Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

Well, he more or less said it was someone "close to the defense" (my paraphrase, quote may not be exact).

He also implied that a request made by the Italian defence team (the legal defence team) to the prosecution was at the behest of the "Libby" Johnson team. This is most curious for me: technical experts in another country (the USA) who request technical data for a report which never makes it into the courtroom in the country where the trial takes place, but instead gets propaganda news treatment in the expert's home country.

Did Ghirga know about this , if it actually happened in these terms?

Too little information. Too little transparency.

This is not honest and a cutesy-pie "I-know-but-I-won't-tell-but-I'll-hint-widely" game is fine in the schoolyard. All he has to do is tell us the details and then we'll all be working from the same playbook.

This continued obfuscation is no longer cute, it's annoying.

 

[stilicho]

What was the convincing narrative that the defence (who won) came up with in that case?

Look it up. It has no place in our discussion.

 

[Juror]

What was the convincing narrative that the defence (who won) came up with in that case?

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Wow,
Away for one day and it took me awhile just to read the posts I missed. I think Bruce tends to pass on things he picks up at "Amanda is innocent" type sites without considering the possibility of that information being somewhat less than truthful. The posed picture of the broken pipe under the sink is one example that still bugs me. I have tried to say nice things about his website as well and I have tried to make him welcome. I thought the comment about the fish was pretty funny even if I was included as one of the fish. There is a lot of spin on the "Amanda is guilty" sites as well. I think the back and forth over who has more errors or lies is one way, although perhaps not the best way, to get at the truth. And it does provide for some humorous exchanges.

I also agree with Christiana, I think Halkides is an honest person. I have had some contact with him over a case prior to this one and he seems to me to go to great lengths to be up front about things. Being honest does not make a persons opinion of the case the correct one but at least it's a start.

The photo was not shown to show a broken pipe. The photo was shown to show soap. I do think that you are mistaken about the pipe being staged. There is certainly no proof of that. I made a mistake about soap that has been blown way out of proportion.

The only site that you can be referring to is the FOA site. I post the petition from that site and I posted that photo.

You wrote: "I think Bruce tends to pass on things he picks up at "Amanda is innocent" type sites without considering the possibility of that information being somewhat less than truthful."

I think the petition is very credible. I was wrong about soap. It changes nothing in regard to the knife. The correction simply strengthened my argument.

So I guess your observation is in regard to those two items. If there is anything else that you see, I would be more than happy to talk about it.

Injustice in Perugia contains a lot of information. I have spoken with many people in regard to this case. I have done extensive research. The site provides very credible information. When minor errors are found, I correct them. I am human, I don't pretend to be perfect.

 

[Alt+F4]

The photo was not shown to show a broken pipe.

The why was the photo named "broken_pipe.jpg"?

 

[shuttlt]

Bruce,

A while back you said this:

PMF lied for 2 years about Amanda being arrested in Seattle. It was finally corrected by a new reader on PMF recently. The moderators of that board knew the truth but never corrected it. I mentioned it here and it was completely ignored.

But nothing seems to have come of this. I had hoped that you would link to PMF posts to support your assertion. If you have done so I missed it.

Since then there has been a bit of talk about all the criticism your site has been receiving. I suggested you come up with a list of the top couple of errors on TrueJustice, but again, I don't think that went anywhere. That being the case I thought I'd look into the issue of Amanda's Seattle "arrest" as represented by PMF.

I've been doing Google searches along the lines of "site: perugiamurderfile.org amanda seattle arrest noise party" without finding anything. I'm happy to subject PMF to the same analysis as InjusticeInPerugia (though the scope of a discussion forum makes it far harder). Are you able to link to a PMF post making this kind of claim?

I did find this from november 2009:
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=
Which seems to be the official PMF post on the issue from Michael which makes it clear that she just received a ticket and a fine.

Here is a snip from a post from Machine from june '09, where he makes it clear that she was not arrested:

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

See Cad event 264012 for further.

No further action taken at this time.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&p=13747

Before that only pro-Amanda posters had access to the police record of the incident. It seems the text was eventually published by a newspaper around then.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
Bruce, when did I ever declare to you that Amanda's shoe print was on the pillow? When did we ever have any debate about this question?

The text of yours which I have put in bold could just as easily be: "So Abraham Lincoln was not a cocaine sniffer. End of conversation."

This entire conversation started because you were trying to discredit me because of the photographic evidence that I showed proving that Amanda's shoe print was not on the pillow.

I know, you didn't like that I said perfect match back on the daily beast page. It doesn't matter. We have confirmation that Rudy's prints are there, Amanda's are not. Nothing else matters.

You agree that Amanda's shoe print was not there. That's all I care about.

 

[katy_did]

Why not? In other cases the source of DNA contamination often came from those collecting the evidence, those testing the evidence or from other cases the lab was working on. I'm unclear on how Raffaele's defense team plans to argue contamination when they have no scientific evidence it took place.

Your theory that Raffaele only used part of the towel to dry his hands and it was that particular part of the towel that later landed on the bra clasp seems far-fetched to me.

I think it needs to be shown that contamination is possible, but it's unlikely it would be proven. How could it? Supposing the contamination occurred as a result of the hand towels. In this case, it would be impossible for the defence to prove it, because the towels were never tested. But even if they were tested, and Raffaele's DNA were present on them, all that would show is that his DNA was present on an item in the room, close to where the bra clasp was found. It wouldn't definitively prove that the clasp had been contaminated, merely that it could have been.

I'm not sure why what I suggested is particularly farfetched. Supposing the bra clasp did come into contact with the towel. The DNA on the towel wouldn't be equally distributed, nor would it be in strict proportion to the number of times someone had used it. So whose DNA was transferred to the clasp would depend entirely on the lottery of which area of the towel it came into contact with. I'm sure there's some statistical argument to illustrate this principal, if I only knew what it was...

It may be important too that Raffaele was likely one of the last people to use the bathroom, the day of the murder. I'm guessing here, but possibly that may mean his DNA would be more evident than someone who'd used the bathroom a week earlier, for example.

 

[Fiona]

Guiliano Mignini was the lead prosecutor in the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito murder trial.

That is correct

Mignini was quick to take complete control over the investigation.

That is not correct. You need to do some work on the respective roles of judges and the prosecutors in the Italian system

Mignini had a vision of how this crime took place. He believed the crime started out as a sadistic sex game that turned into a brutal murder when Meredith refused to participate.

I thnk this is very debatable but I see no reason not to let it stand: do you know that this was not the case? I don't. I dont think anybody does. We really do not know what happened, do we?

His fantasy of a group sex game gone wrong was based on nothing more than his imagination.

Well no. There were the small details of evidence showing that more than one attacker was involved and that Meredith was sexually assaulted. That is not imagination

This is not the first time Mignini has had these visions. He already had a history of dreaming up satanic ritualistic murder fantasies.

That is wrong, so far as I have been able to determne. What evidence do you have in support of it?

Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba were arrested in Perugia Italy, on November 6th. 2007.

Yes. I notice that you make no mention of why Lumumba was arrested: one might think it is a lie of omission, but let that pass

As the investigation progressed, investigators found a hand print on the bed at the crime scene. The finger prints pointed to an African man, Rudy Guede.

Yes

Further investigation showed all of the evidence at the crime scene pointed to Guede.

That is wrong

Patrick Lumumba had an unshakable alibi and he was eventually released.

Yes he was.

The evidence was clear. There was no evidence at all to suggest that Meredith was killed during a satanic ritualistic group sex game.

Mignini never suggested that there was a satanc or ritualistic element to this. But there is evidence to show that she was attacked by more than one person and that she was sexually assaulted.

Prosecutor Mignini should have taken an entirely new look at the case.

Your opinion that he should have re-assessed the case, and did not, is noted.

He had plenty of evidence to convict Rudy Guede.

Indeed he did: and that is why Guede was convicted

He had no evidence to convict Amanda and Raffaele.

That is not correct

Mignini refused to rethink his original theory.

Mere assertion.

He was convinced that Meredith Kercher was murdered in a group sex game.

You have no idea what was in his mind, and once again you omit the evidence which showed that Meredith was killed by more than one attacker. You may think that evidence is flawed, and you are perfectly free to show why it is if you can: but it is disingenuous to deny its existence. Nothing very factual about doing that

His office ran a smear campaign against Amanda Knox. Misinformation and outright lies were released to the public from Mignini's office.

Evidence for that? Most of what was released was released by the defence so far as I have been able to determine. In order to stick to the facts I think you need to specify what Mignini released and show how you know.

He was already under investigation for abuse of office in another case.

Not sure of the time frame, but ok

He appeared to be using the same tactics in this case.

What tactics are you referring to? Nicely vague. If you are interested in the facts I think you need to do a little better than that. Please be specific

He successfully destroyed Amanda Knox in the court of public opinion.

Evidence for that?

She was considered guilty long before her trial ever started.

By whom? What evidence have you for that assertion?

This was largely in part to Mignini's use of the media to spread his lies. Mignini succeeded in his quest to convict two innocent people.

Mere assertion and smear. Any evidence at all?

Shortly after Amanda and Raffaele were convicted, Mignini himself, was convicted.

Certainly

You can read an update about Mignini's conviction at the bottom of this page. Mignini was convicted of prosecutorial misconduct for his abuses committed during the Monster of Florence case. He received a sixteen month sentence for abuse of office and bugging journalists in connection with the Francesco Narducci (Monster of Florence) case.

He was certainly convicted and sentenced as you say: however Narducci's case is not the M of F case. That needs to be corrected

There was a series of murders that occurred in Italy during the 1970s and 80s. The perpetrator of the murders was given the name "Monster of Florence" by the press. Young couples who were parked in remote areas presumably to have sex, were shot and the bodies of the female victims were mutilated.

Certainly

Crime experts believed that the perpetrator was a Jack the Ripper type killer.

Who were these experts? I am sure some did, but can you cite?

Mignini got involved in the Monster of Florence case while investigating the death of Dr. Francesco Narducci, whose drowned corpse was found in a lake near Perugia.

Was he drowned? Are you sure?

Mignini was far from an expert in these types of murders.

Is anyone?

He was a conspiracy theorist that liked to dream up wild fantasies.

No evidence for that at all

Mignini's theory was that the young couples were murdered so that their body parts could be used in rituals by satanic cults.

Do you have any evidence of that at all? I think it is nonsense on the basis of what I have read.

Mignini believed that Dr. Narducci belonged to this cult, but he had become a security risk, so other cult members decided to kill him and make it look like an accident or suicide.

Evidence?

His theory was challenged by author Douglas Preston and his writing partner Mario Spezi.

They preferred the story which started with the Sardinian sex maniacs, yes

Douglas and Mario decided to write a book about the Monster of Florence.

Spezi had already written a book about the MofF. Didn't do very well.

They both agreed that Mignini's theory was ridiculous. Mario Spezi stated so publicly.

Spezi did say publicly that the police theory was ridiculous, but that was not Mignini's theory

Mignini didn't like being challenged.

Nonsense. None of the authorities liked Spezi and Preston interfering in a murder investigation. That is as one would expect.

Mignini had Spezi's office ransacked and he bugged his car.

Ransacked is loaded, but ok. He had reason to believe that they were interfering in the investigation and he took steps to establish that. He applied to take this action before a judge, as he should. This is confirmed in your own Panorama link. His conduct was later subject to legal challenge on several counts: all but one was thrown out and so far as I recall he was convicted on appeal of overstepping his powers because the evidence presented retrospectively in support of the application was deemed insufficient. I think the detail is important because you are painting with a broad brush to a purpose

Mignini interrogated Preston and forced him to leave the country.

Nonsense.

Mignini arrested Spezi and threw him in jail. After three weeks in solitary confinement for no reason whatsoever, a judge ordered Spezi released despite Mignini's objections.

He did arrest him and hold him in custody for the 48 hours he is empowered to do that. After that the decision to hold someone is taken by a judge. And it is regularly and closely reviewed by judges who are required to release unless very good grounds indeed are shown to obtain and to make release unsafe. This is all very ordinary in the Italian system and again is confirmed in your own link

Mario Spezi's arrest drew the attention of CPJ, The Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent, nonpartisan organization dedicated to defending the rights of journalists worldwide. CPJ released a letter in regard to Spezi's arrest.

They certainly did. I believe that is what they are for?

Douglas Preston was interrogated by Mignini. He was accused of being an accessory to murder involving the Monster of Florence case.

No,he wasn't

He was made to believe that he would never see his family again. He thought he was going to an Italian prison. Preston says that his knees were shaking. He could hardly walk when he stood up. He was terrified. Mignini successfully forced Preston to leave Italy. Read all about the Monster of Florence case from Douglas Preston: A true crime story By Douglas Preston.

He certainly was terrified. It is curious. This is the same man who, with his pal Spezi, confronted a psychopathic serial killer in his home: and made it plain to that serial killer that he was onto him: and continued to interfere in his affairs (without informing the police) after the killer threatened him: yet was terrified by a couple of hours of questioning by Mignini and his ever so scary stenographer

Mignini attacks anyone who disagrees with him.

Evidence? I know he brings charges against those who defame him: hardly the same thing. If that is not what you are referring to can you give some detail?

Spezi and Preston simply disagreed with Mignini's view of a crime.

Nonsense

Mignini tried to destroy their lives.

Nonsense

Mignini's tactics didn't change during Amanda and Raffaele's trial. Once again, Mignini attacked his critics. He has filed defamation charges against anyone that has publicly dared to disagree with him.

So you have a defamation charge against you, do you? He files charges against anyone who defames him so I assume that you do? In fact what he does is file defamation charges against some of the people who publicly defame him. Seems fair enough to me

Mignini has used these lawsuits to embarrass Amanda & Raffaele. He has attacked their families and their lawyers. He has used these lawsuits in an attempt to put fear into the minds of journalists in hopes to silence them. Here is a list of Mignini's lawsuits. The count stands at twelve. Who's next?

Nothing embarrassing or silencing about it: he has either been defamed or he hasn't. If he hasn't he will lose in court: if he has he will win. Do you see something wrong with that? Hardly likely to silence anyone who can evidence what they say

1. Amanda Knox: Charged with defamation of the police for claiming she was hit on the back of her head during her illegal interrogation. The wrongful conviction wasn't enough for Mignini.

The interrogation was not illegal: you know that. Your statement that she has been wrongly convicted is your opinion. Your inference that Mignini does not believe her to be guilty is defamatory, unless you have evidence to back it up?

If she was not hit then it is defamatory to claim that she was. But I had the impression that it was the police who filed that suit. I may be wrong. What is certainly true is that Mignini ordered an investigation in to the allegation. He has no choice but to do that. Italian prosecutors must investigate when a crime is alleged. And that investigation is under an inquisitorial system, with all that implies in terms of search for the truth: in this case someone committed a crime. Either the police were guilty of brutality of Knox was guilty of defamation. So it goes

2 & 3. Edda Mellas and Curt Knox: Amanda's parents were served with papers just before the ruling against their daughter, for simply repeating their daughters court testimony. During an interview, Amanda's parents told a reporter that Amanda testified in court, that she had been hit on the back of the head.They simply repeated the court testimony of their daughter. For that, Mignini slapped a lawsuit on them.

Can you cite for that? I do not think that is what happened. The suit relates to this article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4113087.ece

and it includes the statement:

Her family says that despite her good marks at university, Knox was not fluent in Italian, but no professional interpreter was present, only a police officer who could speak English and who was not always there. She was given no food and no water for all the nine hours. “I’ve never been so scared in my life,” Knox told Deanna later. Curt says: “Amanda was abused physically and verbally. She told us she was hit in the back of the head by a police officer with an open hand, at least twice. The police told her, ‘If you ask for a lawyer, things will get worse for you’ and ‘If you don’t give us some explanation for what happened, you’re going to go to jail for a very long time.’” Edda adds tearfully: “She was told she wouldn’t ever see her family again, and her family is everything to her.”

While it is not all in quotes more than the allegations of her being hit are attributed to the family. Not sure how the fact that it is attributed rather than quoted affects a defamation suit. Did they challenge the attribution? Write a letter to the Times? anything?
Again, I was under the impression that the suit was filed by the police.

Is he trying to keep them from visiting their daughter in prison? Is he really that cold hearted? I say yes. In my opinion, Mignini is an Unstable, cold hearted, worthless excuse of a human being.

Your opinion is duly noted. Since you have no evidence at all so far it is not worth much: but you are, of course, entitled to it.

4. The West Seattle Herald: Mignini filed defamation charges in this case because Herald reporter Steve Shay quoted other people saying Mignini was "mentally unstable". Mignini actually filed a lawsuit against a newspaper in Seattle Washington because they hurt his feelings. Read more here.

Did they have a psychiatric opinion to back up this statement? I am sure they did and in that case there is no danger at all. What is your problem ? Of course if they do not have expert testimony or solid evidence....

5. Joe Cottonwood - www.joecottonwood.com. Take a look at Joe's Website. Joe is a fiction writer. Joe doesn't even like Amanda Knox. He was simply voicing his opinion about the case. Why was Mignini threatened by him?

Here is Joe's quote that won him the honors of a Magnini lawsuit: "The Meredith Kercher murder is one of those mirrors that reflects the prejudices of whoever is looking into it. There is no physical evidence and no credible motive, and yet an egotistical prosecutor is blaming Amanda Knox anyway. In the USA, this would only happen if she were black. Perhaps partying American college kids are so hated in Italy that Amanda will be treated as blacks are treated in the USA, and she will be convicted not because of the evidence but because of general resentment of shallow rich Americans. Personally, from what I've read I don't like Amanda Knox. She sounds spoiled, naive, and shallow. But that's not a crime. I loathe the prosecutor, who has a counterpart in every city in the USA - a preening, intellectually dishonest bully who cares more about making newspaper headlines than in serving justice. It's the same all over the world. Power and prejudice are the enemies of justice."

You dont think that is defamatory? Well seeing what you wrote above I can see you might not: standards differ

6. Luciano Ghirga, an attorney for Amanda Knox.

7. Luca Maori, an attorney for Raffaele Sollecito

8. Giangavino Sulas, journalist for Oggi magazine

9. The director and editor of Oggi magazine

Not seen the details of these, so I cannot comment. I know that they were mentioned on perugiashock but I did not see the specifics

10. Mario Spezi: Italian journalist who co-wrote The Monster of Florence with journalist and author Doug Preston. Mignini continues to torment Spezi for simply disagreeing with him.

He has issued a defamation charge and I believe that will be determined in the court as it should be: but your assertion as to the motive is no better than assertion.

11. Francesca Bene, an Italian reporter, said Knox had, in her opinion, advanced her cause by making clear what police had not previously conceded , that Knox thought she was being a helpful witness when in fact police were targeting her as a suspect and should have told her so. Mignini didn't like hearing the truth from Bene.[/quote]

This is an allegation that the police broke the law: I am surprised if it was not the police who brought the charges, but again this is not something I know any detail about

12. Gabriella Carlizzi: Carlizzi is a psychic. Mignini has charged Carlizzi with defamation multiple times. Doug Preston says that Mignini used Carlizzi as a witness in the Monster of Florence Case.

Yes, Preston did say that. Others say other things
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...1/the-other-murders-that-could-save-her/full/

In the afterword, Preston writes that Mignini relies on a Roman psychic named Gabriella Carlizzi, who advises him on satanic sects—a point denied by both Carlizzi and Mignini, although they do admit knowing each other. (In fact, Mignini has charged Carlizzi with defamation on more than one occasion.)

Mignini actually keeps blacklists. It has been reported that he targets his enemies. Click on the link below to read an article from Panorama Magazine. The text has been translated.

Giuliano Mignini's List of Enemies Detailed in Panorama Magazine

No idea of the status of that publication. It does not give enough detail and seems to be somewhat sensational, but that is not to say that it is not well researched as to the facts. I dont know. However the insinuations about what to make of the lists does not take account of the fact that the police believed their investigation was being obstructed by some powerful people in Florence. If that is the suspicion (right or wrong) then this is not unusual behaviour: I believe that institutionalised corruption almost requires that kind of approach. I will be interested in hearing other views about that

The Truth About Giuliano Mignini's Conviction

Tuesday, April 20, 2010 by Ray Turner

A few months ago the head prosecutor in the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Giuliano Mignini, was convicted for conducting illegal investigations in connection with the Narducci case, an alleged murder originally thought to be a suicide. Incidentally, Mignini submitted a ridiculous "switched-body" scenario in that case just as ludicrous as his theory in the case at hand. For some context on the Narducci case, here is a short explanation.

Aside from the possibility of being forced from office as prosecutor, the Narducci case could have further repurcussions. Mignini's computer was seized and contained an enemies list. You can read more on that here.

Below is an explanation of the charges and conviction against Giuliano Mignini as well as the charge where he was acquitted.

Click here to view the sentencing report for Giuliano Mignini.

Do you have a translation of the reasons for decision, because I would like to see that? What you have posted here is very interesting and I am conscious that Mignini was originally acquitted: on the basis of what is cited here that is a bit surprising. Translations of both "motivations" would be instructive

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce,

A while back you said this:


But nothing seems to have come of this. I had hoped that you would link to PMF posts to support your assertion. If you have done so I missed it.

Since then there has been a bit of talk about all the criticism your site has been receiving. I suggested you come up with a list of the top couple of errors on TrueJustice, but again, I don't think that went anywhere. That being the case I thought I'd look into the issue of Amanda's Seattle "arrest" as represented by PMF.

I've been doing Google searches along the lines of "site: perugiamurderfile.org amanda seattle arrest noise party" without finding anything. I'm happy to subject PMF to the same analysis as InjusticeInPerugia (though the scope of a discussion forum makes it far harder). Are you able to link to a PMF post making this kind of claim?

I did find this from november 2009:
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=
Which seems to be the official PMF post on the issue from Michael which makes it clear that she just received a ticket and a fine.

Okay, Harry Rag who posts as "The Machine" on true justice and PMF has been spreading this lie in his cut and paste promotion campaign for the last two years. His posts stating this lie link back to TJ and PMF. He has posted articles on true justice stating this lie. He has also posted this on the discussion board repeatedly on PMF. He was never corrected by Fulcanelli or peggy. Finally a new reader called him on it. Now they made the correction after all of this time.

TJ and PMF's number one recruiter posted these lies for 2 years. They knowingly let it go.

 

[Alt+F4]

I think it needs to be shown that contamination is possible, but it's unlikely it would be proven. How could it?

Raffele's defense team could try to match the unknown DNA on the bra clasp with those persons who collected the clasp, tested the clasp and against other cases being worked on at the lab. Many cases of DNA contamination have come from those sources and since the towels weren't tested, it seems to be the most logical place to try and prove contamination.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

That is correct



That is not correct. You need to do some work on the respective roles of judges and the prosecutors in the Italian system



I thnk this is very debatable but I see no reason not to let it stand: do you know that this was not the case? I don't. I dont think anybody does. We really do not know what happened, do we?



Well no. There were the small details of evidence showing that more than one attacker was involved and that Meredith was sexually assaulted. That is not imagination



That is wrong, so far as I have been able to determne. What evidence do you have in support of it?



Yes. I notice that you make no mention of why Lumumba was arrested: one might think it is a lie of omission, but let that pass



Yes




That is wrong



Yes he was.



Mignini never suggested that there was a satanc or ritualistic element to this. But there is evidence to show that she was attacked by more than one person and that she was sexually assaulted.



Your opinion that he should have re-assessed the case, and did not, is noted.



Indeed he did: and that is why Guede was convicted



That is not correct



Mere assertion.




You have no idea what was in his mind, and once again you omit the evidence which showed that Meredith was killed by more than one attacker. You may think that evidence is flawed, and you are perfectly free to show why it is if you can: but it is disingenuous to deny its existence. Nothing very factual about doing that



Evidence for that? Most of what was released was released by the defence so far as I have been able to determine. In order to stick to the facts I think you need to specify what Mignini released and show how you know.



Not sure of the time frame, but ok



What tactics are you referring to? Nicely vague. If you are interested in the facts I think you need to do a little better than that. Please be specific



Evidence for that?



By whom? What evidence have you for that assertion?




Mere assertion and smear. Any evidence at all?



Certainly



He was certainly convicted and sentenced as you say: however Narducci's case is not the M of F case. That needs to be corrected



Certainly



Who were these experts? I am sure some did, but can you cite?



Was he drowned? Are you sure?



Is anyone?



No evidence for that at all



Do you have any evidence of that at all? I think it is nonsense on the basis of what I have read.



Evidence?



They preferred the story which started with the Sardinian sex maniacs, yes



Spezi had already written a book about the MofF. Didn't do very well.



Spezi did say publicly that the police theory was ridiculous, but that was not Mignini's theory



Nonsense. None of the authorities liked Spezi and Preston interfering in a murder investigation. That is as one would expect.



Ransacked is loaded, but ok. He had reason to believe that they were interfering in the investigation and he took steps to establish that. He applied to take this action before a judge, as he should. This is confirmed in your own Panorama link. His conduct was later subject to legal challenge on several counts: all but one was thrown out and so far as I recall he was convicted on appeal of overstepping his powers because the evidence presented retrospectively in support of the application was deemed insufficient. I think the detail is important because you are painting with a broad brush to a purpose



Nonsense.



He did arrest him and hold him in custody for the 48 hours he is empowered to do that. After that the decision to hold someone is taken by a judge. And it is regularly and closely reviewed by judges who are required to release unless very good grounds indeed are shown to obtain and to make release unsafe. This is all very ordinary in the Italian system and again is confirmed in your own link



They certainly did. I believe that is what they are for?



No,he wasn't



He certainly was terrified. It is curious. This is the same man who, with his pal Spezi, confronted a psychopathic serial killer in his home: and made it plain to that serial killer that he was onto him: and continued to interfere in his affairs (without informing the police) after the killer threatened him: yet was terrified by a couple of hours of questioning by Mignini and his ever so scary stenographer



Evidence? I know he brings charges against those who defame him: hardly the same thing. If that is not what you are referring to can you give some detail?



Nonsense



Nonsense



So you have a defamation charge against you, do you? He files charges against anyone who defames him so I assume that you do? In fact what he does is file defamation charges against some of the people who publicly defame him. Seems fair enough to me




Nothing embarrassing or silencing about it: he has either been defamed or he hasn't. If he hasn't he will lose in court: if he has he will win. Do you see something wrong with that? Hardly likely to silence anyone who can evidence what they say



The interrogation was not illegal: you know that. Your statement that she has been wrongly convicted is your opinion. Your inference that Mignini does not believe her to be guilty is defamatory, unless you have evidence to back it up?

If she was not hit then it is defamatory to claim that she was. But I had the impression that it was the police who filed that suit. I may be wrong. What is certainly true is that Mignini ordered an investigation in to the allegation. He has no choice but to do that. Italian prosecutors must investigate when a crime is alleged. And that investigation is under an inquisitorial system, with all that implies in terms of search for the truth: in this case someone committed a crime. Either the police were guilty of brutality of Knox was guilty of defamation. So it goes




Can you cite for that? I do not think that is what happened. The suit relates to this article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4113087.ece

and it includes the statement:



While it is not all in quotes more than the allegations of her being hit are attributed to the family. Not sure how the fact that it is attributed rather than quoted affects a defamation suit. Did they challenge the attribution? Write a letter to the Times? anything?
Again, I was under the impression that the suit was filed by the police.



Your opinion is duly noted. Since you have no evidence at all so far it is not worth much: but you are, of course, entitled to it.



Did they have a psychiatric opinion to back up this statement? I am sure they did and in that case there is no danger at all. What is your problem ? Of course if they do not have expert testimony or solid evidence....



You dont think that is defamatory? Well seeing what you wrote above I can see you might not: standards differ



Not seen the details of these, so I cannot comment. I know that they were mentioned on perugiashock but I did not see the specifics




He has issued a defamation charge and I believe that will be determined in the court as it should be: but your assertion as to the motive is no better than assertion.

11. Francesca Bene, an Italian reporter, said Knox had, in her opinion, advanced her cause by making clear what police had not previously conceded , that Knox thought she was being a helpful witness when in fact police were targeting her as a suspect and should have told her so. Mignini didn't like hearing the truth from Bene.

This is an allegation that the police broke the law: I am surprised if it was not the police who brought the charges, but again this is not something I know any detail about



Yes, Preston did say that. Others say other things
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...1/the-other-murders-that-could-save-her/full/




No idea of the status of that publication. It does not give enough detail and seems to be somewhat sensational, but that is not to say that it is not well researched as to the facts. I dont know. However the insinuations about what to make of the lists does not take account of the fact that the police believed their investigation was being obstructed by some powerful people in Florence. If that is the suspicion (right or wrong) then this is not unusual behaviour: I believe that institutionalised corruption almost requires that kind of approach. I will be interested in hearing other views about that




Do you have a translation of the reasons for decision, because I would like to see that? What you have posted here is very interesting and I am conscious that Mignini was originally acquitted: on the basis of what is cited here that is a bit surprising. Translations of both "motivations" would be instructive[/QUOTE]

You just took a lot of your own personal time to show me your own personal opinion. We already know that we both disagree. We could have agreed on that and you could have saved a lot of time.

 

[katy_did]

It does when you're trying to construct a viable alternate narrative. That's the problem with a lot of this guesswork posing as erudition. You can't just walk into a courtroom and throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. You have to come up with a convincing narrative. You only have to look as far as the OJ case if you want a high profile example of how that works.

Well, I would tend to agree with you as regards the jury demanding a convincing narrative. The problem here is that there's a clash between the realities of scientific evidence, and what the jury expect to see. As I understand it, contamination can't be definitively proven, which is why control measures are necessary. If it were easy to tell whether contamination occurred, a scientist could just look at the way the sample had been treated and say "Nope, no risk of contamination here". They carry out control tests because it is impossible to tell how and when contamination occurred. As I think Halides has said previously, it's like trying to figure out where and when you caught a cold. You might be able to take an educated guess, but you can't prove it, and you might have no idea at all where you got it from.

But yes, the jury demand definite answers, and that's a problem when there aren't any. It should be enough to show that contamination was possible; but instead, the jury want to see a definite source, and a definite time it occurred, and they want hard evidence of both, even when that evidence is impossible to provide. It's a clash between science and the law (among other things), and one of the problems with scientific evidence.

 

[Fiona]

This entire conversation started because you were trying to discredit me because of the photographic evidence that I showed proving that Amanda's shoe print was not on the pillow.

I know, you didn't like that I said perfect match back on the daily beast page. It doesn't matter. We have confirmation that Rudy's prints are there, Amanda's are not. Nothing else matters.

You agree that Amanda's shoe print was not there. That's all I care about.

Bruce Fisher it might help if you read this thread. It has never been claimed that Knox's shoeprint was on the pillow, so far as I recall. I do remember saying that there was a smaller shoeprint which did not match Meredith's and did not match any of Amanda's shoes either and that the police did not attribute it.That was very early on and I do not recall that ever being challenged.

It seems to me that you were stating that there were five prints unambiguously matched to guede's. I do not think that is correct and I thought that was what the discussion was about. But if you feel you have won a point in saying that knox's shoeprint cannot be shown to be there then it really has been a waste of time because nobody said it was.

 

[katy_did]

Raffele's defense team could try to match the unknown DNA on the bra clasp with those persons who collected the clasp, tested the clasp and against other cases being worked on at the lab. Many cases of DNA contamination have come from those sources and since the towels weren't tested, it seems to be the most logical place to try and prove contamination.

Well, they could, yes (as well as Laura and Filomena, which, if the DNA came from the towels, would probably be the most likely source. A couple of the mixed DNA samples taken from the bathroom also showed signs of other people's DNA - IIRC, in the sink, and the box of cotton buds - so that would be something else they could look into). But even if they did, it still wouldn't prove Raffaele's DNA arrived via contamination, would it? It wouldn't be any more proof of contamination than the existence of other people's DNA on the clasp in the first place. It still wouldn't be proof.

 

[RoseMontague]

The photo was not shown to show a broken pipe. The photo was shown to show soap. I do think that you are mistaken about the pipe being staged. There is certainly no proof of that. I made a mistake about soap that has been blown way out of proportion.

The only site that you can be referring to is the FOA site. I post the petition from that site and I posted that photo.

You wrote: "I think Bruce tends to pass on things he picks up at "Amanda is innocent" type sites without considering the possibility of that information being somewhat less than truthful."

I think the petition is very credible. I was wrong about soap. It changes nothing in regard to the knife. The correction simply strengthened my argument.

So I guess your observation is in regard to those two items. If there is anything else that you see, I would be more than happy to talk about it.

Injustice in Perugia contains a lot of information. I have spoken with many people in regard to this case. I have done extensive research. The site provides very credible information. When minor errors are found, I correct them. I am human, I don't pretend to be perfect.

Don't get defensive with me Bruce. I remain open on the question of guilt or innocence. I understand you cropped the broken pipe picture to show the soap. In my opinion, both the pipe and soap were posed to make the busted pipe story (not the accidental water spill from Amanda's email) more credible.

That is my opinion and you have not tried to change my mind with any facts. Who took the picture? The date on the picture is 11/16/2007. Is that really when that picture was taken? Did we ever get any information on that plumber and exactly what he fixed only didn't fix that well?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hmm, let's step back a second here. You say "Rudy leaves none of his DNA on the towels". How do we know? They were never tested. His DNA may not have been transferred from the towels to the bra clasp in the same way as DNA from other people possibly was, but it's rather an illogical leap from that to conclude that his DNA was nowhere on the towels. It's like saying, "Rudy's DNA wasn't on the left cup of the bra, so it can't have been anywhere else on the bra either".

We don't know Tidy's DNA wasn't on the towels, it most probably was. And since none of his DNA was on the clasp that therefore completely undermines your argument that he transferred DNA from the clasp to the towels.

Raffaele had visited the cottage fairly frequently in the week leading up to the murder (Laura said he'd visited 4 or 5 times while she was there, which would indicate it was probably more than that).

And most of the times he visited he simply waited for Amanda to quickly get her stuff.

It seems reasonable to assume that during some of these visits, he used the bathroom, and reasonable again to assume that he used the hand towels to dry his hands.

I don't think it's reasonable to 'assume' at all and really, you are doing one hell of a lot of assuming. You are assuming that he used the bathroom during what were very brief and few visits. You are assuming that if he used the bathroom he used the little bathroom and not the larger bathroom. You are assuming he then bothered to wash his hands (most men don't bother after only a pee), you are then assuming he used a towel instead of shaking his hands off to dry them. You are then assuming he actually left DNA on the towel, you are assuming it was then 'that' towel that Rudy removed from the bathroom. You then assume Rudy stepped on the towel, you are assuming that then Raffaele's DNA and his alone (not Rudy's or Meredith's boyfriend's who was also likely on the towel) transferred onto his shore, you are then assuming Rudy stepped on the clasp (despite the clear evidence otherwise, you are then assuming Raffaele's DNA transferred from Rudy's shoe to the clasp which you are also assuming wasn't under the pillow with final assumption that this DNA transfer was of high volume.

That's one hell of a lot of assuming and I'm out of breath listing all of those assumptions. When one has to make so many assumptions in a row...it is self evident that ones argument is complete pants. And as for Occam, the poor man would be turning in his grave.

 

[Fiona]

This is an allegation that the police broke the law: I am surprised if it was not the police who brought the charges, but again this is not something I know any detail about



Yes, Preston did say that. Others say other things
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...1/the-other-murders-that-could-save-her/full/




No idea of the status of that publication. It does not give enough detail and seems to be somewhat sensational, but that is not to say that it is not well researched as to the facts. I dont know. However the insinuations about what to make of the lists does not take account of the fact that the police believed their investigation was being obstructed by some powerful people in Florence. If that is the suspicion (right or wrong) then this is not unusual behaviour: I believe that institutionalised corruption almost requires that kind of approach. I will be interested in hearing other views about that




Do you have a translation of the reasons for decision, because I would like to see that? What you have posted here is very interesting and I am conscious that Mignini was originally acquitted: on the basis of what is cited here that is a bit surprising. Translations of both "motivations" would be instructive

You just took a lot of your own personal time to show me your own personal opinion. We already know that we both disagree. We could have agreed on that and you could have saved a lot of time.[/QUOTE]

Er, no. I took a lot of my own personal time to meet your request about where your site needs correction or evidence in support of the statements. Only one part of it of course: but you did ask

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Fiona, anyone can do what you just did to any site on the web to prove or disprove anything. Every single detail is not noted on any site. Every site would be completely over run with text and no one would read it. With your line of thinking, nothing would ever be proven one way or another. There would never be a conclusion.

I am sure that the readers on the board will agree with you. That's fine. Try your tactic with any site online. Break them all down sentence by sentence and see if every single point is referenced.

 

[shuttlt]

Okay, Harry Rag who posts as "The Machine" on true justice and PMF has been spreading this lie in his cut and paste promotion campaign for the last two years. His posts stating this lie link back to TJ and PMF. He has posted articles on true justice stating this lie. He has also posted this on the discussion board repeatedly on PMF. He was never corrected by Fulcanelli or peggy. Finally a new reader called him on it. Now they made the correction after all of this time.

TJ and PMF's number one recruiter posted these lies for 2 years. They knowingly let it go.

It can only have been 18 months, but that is a rather quibbling objection. I don't suppose you could link to one of these Machine posts. I honestly have never seen one that matches your description. At the moment it seems to me that the Machine was the one who revealed the truth about the noise ticket to PMF the moment documentary evidence was available. Prior to that only pro-Amanda posters had had access to the noise ticket, but for what ever reason didn't share it.