Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

Perhaps further repetition will be helpful in eliciting a response:

CoulsdonUK, suppose that the answers to your question are "no" and "no".

What do you think follows, and why?

Until you answer this question you are not actually making a joined-up argument, you are merely hinting that perhaps you might have a joined-up argument to make some time in the future.

 

[RoseMontague]

Halides1

Katody Matrass did everything but answer what were simple questions, as I am sure you realise.

I conclude that people of like mind put forward assertions which then transform into hard facts in some people’s minds. Raffaele and Amanda are part of a legal process which may or may not end in their release; some of their supporters would strangely argue that they are innocent until their release or confirmation of their sentence, yet Mignini is “guilty”, so people are expected to accept Raffaele and Amanda’s possible innocence but not Mignini!

To repeat the questions which were directed to Antony and are to be honest fairly straight forward:

1:

Has police misconduct and or misdeeds been raised in either defence submissions or are you expressing an opinion?

2:

Has any police officer or forensic officer been disciplined in connection to (with) the investigation or trial?

1. I don't think the defence lawyers are in a big rush to face a possible calumnia charge. It appears a strategy of pointing out certain things to the appeal judge and leading the court to a conclusion along those lines.

One example is the written technical SAL reports that the defense originally received. The appeal asks the court to look into the differences between the earlier reports and what was revealed in July 2009. They are not just coming out and saying impropriety but rather letting the judge make the investigation and conclusion from that.

2. Not that I am aware of although I believe you brought up Raffaele's sister losing her job. I would guess that the inspector that originally reported the interviews with the shopkeeper received some grief as well as those wannabe actors in the bra clasp video. And the officer that can't get his times right and can't seem to remember anything any longer about going into the room or not probably was under a bit of criticism as well. The judge insisting that Monica show up for questioning at the next hearing is also interesting. Do you have any theories about that one?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Charles Ives

Halides1

Katody Matrass did everything but answer what were simple questions, as I am sure you realise.

I conclude that people of like mind put forward assertions which then transform into hard facts in some people’s minds. Raffaele and Amanda are part of a legal process which may or may not end in their release; some of their supporters would strangely argue that they are innocent until their release or confirmation of their sentence, yet Mignini is “guilty”, so people are expected to accept Raffaele and Amanda’s possible innocence but not Mignini!

To repeat the questions which were directed to Antony and are to be honest fairly straight forward:

1:

2:

Please point out where questions 1 or 2 where addressed?

CoulsdonUK,

I answered your question about police misconduct and possible disciplinary action in a preliminary way about an hour ago. Upon reflection, I can think of one very small amendment I would make to my previous answer. The first coroner was let go, possibly for leaking information. Given the stream of leaks courtesy of ILE (many of them false), this would lead me to shake my head in amazement.

The appeals are in Italian, and so most of us must rely upon summaries or machine translations. Therefore, your other question is not so simple. In addition, I wonder whether the violations would even be addressed there. The purpose of the appeal document is to exonerate the client, not to make a case for misconduct. You may recall that one of the defense lawyers hinted at, but did not say directly, that the police were responsible for overwriting the meta data with respect to the Stardust File. Those points noted, a summary of Raffaele’s appeal noted the problems in collecting the clasp and the hard drives.

I am not sure whether or not you have addressed my question or Katody’s questions. Katody Matrass seems to be asking you how you feel about the conduct of ILE, the majority of which is not in dispute, to the best of my knowledge. This includes the damaging of three hard drives, the leaking of medical information, failing to secure evidence, and the mishandling of evidence. Is it your contention that if members of ILE were not disciplined for these or other misdeeds, then no misconduct occurred?

I have asked Fuji and colonelhall several questions about the break-in, and neither one favored me with answers. You are welcome to give me your impressions.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Perhaps further repetition will be helpful in eliciting a response:

CoulsdonUK, suppose that the answers to your question are "no" and "no".

What do you think follows, and why?

Until you answer this question you are not actually making a joined-up argument, you are merely hinting that perhaps you might have a joined-up argument to make some time in the future.

If the answers are no and no then my point is made that people through their sincere beliefs sometimes present assertions as though they are facts and others agree. As far as I am aware neither defence teams have made the kind of accusations of Mignini and others that I have read here, possibly because unlike any of us they actually know Mignini and others.

 

[Mary_H]

If the answers are no and no then my point is made that people through their sincere beliefs sometimes present assertions as though they are facts and others agree. As far as I am aware neither defence teams have made the kind of accusations of Mignini and others that I have read here, possibly because unlike any of us they actually know Mignini and others.

I don't have the sources at my fingertips, but it is my understanding that Dr. Luca Lalli, the pathologist who initially examined Meredith's body, was disciplined by being released by Mignini and replaced. There are conflicting reports about whether it was because he refused to say Meredith was raped, or because he illicitly provided the press with photographs. I will look for some sources and get back to you.

I get a kick out of your first sentence above, Coulsdon -- a perfect description of collusion that doesn't know it's collusion, much less conspiracy.

 

[babycondor]

If the answers are no and no then my point is made that people through their sincere beliefs sometimes present assertions as though they are facts and others agree. As far as I am aware neither defence teams have made the kind of accusations of Mignini and others that I have read here, possibly because unlike any of us they actually know Mignini and others.

Right, they know him well enough to know he would charge them with calunnia in a heartbeat!

 

[Justinian2]

It makes no sense to frame an American college student and a prominent Doctor's son.

It. simply. does. not. make. sense.

If the police were trying to protect Rudy, they would most likely frame a less significant person, one unlikely to attract so much attention and possibly one financially incapable of mounting any sort of reasonable defense. They could have kept Patrick even, the Swiss professor's alibi for him had holes and Patrick did some things which could have looked particularly incriminating such as changing his cell phone the very next day.

If they were trying to frame Amanda and Raffaele you can be sure there would still be enough of Meredith's DNA on the knife to retest and confirm the results and there would be plenty of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp as well.

What about pangs of conscience? Even hardened criminals suffer these. I don't believe Rudy would continue to allow these two to rot in jail for him.

It requires much more than police misconduct to believe in a framing of Amanda and Raffaele. Most people are aware police misconduct certainly exists but a collusion between all police, prosecuters, judges, forensic scientists and more is a whole other ball game.

Do you honestly think Perugian officials would wage an elaborate campaign to frame two innocent, high-profile people, one an American for which there was certain to be international involvement and backlash, the other a prominent and wealthy Doctor's son, to protect someone like Rudy Guede? Even if he had an inside track to the drug scene, I doubt they would feel the tradeoff was worth it. Rudy was expendable.

An FBI agent from my home town is now serving hard time for receiving kickbacks from his informant. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7064794#post7064794.

There are potentially very strong reasons that Mignini is using all his powers to keep people from talking. Heck, he even wanted to send Amanda to solitary. He is trying to send her parents to jail.

It's not that Mignini or the Perugian powers love Guede. There are potentially many other reasons for wanting to keep Guede and others from talking. There are potentially many secrets in the government of Perugia.

If you really want to hear a complete discourse on this subject, read Waterbury's book. He connects around twenty dots together.

Remember: There are no coincidences.

 

[RoseMontague]

If the answers are no and no then my point is made that people through their sincere beliefs sometimes present assertions as though they are facts and others agree. As far as I am aware neither defence teams have made the kind of accusations of Mignini and others that I have read here, possibly because unlike any of us they actually know Mignini and others.

Here is another example from the RS appeal:

However, it was not possible to do this work because inexplicably, the electronic cards of all three hard drives were damaged so as to prevent data mining....


...Accordingly, it is absolutely necessary for a more comprehensive discussion of the circumstances which gave rise to the block on the hard disks of the notebooks seized.
One asks, therefore, that this task be given to an expert to verify
their cause / damage to computer and Asus, Apple and Toshiba,
respectively owned by Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher, and the hard drives.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mignini is in a separate class

If the answers are no and no then my point is made that people through their sincere beliefs sometimes present assertions as though they are facts and others agree. As far as I am aware neither defence teams have made the kind of accusations of Mignini and others that I have read here, possibly because unlike any of us they actually know Mignini and others.

CoulsdonUK,

I am not sure why you would include Mignini in your group. He stands convicted in a trial of the first instance (the case is unrelated to the present one), does he not? From the rest of your answer, I infer that your position is that if one is not disciplined for an offense, then no offense occurred. If that is not your position, would you clarify this?

 

[Alt+F4]

Remember: There are no coincidences.

Wrong. Coincidences are inevitable. You should do some research on coincidence vs. connected causality.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't have the sources at my fingertips, but it is my understanding that Dr. Luca Lalli, the pathologist who initially examined Meredith's body, was disciplined by being released by Mignini and replaced. There are conflicting reports about whether it was because he refused to say Meredith was raped, or because he illicitly provided the press with photographs. I will look for some sources and get back to you.

I get a kick out of your first sentence above, Coulsdon -- a perfect description of collusion that doesn't know it's collusion, much less conspiracy.

Let me indulge in a little cheer-leading as well and tell you that I am glad you are back posting. Excellent points.

cartwheel ≭⊗

 

[Alt+F4]

An FBI agent from my home town is now serving hard time for receiving kickbacks from his informant. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7064794#post7064794.

Wrong, he's doing life for murder, not receiving kickbacks.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Halides1

I answered your question about police misconduct and possible disciplinary action in a preliminary way about an hour ago. Upon reflection, I can think of one very small amendment I would make to my previous answer. The first coroner was let go, possibly for leaking information. Given the stream of leaks courtesy of ILE (many of them false), this would lead me to shake my head in amazement.

Agreed you did answer an hour or so ago. Hang on, if I am to accept that the first coroner was “let go” because of leaking information then that was the right thing to do given your observation about the stream of leaks from ILE? Which is it, good to leak or not good to leak?

I would also add that the media could and did easily obtain information about the ongoing investigation from the various public hearings and no doubt add their own sensationalist spin. In addition, leaks from high profile murder investigations are hardly unique to this case; I have heard the phrase “someone close to the investigation said this or that” on many occasions.

I am not sure whether or not you have addressed my question or Katody’s questions. Katody Matrass seems to be asking you how you feel about the conduct of ILE, the majority of which is not in dispute, to the best of my knowledge. This includes the damaging of three hard drives, the leaking of medical information, failing to secure evidence, and the mishandling of evidence. Is it your contention that if members of ILE were not disciplined for these or other misdeeds, then no misconduct occurred?

For me it is not about how “I feel” but really are these events unusual is there any evidence of deliberate wrong doing; has there ever been the perfect murder investigation, do the police make mistakes? If anyone has been disciplined I would simply ask for independent evidence, if this was not forthcoming I tend to conclude it is an assertion.

I have asked Fuji and colonelhall several questions about the break-in, and neither one favored me with answers. You are welcome to give me your impressions.

Any answer I would give would be just that my “impression”, I believe what will be raised in the appeal will be far more worthy of discussion.

 

[Mary_H]

Frank Sfarzo on Luca Lalli's firing:

......."He just got fired. He's not that busy any more. I thought I wouldn't be disturbing him, but still he refused to talk.
Luca --as soon as he delivered his report Wednesday -- got the goodbye from Luciano. A multi-year marriage ends under the cameras. All the happy days spent together, all those sweet causes of death, all those inviting corpses, forgiven. And for what? For a stupid interview.
Actually he had been talking quite a lot to media in the past few days. Five-seven sentences in all, that's a lot for Mr Close-mouthed Giuliano Mignini. That's too much.
The call I had this morning with Dr. Lalli should probably save us from elaborating strange theories about why he got sacked. The reason of it is exactly that. He talked about the case, which is against the law and he was fired for it. And not just the same old sentences stolen by the newspapers. This time he talked to Studio Aperto broadcast. Three sentences over the phone, which were recorded. And that was trouble. A sentence reported in a newspaper is one thing. Your own voice, which everyone can hear on TV, is another......"

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Mary

I get a kick out of your first sentence above, Coulsdon -- a perfect description of collusion that doesn't know it's collusion, much less conspiracy.

LOL! Is it that easy, don’t you want me to provide an independent source! Wouldn’t collusion of anything require proof?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

I am not sure why you would include Mignini in your group. He stands convicted in a trial of the first instance (the case is unrelated to the present one), does he not? From the rest of your answer, I infer that your position is that if one is not disciplined for an offense, then no offense occurred. If that is not your position, would you clarify this?

Halides1

I mentioned Mignini because like Raffaele and Amanda he is convicted pending his appeals, what’s good for goose is good for ganger, that was my point.

 

[Alt+F4]

Right, they know him well enough to know he would charge them with calunnia in a heartbeat!

Oh, right, like they did with Frank "Sfarzo"? When is his calunnia trial again? How about the prosecutors in Massei's own trial? Were they charged with calunnia? Remember when he said he was going to sue a Seattle newspaper who reported on things he didn't like? Yeah, just a bluff.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary

LOL! Is it that easy, don’t you want me to provide an independent source! Wouldn’t collusion of anything require proof?

Maybe it's time to switch to the term "cooperation."

 

[Justinian2]

From The Monster of Perugia:

Giuliani Mignini was under tremendous pressure during his entire period from the ongoing investigation into his misconduct in the Monster of Florence case. He was ultimately convicted and if he doesn't get the conviction overturned on appeal, he will be banned for life from serving as either a prosecutor or a judge. His career will be finished. Mignini was desperately seeking to keep his career and life on track during this entire trial. Further, Mignini has a history of "upping the ante" by forging ahead on the same path, even when it is obviously wrong.

Now if Mignini had enlisted Guede to help Mignini get rid of all the Satanic people in Perugia, he got more than he expected with Guede; he hired a minion of the great one. The other great one. Anyway, an association like that with Guede would have put Mignini in jail.

Yes, Mignini could have had a BIG reason to take the heat off Guede. The question is not potential motivation, for framing Amanda and Raffaele. The only question is what exactly was Guede doing for Mignini? If anything, because this is still only a theory.

 

[RoseMontague]

Oh, right, like they did with Frank "Sfarzo"? When is his calunnia trial again? How about the prosecutors in Massei's own trial? Were they charged with calunnia? Remember when he said he was going to sue a Seattle newspaper who reported on things he didn't like? Yeah, just a bluff.

I think a threat is a better word and more accurately reflects the reality of the situation.