Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

Actually, not so. The first instance found Mignini innocent. Mignini was found guilty in the prosecution's appeal (although also found innocent of some charges). So, it's prosecution 1...Mignini 1. That says that it's pretty borderline. Mignini is now appealing and that can go either way. It'll likely go to acquittal for Mignini. Firstly because it's so borderline, secondly because there were clear political motivations in his guilty verdict and thirdly because there was a good deal of shock in Italy throughout the judiciary, indicating they didn't expect a guilty verdict.

But it must be understood, this isn't really a criminal trial, but a political one. Mignini ruffled feathers in the Narducci case and stood on the toes of some rather powerful and important people...worse, frightened those people. This is the backlash. But then it must be understood, this is the nature of being an Italian investigating magistrate...they play rough and face considerable danger. Few prosecutors in the US or UK have to have a 24 hour armed guard,..in Italy, it's the norm. Over the decades, no few investigating magistrates have been murdered in mafia hits. In the US/UK as a prosecutor, you sleep with your wife or husband's hand under your pillow...in Italy one sleeps with a beretta.

I think you misunderstood me, Fulcanelli. Mignini was acquitted in the court of first instance: and convicted at the appeal. So it would appear that his account of what happened was accepted in the first trial.

I agree that there appear to be some politics in the case. As I understand it Mignini claims he sought and was granted proper authorisation. This seems to me to be demonstrable and I believe you are correct in saying that the conviction surprised many. But however that may be it does not change the fact that the case has no bearing on the this one

 

[HumanityBlues]

Actually, not so. The first instance found Mignini innocent. Mignini was found guilty in the prosecution's appeal (although also found innocent of some charges). So, it's prosecution 1...Mignini 1. That says that it's pretty borderline. Mignini is now appealing and that can go either way. It'll likely go to acquittal for Mignini. Firstly because it's so borderline, secondly because there were clear political motivations in his guilty verdict and thirdly because there was a good deal of shock in Italy throughout the judiciary, indicating they didn't expect a guilty verdict.

But it must be understood, this isn't really a criminal trial, but a political one. Mignini ruffled feathers in the Narducci case and stood on the toes of some rather powerful and important people...worse, frightened those people. This is the backlash. But then it must be understood, this is the nature of being an Italian investigating magistrate...they play rough and face considerable danger. Few prosecutors in the US or UK have to have a 24 hour armed guard,..in Italy, it's the norm. Over the decades, no few investigating magistrates have been murdered in mafia hits. In the US/UK as a prosecutor, you sleep with your wife or husband's hand under your pillow...in Italy one sleeps with a beretta.

Who is the source that this trial is mainly political? Mignini himself?

 

[shuttlt]

Who is the source that this trial is mainly political? Mignini himself?

Does anybody have a good source on what exactly he has been convicted of and what he has been acquitted of? Most people just say corruption and mention wiretapping. Surely there must be an FOA source that goes into this in detail?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Does anybody have a good source on what exactly he has been convicted of and what he has been acquitted of? Most people just say corruption and mention wiretapping. Surely there must be an FOA source that goes into this in detail?

I agree, the info on this seems to be sparse. It's pretty funny though that the same people who decry "xenophobe" or the like for hinting anything smelly in Perugia are the first to imply corruption and politically motivated prosecution in Florence. Maybe the prosecutors in Florence don't like other magistrates coming into their jurisdiction and breaking the law....

 

[Moss]

I'm also confused about the whole Narducci mess (which is part of an even greater mess). What the hell happened to that guy (or his corpse)?
I also still think the Sardinian Trail is more plausible than the picknicking friends or the occult society.
But that is pretty offtopic and irrelevant to this case.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Exactly. Unreliable and useless.

Your arbitrary opinion. You have a right to it. I also note your clear desire not to investigate it further. It is not only what is said, but what is not said. It's easily settled...what of Amanda's housemates from when she was in college in Seattle...where are they coming forward to say the story, a well known one, is not true? I've seen no rush to deny it. Have you?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Does anybody have a good source on what exactly he has been convicted of and what he has been acquitted of? Most people just say corruption and mention wiretapping. Surely there must be an FOA source that goes into this in detail?

Go onto PMF, back around the date for the ending of his trial and you should see some articles and translations on the board. I also recommend Andrea Vogt's article on the affair...it contains an interesting subtext

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think you misunderstood me, Fulcanelli. Mignini was acquitted in the court of first instance: and convicted at the appeal. So it would appear that his account of what happened was accepted in the first trial.

I agree that there appear to be some politics in the case. As I understand it Mignini claims he sought and was granted proper authorisation. This seems to me to be demonstrable and I believe you are correct in saying that the conviction surprised many. But however that may be it does not change the fact that the case has no bearing on the this one

Right you are then

 

[HumanityBlues]

Your arbitrary opinion. You have a right to it. I also note your clear desire not to investigate it further. It is not only what is said, but what is not said. It's easily settled...what of Amanda's housemates from when she was in college in Seattle...where are they coming forward to say the story, a well known one, is not true? I've seen no rush to deny it. Have you?

I have no rush to accept it because it's third hand information that can't be validated. What would be my desire to investigate it further? Fly to Seattle and seek this person out and then go post a comment about it in a comment section so some moderator of a message board can contact me and tell everyone to "make of it what you will" hint hint hint. The person has no name, wasn't there, and allegedly heard from someone who was there, who is unnamed. That's not reliable information. I don't accept or deny it other than to say only a fool would consider it reliable at all. Maybe no one is coming forward to say it's untrue because it hasn't been reported anywhere reliable but in a comment section or a discussion board. I'm guessing they have better things to do than argue over third hand hearsay within hearsay within hearsay (yes three times) that wasn't even admitted at court. So maybe you should relook up the word "arbitrary".

 

[Fulcanelli]

Who is the source that this trial is mainly political? Mignini himself?

Clearly, you like to load your questions.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Clearly, you like to load your questions.

It's a pretty simple question. The only real source I've seen online that the verdict or charges were politically motivated come from Mignini himself. If you have some other source I'm all ears.

Your claim is implying that the judges in Florence made their decision not on law, but for political reasons. Are you then saying the Florentine judges are corrupt? How sanctimoniously xenophobic of you to say that Florentine judges are incapable of disregarding the politics of this case and coming to a fair decision based on the law.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have no rush to accept it because it's third hand information that can't be validated. What would be my desire to investigate it further? Fly to Seattle and seek this person out and then go post a comment about it in a comment section so some moderator of a message board can contact me and tell everyone to "make of it what you will" hint hint hint. The person has no name, wasn't there, and allegedly heard from someone who was there, who is unnamed. That's not reliable information. I don't accept or deny it other than to say only a fool would consider it reliable at all. Maybe no one is coming forward to say it's untrue because it hasn't been reported anywhere reliable but in a comment section or a discussion board. I'm guessing they have better things to do than argue over third hand hearsay within hearsay within hearsay (yes three times) that wasn't even admitted at court. So maybe you should relook up the word "arbitrary".

No, it's called actually approaching and interviewing people. It's about what those people have to say and their not being challenged by those who were or are placed to. It's also about comprehending nuance and scratching beneath the surface. But somehow, I'm guessing, you don't do subtle. If you find something that may be important...investigate. If you find something you disagree with...investigate. In other words, a step above simply opining on a message board

If you think I'm talking rubbish, or he is, contact him yourself. Contact Amanda's old housemates. Alternatively, you can continue to type on a message board screaming 'rubbish'.

Understand, I'm not pushing what he says as 'truth' or some other absolute, but only as something worthy of consideration. Some desperately need to understand how this crime could possibly have happened and find it hard to do so on what is known about Amanda...or at least what they've been told. This provides a possible and plausible explanation....a prank, that got out of control.

Alternatively, you can accept a sex game gone wrong or one of the other proposed motivations. It's up to you.

The only fact that has certainty is that Amanda, along with Raffaele and Rudy murdered Meredith. The evidence and clues prove this. The why, I leave up to you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's a pretty simple question. The only real source I've seen online that the verdict or charges were politically motivated come from Mignini himself. If you have some other source I'm all ears.

Your claim is implying that the judges in Florence made their decision not on law, but for political reasons. Are you then saying the Florentine judges are corrupt? How sanctimoniously xenophobic of you to say that Florentine judges are incapable of disregarding the politics of this case and coming to a fair decision based on the law.

Andrea Vogt...Barbie Nadeau...good places to start. The Perugian judiciary also...they've publicly voiced opinions on the matter, in the Italian media. Caution..don't just read the Anglo media but the Italian also.

You are also demanding I teach you a situation. I can't, because it's not a situation but a culture, the Italian political and judicial culture. That can't be taught via a few posts on a message board. I don't have the time, I wish I did..for I am generous with it when I have it.

 

[HumanityBlues]

No, it's called actually approaching and interviewing people. It's about what those people have to say and their not being challenged by those who were or are placed to. It's also about comprehending nuance and scratching beneath the surface. But somehow, I'm guessing, you don't do subtle. If you find something that may be important...investigate. If you find something you disagree with...investigate. In other words, a step above simply opining on a message board

If you think I'm talking rubbish, or he is, contact him yourself. Contact Amanda's old housemates. Alternatively, you can continue to type on a message board screaming 'rubbish'.

Understand, I'm not pushing what he says as 'truth' or some other absolute, but only as something worthy of consideration. Some desperately need to understand how this crime could possibly have happened and find it hard to do so on what is known about Amanda...or at least what they've been told. This provides a possible and plausible explanation....a prank, that got out of control.

Alternatively, you can accept a sex game gone wrong or one of the other proposed motivations. It's up to you.

The only fact that has certainty is that Amanda, along with Raffaele and Rudy murdered Meredith. The evidence and clues prove this. The why, I leave up to you.

Whomever approached someone and got thirdhand information which led to...nothing reliable. All that was excavated was gossip to be overvalued as relevant by amateurs who would believe anything negative about the suspects anyways. Sorry if I don't put a lot value in that. There's no nuance in unsubstantiated gossip, sorry. The fact the posters such as BobTheDonkey use this as acceptable proof shows just how dangerous this kind of third hand information is because it gets put into the minds and hands of fools who know nothing about restraint. You call it "rubbish", I call it "unreliable" and not worth considering. There is a difference.

Saying you're not pushing it as "truth"? What is the point of even talking about it then if it isn't true? If it isn't true, is it still worthy of consideration? I can understand the argument that maybe it's worth pursuing further--which some random person did, and they found out very little didn't they? We have no names and we have nothing that would ever be admissible in court. So what good is it?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Andrea Vogt...Barbie Nadeau...good places to start. The Perugian judiciary also...they've publicly voiced opinions on the matter, in the Italian media. Caution..don't just read the Anglo media but the Italian also.

You are also demanding I teach you a situation. I can't, because it's not a situation but a culture, the Italian political and judicial culture. That can't be taught via a few posts on a message board. I don't have the time, I wish I did..for I am generous with it when I have it.

I actually have read the authors you mention. None of them mention anything about a politically motivated conviction. Andrea Vogt's article is long and detailed, and the only hint at a politically motivated verdict in that article comes from Mignini as well where he states the crime should never have brought/charged in Florence. He has also directly stated the charges were politically motivated in another article.

Speaking of Italian sources, did you read the article in Panorama about Mignini's enemy's list, which included several journalists and public figures? That he now has a separate international body investigating him and looking through his computer? I noticed those get little mention on the forums you like to cite.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Whomever approached someone and got thirdhand information which led to...nothing reliable. All that was excavated was gossip to valued as relevant by amateurs. Sorry if I don't put a lot value in that. There's no nuance in unsubstantiated gossip, sorry. The fact the posters such as BobTheDonkey use this as acceptable proof shows just how dangerous this kind of third hand information is because it gets put into the minds and hands of fools who know nothing about restraint. You call it "rubbish", I call it "unreliable" and not worth considering. There is a difference.

Saying you're not pushing it as "truth"? What is the point of even talking about it then if it isn't true? If it isn't true, is it still worthy of consideration? I can understand the argument that maybe it's worth pursuing further--which some random person did, and they found out very little didn't they? We have no names, we have no places, we have nothing that would ever be admissible in court. So what good is it?

It's not gossip when offered by someone who personally knew and worked with one of the housemates. If that is gossip, then any witness in any trial can be classed as no more then gossips. That's your right. Some people want answers as to why this happened. You don't seem to want them, preferring to throw numerous babies out of windows with gallons of bathwater. You do so from your armchair. As such, you have an opinion but it is not qualified.

Names? Amanda's housemates' names would be on record would they not? Address...the house has an address (tip, get that from the noise disturbance ticket she was issued). Once you have those, you have the names of her housemates.

Listen...do you imagine we don't already have this stuff? It's not put out there because the guy concerned didn't want his details put on public record. We respected that. He's not after money or publicity. For some nowadays, strangely, they consider that to give someone less credibility. It used to be the other way around once.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I actually have read the authors you mention. None of them mention anything about a politically motivated conviction. Andrea Vogt's article is long and detailed, and the only hint at a politically motivated verdict in that article comes from Mignini as well where he states the crime should never have been charged in Perugia. He has also directly stated the charges were politically motivated in another article.

Speaking of Italian sources, did you read the article in Panorama about Mignini's enemy's list, which included several journalists and public figures? That he now has a separate international body investigating him and looking through his computer? I noticed those get little mention on the forums you like to cite.

I suggest you read Andrea Vogt again.

And congratulations on reading everything relevant to the whole trial during the mere ten minutes I spent answering another of your posts.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It's not gossip when offered by someone who personally knew and worked with one of the housemates. If that is gossip, then any witness in any trial can be classed as no more then gossips. That's your right. Some people want answers as to why this happened. You don't seem to want them, preferring to throw numerous babies out of windows with gallons of bathwater. You do so from your armchair. As such, you have an opinion but it is not qualified.

Names? Amanda's housemates' names would be on record would they not? Address...the house has an address (tip, get that from the noise disturbance ticket she was issued). Once you have those, you have the names of her housemates.

Listen...do you imagine we don't already have this stuff? It's not put out there because the guy concerned didn't want his details put on public record. We respected that. He's not after money or publicity. For some nowadays, strangely, they consider that to give someone less credibility. It used to be the other way around once.

Right, but none of this information is out there. So we're to be expected to "take Fulcanelli's word for it". It's rumor on message boards. I don't see any journalists clawing their way to get down to the bottom of it. This "he" you are talking about, we have no way of validating if "he" is who "he" says he is. For all you know "he" was playing you all for fools. Again, nothing substantiated. It's fine if you don't want to call it gossip, but at this point it's no better than that, so call it whatever you like. It's certainly not fact. Not one legitimate source has ever reported it to my knowledge.

It's not on public record is it? Who is "we" anyways? Whoever investigated further couldn't even get someone directly affected by it or involved to say anything. It's useless. If you want to investigate it further, by all means do. But at this point, the info remains message board gossip.

Your baby analogy is a pretty bad one. You have to let the baby in before you throw it out.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It's not gossip when offered by someone who personally knew and worked with one of the housemates. If that is gossip, then any witness in any trial can be classed as no more then gossips.

Interesting you say this. Please indulge us with what allows a witness to be deemed competent to testify in a Perugian murder trial? Do you actually know the legal standard?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Right, but none of this information is out there. So we're to be expected to "take Fulcanelli's word for it". It's rumor on message boards. I don't see any journalists clawing their way to get down to the bottom of it. This "he" you are talking about, we have no way of validating if "he" is who "he" says he is. For all you know "he" was playing you all for fools. Again, nothing substantiated. It's fine if you don't want to call it gossip, but at this point it's no better than that, so call it whatever you like. It's certainly not fact. Not one legitimate source has ever reported it to my knowledge.

It's not on public record is it? Who is "we" anyways? Whoever investigated further couldn't even get someone directly affected by it to say anything. It's useless. If you want to investigate it further, by all means do. But at this point, the info remains message board gossip.

Your baby analogy is a pretty bad one. You have to let the baby in before you throw it out.

Not Fulcanelli's word, but PMF's. You take ABC's, CNN's, Fox's word for things every day...what's the difference?

I'll tell you. PMF specialise in this case, it has worked on it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week since the crime occurred. The others are jack of many but master of none. If that doesn't get the baby in, nothing will. But then, there's no pleasing some people.