and protect'. But I also realize there are bad apples in every profession. I recognize that LE is particularly attractive to bullies and those who enjoy having a sense of power over others. My brother-in-law was a police officer and the stories he told about some of his fellow officers were hair-raising.

Mignini's hypotheses were, I suggest, likely motivated by the need for a "convenient suspect" who could be quickly coerced to incriminate herself and therefore relieve the pressure from the Italian Ministry of Justice to solve the case quickly and bolster his self-presumed reputation and self-regard as a real-life Sherlock Holmes (as he characterized himself in the Netflix documentary).

At the relevant time, Mignini himself was being prosecuted for abuse of power in the extended Monster of Florence case. The case against him was dismissed in 2016 because the statute of limitations had lapsed during the complex and judicially incompetent transferring of jurisdictions to prevent conflicts of interest (Mignini trial was initially to be tried in the Florence Court District, but the officials he had allegedly illegally wiretapped were prosecutors in that District).

Mignini's arrest and detention for 23 days of Mario Spezi, the famous Italian crime journalist, for alleged interference in Mignini's misbegotten MoF investigation, was found to be illegal by an Italian court.

Mignini's theory [of part of the MoF case] involved a complicated conspiracy of 20 people, including government officials and law enforcement officers, who all concurred in covering up Narducci's cause of death. Mignini indicted 20 people and charged them with the concealment of Narducci's murder. The charges against them were dropped in 2010 [due to expiry of the statute of limitations].

Mignini came to wider public attention as the prosecutor who led the 2007 investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher, and one of the prosecutors who led the subsequent prosecution of Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox, and Raffaele Sollecito. The conviction of Knox and Sollecito was eventually annulled by Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation on 27 March 2015. The verdict pointed out that as scientific evidence was "central" to the case, there were "glaring defalliances" or "amnesia" and "culpable omissions of investigation activities".

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

I also suggest it is not necessarily unusual in wrongful conviction cases to find that coercion of suspects or witnesses or other official misconduct (framing of suspects) to be associated with police or prosecution incompetence and even other, possibly non-related illegal actions by the authorities.

For example, Robert Glenn Ford, the police investigator in the Norfolk Four case*, who coerced false confessions from 4 young US sailors in the case of the rape/murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko** was later found guilty in federal court of taking bribes from criminal suspects in order to get them favorable treatment in court.***

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Four

** https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/

In The Confessions, FRONTLINE producer Ofra Bikel (Innocence Lost, An Ordinary Crime) investigates the conviction of four men -- current and former sailors in the U.S. Navy -- for the rape and murder of a Norfolk, Va., woman in 1997. In the first television interviews with the "Norfolk Four" since their release, Bikel learns of some of the high-pressure police interrogation techniques -- the threat of the death penalty, sleep deprivation, intimidation -- that led each of the men to confess, despite the lack of any evidence linking them to the crime.

** https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/key-detective-in-false-confession-case-sentenced/

 

[Stacyhs]

I have to laugh every time I think about Mignini's "double body switch" re Narducci and bragging about how people came up to him in the street to congratulate him on his fantastic accomplishment. I bet they were big, strong men with tears in their eyes. LOL

Let's not forget that Napoleoni, Zugarini and several of Monica's subordinates were convicted of misusing their police powers to harass the child psychologist for personal reasons. Or that Comodi was demoted and transferred for her own misbehavior. Or that the ECHR found police had violated several of Knox's rights.