Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[souldonut]

Hello new guy. Do you have any evidence that any of this is actually true?

Hello Alt+F4. Which part of my statement are you disputing?
(a) The blog being removed? (Ok, not by Mignini, but by a judge in Florence by request of Mignini)

(b) Mignini pursuing Sfarzo? (he has been targeted by a defamation lawsuit from Mignini; Sfarzo has been indicted by local authorities, who serve under Mignini, on trumped up charges). You can dispute whether the charges are trumped up or if you actually believe Sfarzo physically assaulted a group of police officers. I think the account by the CPJ, a non-partisan organization, is fairly reasonable. Which parts of the CPJ document do you believe are fictional?

(c) Mignini's action, indirectly against Sfarzo's blog, amounting to an attack on freedom expression? It is possible that we disagree on the concept of freedom of expression. I wonder who is next on Mignini's list: the JREF forums, which are openly critical of him, or IIP, likewise? Do you feel that these blogs/forums should be shut down, if Mignini decides he doesn't like them? Should any blog/website/forum critical of an official governmental position be subject to termination, if a government official decides that do be prudent? What is your philosophy of freedom of expression, if I might ask? How do you feel about governments such as Iran or China suppressing websites that offer dissenting or critical viewpoints? Is it a good or bad practice?

Should PMF or TJMK be promptly shut down if AK or RS file defamation lawsuits against those websites?

(d) Mignini being a power-hungry and vindictive individual. I believe his track record definitely puts him in the domain of being power-hungry and vindictive, particularly with journalists, and also family members of criminal defendants he is prosecuting. And of course, any obvious double standard involving Mignini (not prosecuting Patrick for defamation, who claimed physical abuse, prolonged interrogation, etc), must be nonsense in your eyes. It is perfectly obvious that you feel Mignini is ethically and professionally on par with the pope.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

shutter peninsula

Alt+F4,

Here is another story from the CPJ. Best regards.
ETA
"CPJ has documented a history of official harassment, physical attack, and fabricated legal prosecution against Sfarzo--all stemming from his blog, which he created in 2007."

 

[Alt+F4]

Hello Alt+F4. Which part of my statement are you disputing?
(a) The blog being removed? (Ok, not by Mignini, but by a judge in Florence by request of Mignini)

Yes, the blog is gone. There is no evidence that had anything to do with Mignini or any court order.

(b) Mignini pursuing Sfarzo? (he has been targeted by a defamation lawsuit from Mignini; Sfarzo has been indicted by local authorities, who serve under Mignini, on trumped up charges). You can dispute whether the charges are trumped up or if you actually believe Sfarzo physically assaulted a group of police officers.

Can you provide evidence of the lawsuit or the assault charges?

I think the account by the CPJ, a non-partisan organization, is fairly reasonable. Which parts of the CPJ document do you believe are fictional?

Could you link to the investigation that the CPJ did? I mean, who they interview, what documents they read?

(c) Mignini's action, indirectly against Sfarzo's blog, amounting to an attack on freedom expression?

Again, where is the evidence that Mignini, either directly or indirectly, had anything to do with "Sfarzo's" blog no longer being hosted by Blogger? I don't care if it's the WSH or The New York Times, it's not a valid news story without independent corroboration.

It is possible that we disagree on the concept of freedom of expression. I wonder who is next on Mignini's list: the JREF forums, which are openly critical of him, or IIP, likewise? Do you feel that these blogs/forums should be shut down, if Mignini decides he doesn't like them? Should any blog/website/forum critical of an official governmental position be subject to termination, if a government official decides that do be prudent? What is your philosophy of freedom of expression, if I might ask? How do you feel about governments such as Iran or China suppressing websites that offer dissenting or critical viewpoints? Is it a good or bad practice?

If your fear-monkering were true then evil Mignini would have had this thread shut down, right? After all, he is all powerful, no one anywhere on earth can escape his wrath. Read the posts in this thread, folks here have posted just as many insults to him as "Frank" did.

(d) Mignini being a power-hungry and vindictive individual. I believe his track record definitely puts him in the domain of being power-hungry and vindictive, particularly with journalists, and also family members of criminal defendants he is prosecuting. And of course, any obvious double standard involving Mignini (not prosecuting Patrick for defamation, who claimed physical abuse, prolonged interrogation, etc), must be nonsense in your eyes.

Yawn, very weak strawman. You had better stop posting stuff like this, Mignini is gonna get you!

It is perfectly obvious that you feel Mignini is ethically and professionally on par with the pope.

Poor form to start out with lies like this, only shows the weakness in your argument and logic.

 

[Alt+F4]

Alt+F4,

Here is another story from the CPJ. Best regards.

Hi halides,

From that link:

Sfarzo told CPJ that he received an email from Google, which hosts the site,last night informing him that a court order has been issued for the "preventive closure" of his blog dedicated to the Kercher case.

Again, no link to this supposed "court order", the "email from Google" or any independent corroboration. Gosh, if "Frank" said the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the real killer in this case many folks posting on this thread would believe it, because after all....."Frank" said so.

 

[souldonut]

ALT,

I would think they would not have done this if it were not true.

Actually, I just want to state that the posting that your message was linked to was created by me, souldonut. (i.e. the message you cited was an official response from Google). If you look at any of the handful of blog entries on Blogger, complaining about Perugia Shock being removed, they all say "Another discussion addresses this question".

To my knowledge, Google has not provided an official statement about why Perugia Shock was removed. We are currently required to believe second hand sources (the phone call from Frank). Alt+F4 doesn't seem to believe a conversation between a reporter from the West Seattle Herald and the so-called "Frank Sfarzo"; the incident was obviously fabricated, possibly by someone else pretending to be Frank (?). I personally feel that skepticism is a healthy attribute, but I'm not very suspicious of the account provided by the West Seattle Herald, especially since little is known this second about what happened.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

flying spaghetti monster

Again, no link to this supposed "court order", the "email from Google" or any independent corroboration. Gosh, if "Frank" said the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the real killer in this case many folks posting on this thread would believe it, because after all....."Frank" said so.

Alt+F4,

You may find the ETA in my previous message to be helpful. If I see a big puddle of tomato sauce, I generally assume that the flying spaghetti monster is nearby without waiting for an email from google.

 

[billyryan]

Were google executives facing charges over something or other in Italy,for google to remove Franks blog far more pressure than a judge in Florence must have been brought to bear.I suspect that at this stage as it becomes more and more obvious that Amanda and Raffaelle are completely innocent of anything to do with Merediths murder,that this case is not just a miscarriage of justice but a framing of two defendants that the prosecution and police knew were innocent,people whose job it is to promote Italies image abroad are very concerned about the image this case is giving of their country and the bright light been shone on their joke of a criminal justice system. This case is a public relations nightmare for Italy,whoever had power enough to convince google it was in their interest to close down Franks blog must surely know while the verdict of the kangaroo court remains in place Italy cannot recover its image

 

[Justinian2]

Forensic Expert Patrizia Stefanoni Gift Wraps A Mop


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=conjBUiEE9I

You would think she was the Great Randi doing a stage trick.

 

[katy_did]

This from the CPJ response.

Sfarzo told CPJ that he received an email from Google, which hosts the site, last night informing him that a court order has been issued for the "preventive closure" of his blog dedicated to the Kercher case. In compliance with that order, Google took down Perugia Shock; it is now unavailable. It was from the court order, Sfarzo told CPJ, that he learned that Perugia Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini--who has a long-standing record of anti-press actions--has filed a lawsuit against Perugia Shock for "defamation, carried out by means of a website." The court order, which stemmed from Mignini's claim, was issued on February 23 by Florentine Judge Paola Belsino. Mignini is the lead prosecutor on the Kercher case.

That seems quite specific.

Mignini is just doing an awesome job of making the original CPJ letter about him look completely justified.

 

[Draca]

To my knowledge, Google has not provided an official statement about why Perugia Shock was removed. We are currently required to believe second hand sources (the phone call from Frank). Alt+F4 doesn't seem to believe a conversation between a reporter from the West Seattle Herald and the so-called "Frank Sfarzo"; the incident was obviously fabricated, possibly by someone else pretending to be Frank (?). I personally feel that skepticism is a healthy attribute, but I'm not very suspicious of the account provided by the West Seattle Herald, especially since little is known this second about what happened.

A copy of Perugia Shock is being made - http://perugiashock.com/


King 5 news is running a promo for the 5 pm news; it sounds like they have interviewed Frank Sfarzo
http://www.king5.com/news/Blog--121672114.html


Amanda Knox Trial Blogger Frank Sfarzo Shut Down By Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3uKsnl9yA0


Google silences blog critical of Amanda Knox prosecutor
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...nces-blog-critical-of-amanda-knox-prosecutor/

 

[LondonJohn]

This from the CPJ response.



That seems quite specific.

Mignini is just doing an awesome job of making the original CPJ letter about him look completely justified.

Ah no sorry, that won't do for good old Alt+F4. Unless you have an original of the court order itself in your hand with the official court seal, and fly over to show it to Alt+F4 in person, she'll refuse to believe that such a court order was granted to Mignini as the plaintiff. You know the rules!

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, the blog is gone. There is no evidence that had anything to do with Mignini or any court order.



Can you provide evidence of the lawsuit or the assault charges?



Could you link to the investigation that the CPJ did? I mean, who they interview, what documents they read?



Again, where is the evidence that Mignini, either directly or indirectly, had anything to do with "Sfarzo's" blog no longer being hosted by Blogger? I don't care if it's the WSH or The New York Times, it's not a valid news story without independent corroboration.



If your fear-monkering were true then evil Mignini would have had this thread shut down, right? After all, he is all powerful, no one anywhere on earth can escape his wrath. Read the posts in this thread, folks here have posted just as many insults to him as "Frank" did.



Yawn, very weak strawman. You had better stop posting stuff like this, Mignini is gonna get you!



Poor form to start out with lies like this, only shows the weakness in your argument and logic.

All very poor thinking, and weak arguments to boot. I'm not surprised though.

 

[theRealBob]

How much of the room do you honestly believe you could see through a keyhole in a dark room. No lights and dark outside.

You could always grab a mop and look through a keyhole.

Oops. I meant a torch.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Actually, I just want to state that the posting that your message was linked to was created by me, souldonut. (i.e. the message you cited was an official response from Google). If you look at any of the handful of blog entries on Blogger, complaining about Perugia Shock being removed, they all say "Another discussion addresses this question".

To my knowledge, Google has not provided an official statement about why Perugia Shock was removed. <snip>

I know it was written by you - that's why I wrote "I feel like I know you, at least a little!"

My point to ALT was if the post to which all the Google responses point was, "The blog was accidentally deleted when Google had a major power outage" (i.e. something completely not true) I doubt the Google peeps would be pointing to it as "Another discussion addresses this question".

While I know they have not provided an official statement re: Perugia Shock, they must (at least indirectly) agree with your post.

Maybe, maybe not. It just seems so to me. Maybe I need to up my meds, who knows.

 

[LondonJohn]

Will you accept the crime scene photos, or will you wait until the transcripts from the trial are available?

So far there's the article from the West Seattle Herald linked above, with quotes from Frank himself as to the cause. There's also the letter from the Committee to Protect Journalists to the Italian President critical of the "politically motivated" attack on Frank's blog. There's also the fact that Frank is now the eighth person reporting on the case to have charges filed/investigations started on them. Plus we know Mignini has done this before, in connection with the Monster of Florence case.

A long time ago I recall a certain someone posting something to the effect that were all the reports of charges filed/investigations begun true, they'd be going after Frank Sfarzo too. Well, they went after Frank.

Yes, that last paragraph is the bitter irony of the situation, and it illustrates the sophistry of many people's positions on this issue.

Against all of this, I have to say that if Mignini has a case for defamation (libel), then it might be proper for him to seek an injunction to remove the potentially libellous material pending a civil case or trial. This is far from uncommon. Here in the UK, the British Chiropractic Association brough a libel action against a science writer, Simon Singh, over a piece he'd written for the Guardian newspaper. The piece was removed from the Guardian's online editions and archives until the case was settled (the BCA dropped its claim and the article went back online).

However, I think that this case differs in two important ways: firstly, Mignini is a public servant and a public prosecutor, and as such he should be simply able to disregard any personal criticisms - even if they allege criminal conduct on his behalf. After all, he's able to protect and defend himself in ways that most ordinary members of the public are not. And secondly, I don't even recall anything written by Sfarzo that might be construed as potentially libellous.

The last point regarding this issue is that even if there were specific statements made by Sfarzo against Mignini on Perugia Shock that turned out to be unable to be proven by Sfarzo in court, the other part of proving a libel still has to be addressed: damage to the plaintiff's reputation. In this regard, it could be argued that Mignini - who has a criminal conviction for abuse of office hanging over his head pending a final appeal - doesn't have a stellar reputation available to be damaged in any case.....

 

[theRealBob]

Are you making a claim that they were in the cottage at 5am? What is your evidence?!.

I'm not making a claim that they were there at 5am. I'm just saying it's a slight possibility.

In one of Amanda's statements, perhaps the e-mail home on the 4th, there is a mention of Raffaele trying to peer through the keyhole. I thought at the time of generating the view of what would be visible through the keyhole and posted such in the original thread. But it appears that the modern lock hardware has eliminated this security hole with some clever design feature. .

That could be the real problem. I personally think they're two kids who found a murder and stuffed it up. Their stories weren't the real sequence of events in the discovery because they didn't give it enough thought and didn't get anything really decent together. Possibly later on that day they ballsed up their own inaccurate versions through nerves, so the tale we were told never really gelled.

And then they got burned. Badly burned.

 

[simper]

That could be the real problem. I personally think they're two kids who found a murder and stuffed it up. Their stories weren't the real sequence of events in the discovery because they didn't give it enough thought and didn't get anything really decent together. Possibly later on that day they ballsed up their own inaccurate versions through nerves, so the tale we were told never really gelled.

And then they got burned. Badly burned.

Thats my best guess of what actually happened. They may have also had a hand in bringing the victim and murderer together although I dont think murder even entered their thoughts as a possible outcome.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes, that last paragraph is the bitter irony of the situation, and it illustrates the sophistry of many people's positions on this issue.

Against all of this, I have to say that if Mignini has a case for defamation (libel), then it might be proper for him to seek an injunction to remove the potentially libellous material pending a civil case or trial. This is far from uncommon. Here in the UK, the British Chiropractic Association brough a libel action against a science writer, Simon Singh, over a piece he'd written for the Guardian newspaper. The piece was removed from the Guardian's online editions and archives until the case was settled (the BCA dropped its claim and the article went back online).

However, I think that this case differs in two important ways: firstly, Mignini is a public servant and a public prosecutor, and as such he should be simply able to disregard any personal criticisms - even if they allege criminal conduct on his behalf. After all, he's able to protect and defend himself in ways that most ordinary members of the public are not. And secondly, I don't even recall anything written by Sfarzo that might be construed as potentially libellous.
The last point regarding this issue is that even if there were specific statements made by Sfarzo against Mignini on Perugia Shock that turned out to be unable to be proven by Sfarzo in court, the other part of proving a libel still has to be addressed: damage to the plaintiff's reputation. In this regard, it could be argued that Mignini - who has a criminal conviction for abuse of office hanging over his head pending a final appeal - doesn't have a stellar reputation available to be damaged in any case.....

You know what's the strangest thing about all this? Frank repeatedly defended Mignini, told all of us we were fools for thinking he was responsible when he was just doing his job, that the true menace was the The Pack. He wrote an excellent post called 'The Master of Suspicion' on Mignini which was excellent and really fleshed the guy out in a variety of ways. Only recently when he wrote that last post, in which the last line said something about if the police in Perugia had become animals, that it was in part Mignini's fault as he was in charge, that Frank really said something derogatory about Mignini. He was laughing at us when we told him to be careful when he got called into the PM's office a month or two ago.

You make an excellent point and I've seen it raised by others on this thread that it is damned strange that the whole site went dark over this matter. I wonder if this has anything to do with it? Another 'conviction' in absentia and they might have to avoid going to Italy, perhaps even cut off all business dealings with Italy.

 

[RoseMontague]

I know it was written by you - that's why I wrote "I feel like I know you, at least a little!"

My point to ALT was if the post to which all the Google responses point was, "The blog was accidentally deleted when Google had a major power outage" (i.e. something completely not true) I doubt the Google peeps would be pointing to it as "Another discussion addresses this question".

While I know they have not provided an official statement re: Perugia Shock, they must (at least indirectly) agree with your post.

Maybe, maybe not. It just seems so to me. Maybe I need to up my meds, who knows.

I posted a question asking for a comment on the CPJ article, maybe I'll get something back. That is a very bad process they have for complaints and problems with no email of anybody or department provided. The corporate officers and Board of Directors are well known. Perhaps that might be one route to take. Or maybe snail mail.

 

[Justinian2]

My lawyer is crushed by all the bad judges he's seen. He says the courts don't deliver any type of justice; they deliver corruption for the good old boys.

I just let him vent. It seems to cheer him up. He's thinking of the things he can do to get disbarred - like wearing a skirt to court to protest that skirts always seem to win in court.

Courts without justice don't just exist around Perugia.

Kevin_Lowe evidently put me on his ignore list a year ago after I PMed him about a site critical of the police. Hmmm. Is he one?