Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Photographs and Memories

Likewise, I find it both arrogant and ignorant that people are 1) demanding that the Perugian authorities show evidence of the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window; 2) claiming that they - those opposed to the convictions of Knox and Sollecito - have some sort of "right" to see all this evidence; and 3) concluding that if it's not shown, this implies (or even demonstrates) that the Perugian authorities are liars.

Fuji,

One problem with your analysis is that the Perugian authorities might by only mistaken (not necessarily be lying) with respect to the appearance of the ground below Filomena's window. As Kestrel said, our memories are not like TiVo. I do not think that it is too much to wish that the Perugian authorities had supplied photos to the court. A commenter elsewhere reminded me that the judges in this case are not entirely in a passive position with respect to the evidence. If I had served on such a panel, I would have asked to see documentation (presumably photographs).

 

[LondonJohn]

Candace Dempsey has more on Mignini and Perugia-Shock.

"Hampikian, a forensic DNA expert and professor of biology and criminal justice, played a key role in the analysis of DNA that is at the center of the appeal." The story from which this quote arises also mentions an upcoming segment on ABC's 20/20.

Including a copy of the order sent to Google by the postal police informing Google of the Florence court order to take down Perugia Shock. Surprise surprise, Sfarzo wasn't lying or cooking up a fiendish plot with nebulous "FOA operatives". Any comment, stilicho....?

 

[LondonJohn]

Fuji,

One problem with your analysis is that the Perugian authorities might by only mistaken (not necessarily be lying) with respect to the appearance of the ground below Filomena's window. As Kestrel said, our memories are not like TiVo. I do not think that it is too much to wish that the Perugian authorities supply such photos to the court. A commenter elsewhere reminded me that the judges in this case are not entirely in a passive position with respect to the evidence. If I had served on such a panel, I would have asked to see documentation (presumably photographs).

That is only one problem with Fugi's "analysis". There are quite a few more...

 

[Dan O.]

Including a copy of the order sent to Google by the postal police informing Google of the Florence court order to take down Perugia Shock. Surprise surprise, Sfarzo wasn't lying or cooking up a fiendish plot with nebulous "FOA operatives". Any comment, stilicho....?

Order translated by Google Translate:

SUBJECT: Notification of seizure order

GOOGLE INC.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, 94043 - California

by means of

Google.it
Legal Department
Milan
Fax 02/36618301​

In reference to criminal proceedings RGNR mod.44 2496/11 - 3129/11 RG GIP
forward to run the attachment order for provisional sequestration issued on 23/02/2011 by
Judge for Preliminary Investigations Dr Paola BELSITO on the website Perugia Shock "
reachable at URL:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/​

Thanking you in advance for your kind and immediate cooperation is required to send
copy of the attachment to the email address or fax number given in question.


Stretchers: Inspector Frank Verdugo

The Head of the Sector Operational
V.Q.A. Dr. Stephanie Pierce​

 

[Alt+F4]

Order translated by Google Translate:

I believe the subject line is "notification order for provisional sequestration", not "Notification of seizure order". After all, Google can shut a blog down, it can't seize it.

Candace states that she read the actual order and that it accuses Frank of "criminal acts" and that Mignini is as the “injured party” and complainant but she doesn't specify what these criminal acts are. Certainly supporting Amanda Knox isn't a criminal act so we are still left in the dark as to what he is accused of doing.

Also, note the dates on this cover sheet. March 15, 2010?! Is this when the Florence court issued the order? If so, then what ever "criminal acts" Frank blogged occured before this date. Also, if this date is correct why almost a year before this order was sent to Google?

 

[Dan O.]

I believe the subject line is "notification order for provisional sequestration", not "Notification of seizure order". After all, Google can shut a blog down, it can't seize it.

Candace states that she read the actual order and that it accuses Frank of "criminal acts" and that Mignini is as the “injured party” and complainant but she doesn't specify what these criminal acts are. Certainly supporting Amanda Knox isn't a criminal act so we are still left in the dark as to what he is accused of doing.

Also, note the dates on this cover sheet. March 15, 2010?! Is this when the Florence court issued the order? If so, then what ever "criminal acts" Frank blogged occured before this date. Also, why almost a year before this order was sent to Google?

I assume the 2010 date is a typo. The date in the text is 23/02/2011. We can read what Frank was blogging about in February/January. The speed at which the Mig tossed a slander suit at Amanda says it couldn't have been anything from earlier.

 

[Alt+F4]

I assume the 2010 date is a typo. The date in the text is 23/02/2011. We can read what Frank was blogging about in February/January. The speed at which the Mig tossed a slander suit at Amanda says it couldn't have been anything from earlier.

I think you're right, I just noticed the fax stamp at the very top of the page, it also says March 15, 2011.

 

[LondonJohn]

I assume the 2010 date is a typo. The date in the text is 23/02/2011. We can read what Frank was blogging about in February/January. The speed at which the Mig tossed a slander suit at Amanda says it couldn't have been anything from earlier.

It's another example of the rigorous professionalism, accuracy and attention to detail that we've come to expect from the Italian Postal Police

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe the subject line is "notification order for provisional sequestration", not "Notification of seizure order". After all, Google can shut a blog down, it can't seize it.

I believe the subject line is "Notification order for preventive sequestration". And this is just a way of saying "Notification order to take the information out of the public domain". In other words, this is notification of the court order to Google to remove the Perugia Shock website from its servers.

Candace states that she read the actual order and that it accuses Frank of "criminal acts" and that Mignini is as the “injured party” and complainant but she doesn't specify what these criminal acts are. Certainly supporting Amanda Knox isn't a criminal act so we are still left in the dark as to what he is accused of doing.

Erm....... it's perfectly obvious that the criminal acts are alleged criminal defamation via words written on the blog. That's the only reason why Mignini would be able to obtain a court order to remove the blog. If Sfarzo had committed some other sort of alleged criminal offence against Mignini (say, for the sake of argument, that he'd allegedly physically assaulted Mignini in his office), that would be no justification whatsoever to obtain a court order for removal of Perugia Shock.

Also, note the dates on this cover sheet. March 15, 2010?! Is this when the Florence court issued the order? If so, then what ever "criminal acts" Frank blogged occured before this date. Also, if this date is correct why almost a year before this order was sent to Google?

Covered off already.

 

[LondonJohn]

I hear people saying that Sfarzo is in potential trouble because he made accusations that a certain Perugia public official had some sort of unlawful links to the drugs trade. But I can't remember Sfarzo making any accusations of this sort, and I haven't yet come across anything like this in the cached versions of Perugia Shock. Can anyone remember if Sfarzo actually did make these accusations (or similar) at any time, or is it all currently just empty conjecture?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Operator

I hear people saying that Sfarzo is in potential trouble because he made accusations that a certain Perugia public official had some sort of unlawful links to the drugs trade. But I can't remember Sfarzo making any accusations of this sort, and I haven't yet come across anything like this in the cached versions of Perugia Shock. Can anyone remember if Sfarzo actually did make these accusations (or similar) at any time, or is it all currently just empty conjecture?

LondonJohn,

I don't recall Frank's saying anything like that. Possibly he said that PM Mignini relied upon drug users, such as Curatolo and possibly Kokomani, as witnesses. But I simply cannot imagine anyone's twisting Frank's words around to imply that PM Mignini had ties to drug users/sellers, unless he or she were a really smooth operator.

 

[spartacus]

I hear people saying that Sfarzo is in potential trouble because he made accusations that a certain Perugia public official had some sort of unlawful links to the drugs trade. But I can't remember Sfarzo making any accusations of this sort, and I haven't yet come across anything like this in the cached versions of Perugia Shock. Can anyone remember if Sfarzo actually did make these accusations (or similar) at any time, or is it all currently just empty conjecture?

I think the idea is that Frank "linked" Mignini to Curatolo and noted that he was a drug user, and so now that is being twisted around to say that Frank was accusing him of association with drug dealers. It doesn't really matter if it is absurd, for starters, Mignini doesn't understand English very well, and secondally, he was going to take anything he could find and try and twist it around just to keep him permanently tied up on the courts.

 

[Alt+F4]

I think the idea is that Frank "linked" Mignini to Curatolo and noted that he was a drug user, and so now that is being twisted around to say that Frank was accusing him of association with drug dealers. It doesn't really matter if it is absurd, for starters, Mignini doesn't understand English very well, and secondally, he was going to take anything he could find and try and twist it around just to keep him permanently tied up on the courts.

It was Judge Belisto, not Mignini that issued the court order. Is there any evidence that she was confused about exactly what Frank blogged about? In addition since neither Frank or Candace have said which blog post(s) are the basis for the court order, the question of what "criminal acts" Belisto is referring to is left open. I agree that it is probably defamation, but what's new here? It seems to be very easy under Italian law to file a defamation suit against just about anyone who pisses you off. This seems to be more of "business as usual" Italian style than a plot against anyone who defends Amanda Knox.

 

[LondonJohn]

It was Judge Belisto, not Mignini that issued the court order. Is there any evidence that she was confused about exactly what Frank blogged about? In addition since neither Frank or Candace have said which blog post(s) are the basis for the court order, the question of what "criminal acts" Belisto is referring to is left open. I agree that it is probably defamation, but what's new here? It seems to be very easy under Italian law to file a defamation suit against just about anyone who pisses you off. This seems to be more of "business as usual" Italian style than a plot against anyone who defends Amanda Knox.

I would agree that a judge would need to see prima facie evidence of defamation before agreeing to grant a court order for removal of the site. But at the moment nobody can see quite where Sfarzo might have allegedly defamed Mignini. I wonder if someone can dredge up the offending piece of writing. One can only assume that a judge in Florence hasn't granted a court order based on less than sufficient evidence.......

PS: The Florentine judge's name is Belsito, not Belisto.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It was Judge Belisto, not Mignini that issued the court order. Is there any evidence that she was confused about exactly what Frank blogged about? In addition since neither Frank or Candace have said which blog post(s) are the basis for the court order, the question of what "criminal acts" Belisto is referring to is left open. I agree that it is probably defamation, but what's new here? It seems to be very easy under Italian law to file a defamation suit against just about anyone who pisses you off. This seems to be more of "business as usual" Italian style than a plot against anyone who defends Amanda Knox.

Actually Candace posted the blog post that was attached to the order. It's reprinted in full form on the blog.

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually Candace posted the blog post that was attached to the order. It's reprinted in full form on the blog.

Ahh but remember we must automatically assume that Candace is a bare-faced liar about this, unless she shows the exact documentation to which she is referring

 

[HumanityBlues]

Ahh but remember we must automatically assume that Candace is a bare-faced liar about this, unless she shows the exact documentation to which she is referring

It doesn't matter. The fault was Alt F4's reading comprehension. Even if it was a lie, it says in the damn article what blog post it was.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I Got a Name

I would agree that a judge would need to see prima facie evidence of defamation before agreeing to grant a court order for removal of the site. But at the moment nobody can see quite where Sfarzo might have allegedly defamed Mignini. I wonder if someone can dredge up the offending piece of writing. One can only assume that a judge in Florence hasn't granted a court order based on less than sufficient evidence.......

PS: The Florentine judge's name is Belsito, not Belisto.

LondonJohn,

Thanks for the information on the judge's name. According to Candace Dempsey, there was a misunderstanding or mistranslation of the following passage from Perugia-Shock:

"Saturday March 12, 2011
The first super witness Kokomani ended up in jail, and it seems that there is room even for the others. Like this I was concluding on March 12 2009. Indeed, Antonio ‘Toto’ Curatolo, the other main witness of the Knox-Sollecito case, is also now locked up in Capanne. Not for having ruined Amanda and Raffaele, though, but rather for dealing heroin. I remember the prosecutor was quite surprised, at the time when Toto came out, in hearing he was into drugs. But...."

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, and a propos online defamation, is anyone aware of any forthcoming libel actions against the Injustice in Perugia website regarding this article, which is still very much live on the site:

http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/2011/03/truth-behind-online-hate-campaign.html

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[Bilbo]

I just read 8000+ posts...maybe it's time for a "Continuation #3"?