Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Well I guess Frank would have to file suit against Mignini first and then have that case go to trial. The easier question in all of this is who isn't suing each other.

Didn't Patrick sue Amanda, the Kerchers sued both AK and RS and didn't Amanda also sue someone?

Present tense. Who isn't Mignini suing? To the best of my knowledge those other cases have already appeared in court. Where as Mignini has a massive list of people he is currently suing along with the lawsuits filed by others associated with Mignini against Knox, her parents, and the Sollecito family. Knox won her case because the media illegally published something to do with her diary(i believe). Other than that 1 case that Knox won, all other lawsuits that I know of, have been aimed at Knox, Knox's family, Sollecito's family or the supports of Knox/Sollecito. So to say who isn't suing who is to emphasize that the Pro Knox side is counter suing. Which isn't the case as of yet. Where as it should read who isn't suing the pro Knox side. I do say yet, because if the convictions get overturned alot of people are going to suddenly change isp providers and alot of retractions are going to have to be printed. But as we were talking about defamation, how many people are sueing for demation that isn't connected to Mignini?

 

[Kaosium]

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

Salutations! I offer the 'Croix de Knox' in appreciation of your achievement!

However, we've another 20k posts or so to go before a new thread is started, and there's another 40k or so for you to read in the two previous threads to attain the exalted status as a 'Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur' and receive the rank and privileges due that office. Those would entail being called a crusader, a cultist, a conspiracy theorist, a pervert, a xenophobe, and a groupie! However those additional...honorifics...will be conferred by those from Projection Mal Faite, which pretty much sums up their 'martial' prowess.

 

[RoseMontague]

Kermit has a new hit piece up at TJMK regarding 4. Looks like the point of this is that CPJ has not let Kermit know exactly what they did to verify Frank's claims and therefore they are wrong.

 

[christianahannah]

I am confused about the order which was issued by Judge Paola Belsito on February 23, 2011.

Was it a warning to Google and to Frank as "to be on notice that any future areas of defamation against Mignini would be acted upon by the court?" The blog attached to the order by Mignini was written by Frank approximately three weeks after Belsito's order (February 23 versus March 12 and then faxed March 15).

In the comments section of the March 12 blog Frank writes of his upcoming appearance before Mignini and other things. Is this perhaps one attachment among many which were sent to the judge by Mignini and then to Google?

 

[Kaosium]

PM Mignini's love of conspiracy theories is vaguely reminiscent of Jim Garrison, of JFK assassination CT fame. I have a recollection that he indicted a number of people on thin evidence.

Vaguely? You have a gift for understatement!

Take a look into the caliber of 'witnesses' presented in the Clay Shaw trial, jailbirds, hard drug users, and a steady collection of whackadoodles.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Here's another rant from some out of control unknown food blogger wannabe groupie :
http://www.groundreport.com/World/Amanda-Knox-Prosecutor-Continues-Abuse-of-Power-to/2938969

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I just realized that my JREF probation is over. So I guess Pilot was wrong, I haven't been banned from every single site that I have ever posted on other than my own. I guess he has to update his "Bruce Fisher" cut and paste file.

 

[RoseMontague]

I just realized that my JREF probation is over. So I guess Pilot was wrong, I haven't been banned from every single site that I have ever posted on other than my own. I guess he has to update his "Bruce Fisher" cut and paste file.

Do you know or can find out the answer to Christiana's question above? The dates/ time frame of this is not clear.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's not an insult, it's an observation. You need no evidence to support your beliefs, you just accept what the group believes. Most people in cults are happy being there, so no worries for you.

Talking evidence, perhaps you can help me out, I know the evidence that LJ and others use, but it seems that few of those that believe in the side of guilt will discuss what they believe; they just tend to make assertions and don't back them up. I have even tried reading through the JMK site and others, but I find that information on them, even when posted recently is quite out of date and doesn't take into account recent developments, for instance there are still claims of Amanda's bloody footprints in the hallway even though it emerged at the first trial that there was no direct evidence that the footprints were either Amanda's or in blood.

Since the time of death has been raised again, that'd be a good one to cover. My own reading into the science shows me that specialists have determined that it takes between about 5 and 6 hours for food to completely leave the stomach after eating, with around 50% of it having left at the 3-4 hour mark. The prosecution places the time of death at about 11:50pm, based on the witnesses hearing screams about that point in time, and based on her friends testimony, as well as the movie length, we know that Meredith most likely ate her dinner that night at between 6pm and 6:30pm. That would give 5h 20m between the meal and death. According to the science, the food should have all, or nearly all, been removed by then, but the autopsy says that none had passed on at all. To me this doesn't make sense.

I do keep hearing this "other factors can influence digestion" bit no one actually states what these factors are. According to the Judge's report Meredith got home lay on her bed, played with her phones, read a book, put the book back in her bag, and basically lazed about until her attack several hours after getting home, so what factors would have slowed her digestion down to at least 4 hours slower than a normal person's?

One theory I have been told is that the attack actually started a lot earlier, about 9:30pm and lasted until 11:50pm, however there seems to be no evidence for this, and it also conflicts with the prosecution witness (though apparently discredited now) who claims to have seen AK and RS outside the cottage from 9:30 to 11:30ish. That the body has no restraint or ligature marking would seem to be an indication that Meredith was not restrained, and there are no torture marks on her, so this claim would seem to be made out of whole cloth.

I am sure you can see why and how I am confused on this one. If the prosecution's time of death is unreliable, then much of their case starts to have little meaning, but if they are right about the time of death, Meredith seems to have been a truly extraordinary case, a marvel in fact.

So which do you think? That Meredith died at 11:50pm as the prosecution claimed, or closer to 9pm which seems the most likely time based on the science?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Next time, this time

Wrong. She added that later this afternoon after someone at Perugia Murder File said that was the blog post. Please keep up with what is happening, you are embarassing yourself.

Alt+F4,

I have it on the best possible authority that she did not change her blog. Please do not expect me to do this sort of thing again, 'cause there ain't gonna be a next time, this time.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

One less set of footsteps

Talking evidence, perhaps you can help me out, I know the evidence that LJ and others use, but it seems that few of those that believe in the side of guilt will discuss what they believe; they just tend to make assertions and don't back them up. I have even tried reading through the JMK site and others, but I find that information on them, even when posted recently is quite out of date and doesn't take into account recent developments, for instance there are still claims of Amanda's bloody footprints in the hallway even though it emerged at the first trial that there was no direct evidence that the footprints were either Amanda's or in blood.

Since the time of death has been raised again, that'd be a good one to cover.

PhantomWolf,

Even if the commenters from the pro-guilt sites stopped talking about the bloody footprints, they do not seem inclined ever to admit error. Nor do they ever say that knocking out a piece of evidence has weakened the overall case in their mind. One less set of footsteps doesn't mean much when one is reasoning backward.

Judge Hellmann has not indicated that he will necessarily address TOD, yet I think that it is the single most important unexamined issue and possibly the single most important issue overall. My own cursory examination of the issue tallies with yours, and Kevin_Lowe and LondonJohn have looked into it much more extensively. What I found by looking at the websites of anesthesiologists is that recommendations for elective surgery suggested fasting for 6-8 hours prior to surgery (presumably the time for full stomach clearance). It is tough to see how a stomach that had not even begun to empty in about 5.5 hours could completely empty a short time later. On the conspiracy thread, Rolfe made the point that Massei discussed the time for complete emptying in a way that muddied the waters with respect to Meredith's TOD (I agree). However, I wanted to take an approach that was complementary to what other people were doing.

 

[Chris C]

Alt+F4,

I have it on the best possible authority that she did not change her blog. Please do not expect me to do this sort of thing again, 'cause there ain't gonna be a next time, this time.

Actually I read pmf and the first mention on PMF that I found concerning A BUS NAMED DESIRE, was a copy and paste that someone got from candaces blog. In other words, the information ALT is claiming that was first posted on PMF was actually information they had copied from Candaces blog.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7181358&postcount=8243

 

[LondonJohn]

I am confused about the order which was issued by Judge Paola Belsito on February 23, 2011.

Was it a warning to Google and to Frank as "to be on notice that any future areas of defamation against Mignini would be acted upon by the court?" The blog attached to the order by Mignini was written by Frank approximately three weeks after Belsito's order (February 23 versus March 12 and then faxed March 15).

In the comments section of the March 12 blog Frank writes of his upcoming appearance before Mignini and other things. Is this perhaps one attachment among many which were sent to the judge by Mignini and then to Google?

I would have thought that it would be difficult - even in Italy - to obtain a court order which basically says something akin to: "This court accepts that the Plaintiff is allegedly being defamed in the Perugia Shock blog. If it happens again, the court will decide whether it constitutes potential defamation, and will consequently issue a preventive seizure order".

In other words, I would have thought that such a seizure order can only be made in response to a specific complaint about specific alleged defamation. Whether other examples were linked in the fax to Google, dating from before Feb 23, and/or whether the March 11 Perugia Shock piece was added as additional evidence, or whether there was another mess-up (as with the date on the cover sheet), we won't know unless and until we see the full court order. Bear in mind, though, that the fax cover sheet says that it's page 1 of 3, so the court order plus supporting documentation presumably only covers a further two pages of A4.

Either way, it's not our business to know these details, and personally I don't really care whether they are supplied to us or not. I am totally satisfied that the basic story is true and correct: Mignini applied for - and obtained - a court order to shut down Perugia Shock on the grounds of alleged defamation. We will all find out exactly what Mignini deemed to be defamation if and when this case ever goes to trial. Until then, it's none of our business.

Incidentally, I see that Skeptical Bystander^TM employed all her investigative skills in tracing the fax number from which the cover sheet was sent, and was able to trace it - via circuitous means - to the Florence division of the Postal Police. She could have saved herself a lot of time and effort by reading the official letterhead on the fax itself: below the header insignia and the name of the department, the same fax number is printed. Perhaps SB^TM can email the Florence Postal Police at poltel.fi@poliziadistato.it (as also shown in the letterhead) and ask them what their email address is

"Ko nema u glavi, ima u nogama", as they say in Serbia

 

[LondonJohn]

PhantomWolf,

Even if the commenters from the pro-guilt sites stopped talking about the bloody footprints, they do not seem inclined ever to admit error. Nor do they ever say that knocking out a piece of evidence has weakened the overall case in their mind. One less set of footsteps doesn't mean much when one is reasoning backward.

Judge Hellmann has not indicated that he will necessarily address TOD, yet I think that it is the single most important unexamined issue and possibly the single most important issue overall. My own cursory examination of the issue tallies with yours, and Kevin_Lowe and LondonJohn have looked into it much more extensively. What I found by looking at the websites of anesthesiologists is that recommendations for elective surgery suggested fasting for 6-8 hours prior to surgery (presumably the time for full stomach clearance). It is tough to see how a stomach that had not even begun to empty in about 5.5 hours could completely empty a short time later. On the conspiracy thread, Rolfe made the point that Massei discussed the time for complete emptying in a way that muddied the waters with respect to Meredith's TOD (I agree). However, I wanted to take an approach that was complementary to what other people were doing.

It's worth reiterating that the only rulings that Hellmann has made so far concern the introduction of additional evidence or witness testimony, and even here he's said that he may well add to his list of new evidence/testimony following the results of the DNA testing. It will be the job of Hellmann's court to re-evaluate the entire case. In most areas, they will use the evidence and testimony from the first trial as the basis for legal arguments and subsequent court reasoning.

It's therefore inconceivable that the appeal court will not look again at the Time of Death issue. It might be that Hellmann thinks he already has enough expert testimony (from the first trial) in this area to facilitate a full and reasoned discussion of this area of the case - although if I were the defence I'd be pushing hard to admit an internationally-renowned forensic pathologist who had experience and credibility in the area of ToD from stomach/intestine contents to state unequivocally that it's highly unlikely that Meredith died later than 9.30pm, and that it's virtually impossible that she died later than 11pm.

But Hellmann's court, let's remember, already has the testimony of the various pathologists from the first trial, whose testimony stated that the stomach starts to empty between 2-4 hours maximum after the start of a meal. So the existing testimony, in and of itself, contradicts the prosecution and court from the first trial, and tends to support a time of death some time before 10.30pm.

 

[katy_did]

Fine on PMF asks a good question:

In the meantime...can anyone remember---or find---a single statement from Frank, posted on his site, which defames Mignini? I can't.

Now evidence has been provided that Mignini is filing defamation charges against Frank, and it wasn't all some elaborate conspiracy planned in advance by the mighty FOA to coincide with the 9 May court date, it seems that the focus has switched to what 'defamatory' thing he might have said. Like Fine, I can't recall anything particularly negative either; if anything, Frank tended to defend Mignini against criticism (although even if had criticized him, as the CPJ letter says, that's just part of the "scrutiny that comes with public office" and defamation charges shouldn't be used as the "proverbial bogeyman" to silence critics). If Frank said anything defamatory against Mignini, surely someone should remember or be able to find out what it was, since his blog was (and is) publicly available?

 

[RoseMontague]

Reading Dempsey's post it says:

I’ve read Judge Paola Belsito’s court order, which names Mignini as the “injured party” and complainant. He contends that Frank’s “evaluations” of Mignini’s performance at trial constitute a defamatory offense.

The order claims that allowing free access to Perugia Shock constitutes a “well-founded danger–the likelihood that Frank will evaluate Mignini’s work again, “exacerbate or extend the consequences of the crime. ”

How? “The accessibility of the site to third parties allows an indeterminate number of people to inspect its contents, and then to spread any defamatory evaluations.”

So it is not just the drugs that Mignini is complaining about. It is being "evaluated" and not being given a good "evaluation" evidently.

It would seem to me that Mignini is very plainly trying to silence an opinion and the Italian court is allowing that. Would Frank's blog be taken down if he had given Mignini good "evaluations"?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Careful Man

Reading Dempsey's post it says:



So it is not just the drugs that Mignini is complaining about. It is being "evaluated" and not being given a good "evaluation" evidently.

It would seem to me that Mignini is very plainly trying to silence an opinion and the Italian court is allowing that. Would Frank's blog be taken down if he had given Mignini good "evaluations"?

RoseMontague,

This astonishing point might be a good thread-starter. One has to wonder whether or not PM Mignini would like to incarcerate Frank. I hope he is a careful man.

 

[christianahannah]

I would have thought that it would be difficult - even in Italy - to obtain a court order which basically says something akin to: "This court accepts that the Plaintiff is allegedly being defamed in the Perugia Shock blog. If it happens again, the court will decide whether it constitutes potential defamation, and will consequently issue a preventive seizure order".

In other words, I would have thought that such a seizure order can only be made in response to a specific complaint about specific alleged defamation. Whether other examples were linked in the fax to Google, dating from before Feb 23, and/or whether the March 11 Perugia Shock piece was added as additional evidence, or whether there was another mess-up (as with the date on the cover sheet), we won't know unless and until we see the full court order. Bear in mind, though, that the fax cover sheet says that it's page 1 of 3, so the court order plus supporting documentation presumably only covers a further two pages of A4.

Either way, it's not our business to know these details, and personally I don't really care whether they are supplied to us or not. I am totally satisfied that the basic story is true and correct: Mignini applied for - and obtained - a court order to shut down Perugia Shock on the grounds of alleged defamation. We will all find out exactly what Mignini deemed to be defamation if and when this case ever goes to trial. Until then, it's none of our business.

Incidentally, I see that Skeptical Bystander^TM employed all her investigative skills in tracing the fax number from which the cover sheet was sent, and was able to trace it - via circuitous means - to the Florence division of the Postal Police. She could have saved herself a lot of time and effort by reading the official letterhead on the fax itself: below the header insignia and the name of the department, the same fax number is printed. Perhaps SB^TM can email the Florence Postal Police at poltel.fi@poliziadistato.it (as also shown in the letterhead) and ask them what their email address is

"Ko nema u glavi, ima u nogama", as they say in Serbia

But Frank and the journalists covering this story want it to be the public's business, after all "no comment" or "on advice of my attorney I cannot speak of details" is an answer which conveys the meaning of "it is not our business." That is not what has been done - there has been progressive leaking of details and that implies wanting the public to know.

And there is never anything wrong with questioning what has been given and wanting to know more. Some details do not matter to get wrong - the wrong spelling of the judge's name (which Dempsey has corrected, I am not sure any other journalist has done so) but other details are important as to the accuracy and truthfulness of the story.

There is a matter of trust between journalists and the public. Perhaps some would argue those writing about Frank's event are not journalists. Well, I guess I would argue that even bloggers, commenters, posters, et al are the new age of journalism and as such should strive to adhere to the basic tenets of the old journalism.

 

[Dan O.]

Dempsey's blog might have the wrong link to the cached page for Franks March 12 blog

I just finished compiling the full list of cache links in the "Perugia Shock" page of my site.

 

[Kaosium]

RoseMontague,

This astonishing point might be a good thread-starter. One has to wonder whether or not PM Mignini would like to incarcerate Frank. I hope he is a careful man.

So do I, in fact I regret something I said earlier about thinking elements of this situation hilarious. Sometimes I find something to laugh at so I don't cry, but there's nothing funny about the situation Frank is in. While I only have highly limited information to go on, something tells me Mignini is not a man who likes being defied. If Frank is posting on Perugia Shock again I hope he is doing it from a secure, undisclosed location.

I suppose that sounds paranoid, maybe it is, but Mignini stands to lose everything and like a dying lion might lash out. Low odds I would hope, and I'm not talking about a plutonium sandwich or anything, but I do suspect a man who spent his life putting people in jail might well decide to put one more in the can if it looks like he might just be headed there himself. (eventually) Perhaps he is so delusional he doesn't see it coming, but that wasn't the impression I got from the CNN special. He was sweating like a newbie poker player going all-in trying to bluff with a busted flush.