Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[tyr_13]

Wow. I'm learning a lot in this thread. Thumbs up.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I want to turn now to the prosecutor, Mignini, because many here appear to assume that he is mad, bad and dangerous to know. I am not sure where the information underpinning that assumption is coming from

There have been several posts in this thread about where that information came from. For example, he first proposed in court that the Kercher murder was part of a Halloween Satanic rite. And the information he presented appears to have come from a "psychic" website.

You don't find that just a tad bit... mad??

Other information came from Douglas Preston and his book The Monster of Florence, in which he relates an almost identical story about Mignini -- and that book was written prior to the Knox case. I'll grant that Preston is one person and certainly he has one side of the story. But if even half of what he says about Mignini is true... well, it's a bit frightening.

As I mentioned earlier (and as you spell out well in your post), this doesn't mean Knox is innocent. Mignini could be a complete nut and Knox could still very well be guilty.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And in 100% of the cases overturned because of conclusive DNA evidence, the judge was wearing a robe.

Your statistic only shows that false confessions do happen. It doesn't tell us anything more specific about the reliability of confessions. To do that, we'd need to know what percentage of cases in which a suspect confessed later resulted in exoneration.

If you look at the facts here, Knox's confession was just not enough to convict her. It was crazy, it changed, it was obtained under duress, it wasn't logical, & it didn't fit with the facts in the case. It does however, fit with the facts in the cases of false confessions.

Then you add the fact the physical evidence against Knox and her boyfriend was not enough to convict anyone. The knife was not the murder weapon, the bra clasp was improperly collected evidence, the broken window in no way implicated anyone, let alone Knox.

Add to that the history of the overzealous prosecutor with a history of seeing Satanic cults everywhere including in this case and no evidence to support the prosecutor's proposed motives.

Now add that the actual guilty party was convicted and there was lots and lots of physical evidence in his case.

Where in all of this is the evidence of guilt, let alone guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[Fiona]

There have been several posts in this thread about where that information came from. For example, he first proposed in court that the Kercher murder was part of a Halloween Satanic rite. And the information he presented appears to have come from a "psychic" website.

You don't find that just a tad bit... mad??

Other information came from Douglas Preston and his book The Monster of Florence, in which he relates an almost identical story about Mignini -- and that book was written prior to the Knox case. I'll grant that Preston is one person and certainly he has one side of the story. But if even half of what he says about Mignini is true... well, it's a bit frightening.

As I mentioned earlier (and as you spell out well in your post), this doesn't mean Knox is innocent. Mignini could be a complete nut and Knox could still very well be guilty.

Well it is certainly odd, if true. Mignini denies that he took any notice of this psychic however, and it seems that he prosecuted her. I have been browsing around and just at present I do not have link to that statement: but I will try to find it again. Or you might ?

 

[Fiona]

If you look at the facts here, Knox's confession was just not enough to convict her.

The theory about false confession would carry a lot more weight if Knox had confessed. But she didn't. She accused someone else, out here in the real world

It was crazy,

If you are talking about her statement against Lumumbu, it wasn't crazy at all. Since he had an alibi not much harm was done: but there was no certainty of that

it changed,

Yes. Everything she said changed. That is not normally held to be indicative of innocence.....

it was obtained under duress

That is by no means certain. It was obtained under "firm but cordial" questioning, according to the police: Knox herself admits she lied about violence and about the lack of food and drink. There is serious doubt about the length of the questioning too. And Knox reiterated it when there was no question of coercion according to the judge who decided to admit her written statement for that very reason

it wasn't logical,

What isn't logical? Trying to put the blame on someone else? It isn't nice, but that is not quite the same thing

& it didn't fit with the facts in the case.

Now that I agree with: the poor man was nowhere near the case

It does however, fit with the facts in the cases of false confessions.

Except for the tiny detail that it is not a confession. But carry on

Then you add the fact the physical evidence against Knox and her boyfriend was not enough to convict anyone.

Not by itself, perhaps.

The knife was not the murder weapon,

The knife fitted one of the wounds: it had Kerchner's DNA on it. Perhaps it was not the murder weapon, but you really need more than mere assertion. If it was all the evidence you might have a point: but you persistently ignore the wall quadraginta mentioned in favour of the single brick

the bra clasp was improperly collected evidence,

Its collection was delayed and that is a problem: but there is no evidence that it was "improperly" collected. Nor any shred of evidence to show it was contaminated in any way

the broken window in no way implicated anyone, let alone Knox.

Not by itself: but with the footprints in that room? I think it did

Add to that the history of the overzealous prosecutor

Maybe he is overzealous: maybe he is conscientious: what he is NOT is a free agent without oversight from other parts of the judicial system

with a history of seeing Satanic cults everywhere including in this case and no evidence to support the prosecutor's proposed motives.

None of that speaks to the evidence at all. In fact, you know what? I think it might evidence of a cultural clash which might lead you misinterpret a foreigner's behaviour. You know: like happens all the time with cartwheels in police stations

Now add that the actual guilty party was convicted and there was lots and lots of physical evidence in his case

Not to mention the evidence which shows he could not have done it alone...oh I see you didn't

Where in all of this is the evidence of guilt, let alone guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

In the slow build up of lots of little pieces of evidence which you choose to ignore

 

[Brainster]

Let me state here once that although I find much to be suspicious about from Knox's behavior, based on the information I have heard so far, I would not vote for conviction if on the jury. But it's close; the glass on the ransacked clothes really makes it a tough decision.

At any rate, what I take from the thread is that this was not some ridiculous case of bias against an American girl; the case is circumstantial to be sure, but surprisingly strong despite that problem.

 

[Fiona]

Well it is certainly odd, if true. Mignini denies that he took any notice of this psychic however, and it seems that he prosecuted her. I have been browsing around and just at present I do not have link to that statement: but I will try to find it again. Or you might ?

Ok I cannot find the original link I referred to above: though I will keep looking

Meantime this is interesting: it is a blog so it will enrage skeptigirl. But it is not a blog which has been particularly supportive of the prosecution case overall

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...ustice+italy+process&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

As you see, it also refers to the psychic and to the fact that Mignini prosecuted her

 

[quadraginta]

@ Fiona.

I have been trying to find an English translation of Judge Micheli's sentencing report for Rudy Guede. I haven't had any luck yet. Have you run across anything?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Let me state here once that although I find much to be suspicious about from Knox's behavior, based on the information I have heard so far, I would not vote for conviction if on the jury. But it's close; the glass on the ransacked clothes really makes it a tough decision.

At any rate, what I take from the thread is that this was not some ridiculous case of bias against an American girl; the case is circumstantial to be sure, but surprisingly strong despite that problem.

Pet peeve:

Circumstantial evidence is a good thing. Forensic evidence is a subset of circumstantial evidence.

The opposite of circumstantial evidence is direct evidence which encompasses the direct witnessing of the event by either a recording or a witness. Obviously this is either generally very good evidence in the case of a recording or generally very bad evidence given how unreliable we know witness testimony to be.

 

[Fiona]

@ Fiona.

I have been trying to find an English translation of Judge Micheli's sentencing report for Rudy Guede. I haven't had any luck yet. Have you run across anything?

No. Like you I have references to it but not the full thing except in Italian. It is pity because I understand he devotes several pages to the forensic evidence.

While I am here I will change the subject back to the question of Mignini. I still have not found the original link I referred to but there is a translation by the TJMK people of a letter he wrote to one Linda Byron, a TV presenter (journalist?) in Seattle. I think it is worth quoting in full, given the picture of him presented in this thread

Dear Ms Byron,

I hope we will be able to meet and discuss sometime in person, since some of the issues you have examined, specifically the Florentine proceedings against myself and Dr Giuttari, are way too complex to be described in just a few words. I will try to give a short answer here.

To begin with, there is no relationship between the events that are the subject of Spezi’s and Preston’s book and the murder of young Ms Kercher beside the fact that I am the one person dealing with both the Narducci proceedings (connected to the Monster of Florence case) and the Meredith Kercher murder.

These two are totally different events, as well as wholly unrelated to each other, and I am not able to see any type of analogy.

Furthermore, while the precautionary custody order for Spezi has been voided by the Tribunale del Riesame of Perugia, exclusively on the grounds of insufficient elements of proof, the precautionary custody order for Knox was firmly confirmed not only by the Tribunal of Riesame in Perugia,, but above all by the Sixth Section of the Court of Cassazione, which has declared the matter decided and closed.

About the “sacrificial rite” issue, I have never stated that Meredith Kercher was the victim of a “sacrificial rite”.

It should be sufficient to read the charges to understand that the three defendants have been accused of having killed Ms Kercher in the course of activities of a sexual nature, which are notoriously very different from a “sacrificial rite”.

The Monster of Florence investigations have been led by the Florentine magistrates Adolfo Izzo, Silvia della Monica, Pierluigi Vigna, Paolo Canessa and some others.

I have never served in Florence. I have led investigations related to the case since October 2001, but only with regard to the death of Dr Francesco Narducci, and just a superficial knowledge of those proceedings [Dr Narducci drowned or was drowned] would suffice to realize that I never spoke of a “sacrificial rite” which in this case doesn’t make any good sense.

About the defense lawyer issue. Mr. Preston was heard as a person claiming information about the facts (in effect a witness), but after indications of some circumstances against him surfaced, the interview was suspended, since at that point he should have been assisted by an attorney, and since according to the law the specific crime hypothesis required the proceedings to be suspended until a ruling on them was handed down.

All I did was to apply the Italian law proceedings. I really cannot understand any problem.

In the same way, Knox was first heard by the police as a witness, but when some essential elements of her involvement with the murder surfaced, the police suspended the interview, according to Article 63 of the penal proceedings code.

But Knox then decided to render spontaneous declarations, that I took up without any further questioning, which is entirely lawful. According to Article 374 of the penal proceedings code, suspects must be assisted by a lawyer only during a formal interrogation, and when being notified of alleged crimes and questioned by a prosecutor or judge, not when they intend to render unsolicited declarations.

Since I didn’t do anything other than to apply the Italian law applicable to both matters, I am unable to understand the objections and reservations which you are talking about.

Secondly, I have told you that explaining the nature of the accusations against me is a complex job.

In short, it has been alleged that I have favored Dr Giuttari’s position, who was investigated together with two of his collaborators for a (non-existent) political forgery of a tape recording transcription of a conversation between Dr Giuttari and Dr Canessa.

The latter was giving vent to his feelings, telling Dr Giuttari that the head prosecutor in Florence (at the time) was not a free man in relation to his handling of the Monster investigations.

A technical advisor from the prosecutor’s office in Genoa had tried to attribute that sentence to Dr Giuttari, without having previously obtained a sound test from him, only from Dr Canessa.

I decided, rightly and properly, to perform another technical test on that tape for my trial (I have a copy of it, and the original transcripts of the recording).

I had the technical test performed by the Head of the Sound Task Force of the RIS Carabinieri in Rome, Captain Claudio Ciampini.

If Giuttari had lied, Captain Ciampini would have certainly said so. But his conclusions from the analysis were that that sentence had been pronounced by Dr Canessa. And by the way, this is clearly audible.

I then deemed it appropriate to interrogate the technical adviser from Genoa, in the sphere of the investigations led by me, since the people under investigation were thoroughly but inexplicably aware of the development of the investigation of Dr Giuttari.

The technical advisor from Genoa had made some absolutely non-credible declarations, and I had to investigate him.

The GUP from Genoa, Dr Roberto Fenizia, by means of a non-contested verdict on 9 November 2006, acquitted Dr Giuttari and his collaborators, because the alleged crimes had never occurred.

Therefore, I am accused for doing a proper and due investigation, without even the consideration that I have spared some innocent people from a sentence. I leave any further evaluation up to you.

As for the phone tappings, they had been fully authorized or validated by the GIP. [Those charges are now thrown out.] Explain to me how they can be considered wrongful. I haven’t been able to understand this yet.

This is the story of that case in short, and I am certain the truth will prevail.

None of us is guaranteed not to be subjected to unjust trials, especially when sensitive and “inconvenient” investigations have been conducted.

When accusations are serious and heavy in Italy, a magistrate that has been investigated or charged suffers heavy consequences.

There are appropriate bodies in charge to intervene according to the current laws, but the Florentine penal proceeding so far hasn’t affected me at all, perhaps because everybody – and specifically those professionally working on the matter - have realized that such penal proceedings have been anomalous, to use a euphemism.

As to my possibility to appeal any conviction, the Italian law provides for it, and I don’t need to say more.

I will make some closing remarks on the different jurisdictions.

Indeed there are differences between the [UK and US] common law jurisdictions and those of continental Europe, including the Italian one, which like any other jurisdiction has its flaws but also its merits, of which I ‘m becoming more aware as I carry on.

Furthermore, both jurisdictions are expressions of the juridical culture of the Western world, and this is something that shouldn’t be disregarded.

I don’t think I need to add anything else, except that these issues would need to be discussed in a personal conversation in order to delve further into the matter.

Sincerely

Giuliano Mignini

I am wondering where is the evidence that this man sees satanic plots everywhere. He sounds quite balanced to me

 

[stilicho]

You, yourself, are basing your conclusion for the most part on the underlying assumption, 'only guilty people get convicted'. I read that same theme running through this thread.

Actually, that's the least of my concern about this case. It was, instead, largely the two-fold characterisation of Ms Knox as a squeaky-clean victim and (tied to this) of the Italian justice system as being incapable of properly handling a rape-murder case.

You've said you're intrigued by the role of the media in our perceptions and this is practically a case study.

Your own surprise at Ms Knox' conviction is probably equalled only by my own. Nearly all media reports suggested the evidence was too flimsy to secure a conviction. So why was it so compelling? My theory is that the strength of the evidence was much stronger than reported to us by the sympathetic Seattle media. This is supported both by media reports closer to the scene of the trial and by factual statements not featured in the US media reports (eg Ms Knox' prior citation, the length of the interrogation, where she and one of her accomplices were discovered the day the murder scene was revealed to police, the strength of the DNA evidence, the asynchronicity of her alibi with that of her boyfriend, how the broken window was refuted in court, the glass found on top of strewn clothing, the series of proven false or conflicting statements, etc, etc).

Your theory appears to be somewhat different and tends to diminish the competence of the Italian authorities. Especially strange is the argument that the jurors, prosecution witnesses, investigators, and judges all went along with the prosecutor just so he wouldn't be embarrassed by losing his case. Wouldn't that mean he would never lose any cases? Shouldn't that also mean any appeal would be rejected out of hand? Or is there a kind of statute of limitations on embarrassment in Italy?

 

[quadraginta]

There have been several posts in this thread about where that information came from. For example, he first proposed in court that the Kercher murder was part of a Halloween Satanic rite. And the information he presented appears to have come from a "psychic" website.

You don't find that just a tad bit... mad??

Other information came from Douglas Preston and his book The Monster of Florence, in which he relates an almost identical story about Mignini -- and that book was written prior to the Knox case. I'll grant that Preston is one person and certainly he has one side of the story. But if even half of what he says about Mignini is true... well, it's a bit frightening.

As I mentioned earlier (and as you spell out well in your post), this doesn't mean Knox is innocent. Mignini could be a complete nut and Knox could still very well be guilty.

Mignini's past transgressions, real or imagined, may have less significance than has been suggested by the newshounds.

The real player to pay attention could be Judge Paulo Micheli.

I'm getting a sense that the role of the judge in Italian law is much more active and participatory than here in the states.

It may be largely through his analysis that the case against Knox and Sollecito went forward.

His reputation, unlike Mignini's, seems to be unsullied. In fact it appears to be quite substantial. There have been some hints in my reading that he was in particular a judge that Mignini ran afoul of during the "Monster of Florence" debacle. I haven't sidetracked into pursuing that gracenote.

The slurs against Mignini, regardless of their merit, do not appear to have any real connection to the Knox case itself, and look largely to be more distraction. His theories concerning motive are not any substantial aspect of the case made against Knox. Crime scene evidence, various testimony, and multiple inconsistencies in her story and Sollecito's are.

I know that this site does not meet with Skeptigirl's approval, but beyond her imperious displeasure I can unearth no reason to question its veracity. If nothing else it provides a stepping stone to other sources. Since its POV is not an adamant denial of Knox's complicity in anything at all it does not pass muster with Knox supporters, but a mindless acceptance that no other POVs are permissible is not the best method for learning.

Start there and poke around a bit. The scenery is remarkably different from the 'Amanda is a helpless innocent' storyline, and considerably less ... ah ...paranoid.

ETA: I wrote this before seeing Fiona's post on Mignini, along with the transcript she quoted, which I had not run across yet.

They do seem to dovetail nicely, though.

 

[stilicho]

The police interrogation wasn't even valid under Italian law and the accusation of character defamation lawsuit you claim was concluded has only been charged. No trial on this has occurred.

You're quite correct on the last part. I was under the impression she had already lost that case beforehand. You score!

By the way, the fact that her statements were ruled admissible in court doesn't mean that she didn't say them. I'm discussing chiefly the image of Ms Knox projected to us by the media.

 

[gtc]

It sounds like the Washington press has been pushing the suggestion that Amanda Knox is innocent.

The Australian media has been pretty much impartial in its coverage. This is a story from last weekend and it is indicative of the sort of coverage that I have seen in both the Murdoch and non-Murdoch press. They also published the defense's closing arguments in a similar manner.

 

[stilicho]

Stilicho said Knox had a prior conviction. She didn't have a conviction in the case of the accusation against the boss and I'd not read anywhere Knox had some criminal record in the US as it appeared stilicho was claiming.

It was the citation I had told you about from the UW-area house party, the one resulting in the $269 fine. The citation doesn't result in a court case unless the ticket goes unpaid.

No, it didn't mean she was automatically involved in rape and murder but it was unreported in the media.

I tried to make that abundantly clear.

 

[Fiona]

Well I understood what you said Stilcho: but then I already knew about the conviction in america. I do not think your meaning was unclear.

 

[Agatha]

I have been trying to find Judge Micheli's report in English but the best I can do is a google translation via this website:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=3327#p3327 it is quite a disturbing read, there are descriptions of Meredith Kercher's injuries.

 

[Matthew Best]

Ok I cannot find the original link I referred to above: though I will keep looking

Meantime this is interesting: it is a blog so it will enrage skeptigirl. But it is not a blog which has been particularly supportive of the prosecution case overall

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...ustice+italy+process&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

As you see, it also refers to the psychic and to the fact that Mignini prosecuted her

Bad link.

 

[Fiona]

Thanks for that, Matthew Best: I must not have copied it when I thought I did. Proper link below ( I hope )


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-01/the-other-murders-that-could-save-her/

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Well it is certainly odd, if true. Mignini denies that he took any notice of this psychic however, and it seems that he prosecuted her. I have been browsing around and just at present I do not have link to that statement: but I will try to find it again. Or you might ?

I linked to it in the post above, but here is the section about Mignini presenting a "Satanic rite" theory to the court:

The murder, Il Tempo newspaper reported him telling the court, “was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Hallowe’en. A sexual and sacrificial rite ... In the intention of the organisers, the rite should have occurred 24 hours earlier” – on Hallowe’en itself – “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organised by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day. The presumed assassins contented themselves with the evening of 1 November to perform their do-it-yourself rite, when for some hours it would again be the night of All Saints.”

The article quotes an Italian newspaper, and I don't speak Italian, so I'm not really in a position to go check the translation, but maybe you can. If the above quote is correct, this would seem to contradict the letter you posted where he states that he never believed that it was a "satanic rite." (Okay in the quote he doesn't say 'Satanic' he just says 'a sexual and sacrificial rite, though that's splitting hairs, IMO.