Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I'm saying that Migini's actions are nothing new, Italy isn't a leading offender when it comes to bad defemation suits and that Amanda Knox and fanboy Frank Sfarzo aren't being singled out.

The fact that Alt+F4 can't see the potential contradiction inherent in what she's written here is staggering.

And, in a wider context, either Italy is a country known for criminal defamation lawsuits or it isn't. If it is, then one could say that Mignini's recent behaviour is "par for the course", and in line with general Italian practice. However, arguing that criminal defamation cases are rare in Italy is to argue that Mignini's actions are out of the ordinary, and worthy of scrutiny as such. I wouldn't mind betting that a significant proportion of defamation lawsuits brought by public judicial officials in Italy over the past five years (say >30%) have been brought by just one Prosecuting Magistrate: Giuliano Mignini.

 

[Alt+F4]

The fact that Alt+F4 can't see the potential contradiction inherent in what she's written here is staggering.

I knew you couldn't ignore me....you have to defend the belief.

I wouldn't mind betting that a significant proportion of defamation lawsuits brought by public judicial officials in Italy over the past five years (say >30%) have been brought by just one Prosecuting Magistrate: Giuliano Mignini.

Well we know for certain that Frank's wasn't.

 

[LondonJohn]

I knew you couldn't ignore me....you have to defend the belief.

Remind me of where I said I was ignoring you. I said I might ignore you, but as usual you've twisted words to suit your own end. Unsurprising.

Well we know for certain that Frank's wasn't.

Oh, so who brought it then? (Hint: please don't say Judge Belsito...)

 

[Alt+F4]

Oh, so who brought it then? (Hint: please don't say Judge Belsito - unless, that is, you want to come across as even more uninformed and unable to apply reason than you already do...)

It was Judge Belsito that ruled the case had merit and it was Judge Belisito that issued the order. I know you want to think that big, bad Migini controls everything in Italy (including Berlusconi's brothel). Just read up on the case a little more.

 

[LondonJohn]

It was Judge Belsito that ruled the case had merit and it was Judge Belisito that issued the order. I know you want to think that big, bad Migini controls everything in Italy (including Berlusconi's brothel). Just read up on the case a little more.

Don't insult my intelligence please. Who brought the defamation lawsuit against Sfarzo? Do you know what "bringing a lawsuit" actually means? Do you know that a plaintiff brings a lawsuit, and a court (and judge) hears the suit and issues rulings related to the suit? Do you know anything at all about the legal process?

So, once again: who BROUGHT the defamation lawsuit against Sfarzo. Not who authorised it. Not who issued court orders related to it. Who BROUGHT it?

Thanks in advance for your reply!

 

[Kaosium]

I doubt Italy could come up with the effort to amass "shadowy forces".

They already exist in the mind of Mignini, and they ought to considering the number of people he's pissed off in his career. Think of how many enemies this man must have! He has one top politician representing one of his victims, another one writing books praising the other. The lead prosecutor supposedly is in line for the Supreme Court and hides from exposure related to the case by thrusting Mignini and Comodi forward into the spotlight, and Mignini just dropped his drawers in front of the CPJ spotlight and lashed out with a bizarre unfounded accusation, abusing his office yet again. To return to Frank's colorful analogy, while you might ask what 'power' does the CPJ have in Italian Courts, I'd remind you of the fellow who asked in derision 'how many divisions does the Pope have?'

I'm constantly amazed how slowly justice moves in Italy. Since it's my understanding that not much gets done in Italy in August I think we're looking towards a September date for the conclusion of the appeal. Nine months for an appeal! I think AK and RS had about 20-25 points each in their appeals. Except for the DNA evidence the rest of that stuff could have been banged out in a month.

I think it may well still be over in a month. Toto is toast, the DNA items are evidence alright, but not against Raffaele and Amanda. I suspect that's the meaning behind the forty day delay.

 

[Alt+F4]

I think it may well still be over in a month. Toto is toast, the DNA items are evidence alright, but not against Raffaele and Amanda. I suspect that's the meaning behind the forty day delay.

Do you know, when did the forty day delay begin?. I read somewhere proceedings are supposed to resume on July 4th. Is this correct?

 

[Alt+F4]

So, once again: who BROUGHT the defamation lawsuit against Sfarzo. Not who authorised it. Not who issued court orders related to it. Who BROUGHT it?

Calm yourself dear. As I said, do a bit more reading on the case, I'm sure you'll catch up quickly.

 

[LondonJohn]

Calm yourself dear. As I said, do a bit more reading on the case, I'm sure you'll catch up quickly.

Oh, I'm calm

So what "reading on the case" should I do in order to find out who brought a defamation suit against Sfarzo?

By the way, you know you were talking the other day about people embarrassing themselves on this forum......?

 

[LondonJohn]

Calm yourself dear. As I said, do a bit more reading on the case, I'm sure you'll catch up quickly.

And, by the way, trying to hide behind condescending and irrelevant remarks rather than answering the question addressed to you is not a very endearing trait.

 

[Antony]

The case of either the Birmingham six or the guildford four a judge decided that no charges could be brought against those involved because he felt they could not get a fair trial.

It was the Guildford Four. The classic quote in the Birmingham Six case was from Lord Denning when the men tried to bring a case for assault against the police who arrested them. Even though they showed clear injuries at the time of their arrest, Denning described the prospect of a successful action, with the implications of police perjury and exposing the original trial as unsafe, as such an "appalling vista" that the actions could not be allowed to continue. Of course this was before the convictions were overturned, while the Guildford quote was afterwards.

I have always thought that the judge who gave that verdict done so to rub salt to the wounds of the men and woman who spent fifteen years in prison for having dared question their infallibility and having made their system look bad.

There should have been a scandal over it, but of course this was a time when the Sun newspaper was making excuses for the police, and people were going around saying that the Guildford Four case had been put right, because "they let them out in the end".

If history tells us anything is that all these people have to do is keep their heads down and the system will protect them from any consequences

(Sorry I've altered your sequence, here.) Maybe, and maybe not. We can't necessarily judge the rest of the Italian judicial system by the antics of the UK police in 1991. Don't forget that Mignini has already been handed a 16-month jail sentence which he is currently appealing (on what grounds, it's difficult to imagine).

Of all the people who helped this miscarriage of justice to develop we all probably have our favourites who we would like to see go to prison.For me at least Judge Claudia Matteini the first judge who set all of this off who indicted Amanda for slander I find it interesting that Mignini did not use her in his case against Frank Sfarzo I would like to see her taken on free holiday to Capeanna

Prison sentences are one thing for those responsible, although sackings would be sufficient for most of them in my view. There needs to be a proper inquiry into how such a case was able to be forced through the courts, supported not by sound investigation work but by manipulation. The question of how so many of the judiciary seemed ready to dance to Mignini's tune needs an answer.

 

[Antony]

What side of the argument are you on now? First your arguing against us, then your arguing the same thing we are saying. I dont even know why I engage in a conversation with you. You hop around like a rabbit never defending the same argument longer than a few posts.

I've had Alt-F4 on ignore for a good while, and it's not for not being able to spell "defamation". Her constant mantra of "what evidence do you have?" is a ridiculous one from someone who is ready to make unsupported assertions without ever responding to requests to demonstrate evidence on her part.

 

[Alt+F4]

The appeal is going just fine so far.

Indeed it is. Whether it's July or September the result will be the same, AK and RS will lose their appeal. What will the faithful do then? As the lovebirds final appeal to the Supreme Court drags on for a few more years most of the faithful will move on to some other cause they find interesting. After all, Amanda won't be so young anymore, she'll be hardened by years in prison, "wacky Amanda" will be replaced by a bitter women pushing 30 and there will always be another cute American girl in trouble for the faithful to latch on to. And in the next case, as in this one, the faithful will continue believe that have complete knowledge of every aspect of the planet, from forensic pathology to international law to criminal psychology....all because they can Google.

 

[LondonJohn]

Indeed it is. Whether it's July or September the result will be the same, AK and RS will lose their appeal. What will the faithful do then? As the lovebirds final appeal to the Supreme Court drags on for a few more years most of the faithful will move on to some other cause they find interesting. After all, Amanda won't be so young anymore, she'll be hardened by years in prison, "wacky Amanda" will be replaced by a bitter women pushing 30 and there will always be another cute American girl in trouble for the faithful to latch on to. And in the next case, as in this one, the faithful will continue believe that have complete knowledge of every aspect of the planet, from forensic pathology to international law to criminal psychology....all because they can Google.

This post can stand alone as a near-perfect illustration of your lack of reasoning skills, your empty-headed willingness to paint those who think Knox/Sollecito were wrongfully convicted as motivated primarily by lust for Knox (projection happening there, by any chance?), and a total lack of understanding of how decent research - coupled with proper analytical thinking and a scientific mind - can be of real value.

I don't find any merit in most of your arguments, and I also find it bemusing that you (for some reason) prefer to doggedly defend any position you take - no matter how ridiculous, disproven or plain wrong - to the bitter end, and long after any person of reasonable mind would have conceded that they were wrong. I would ask you why that is, but I doubt whether you could furnish me with any kind of decent answer.

And by the way, I would find it equally ludicrous if a person were to write on here that Knox and Sollecito were definitely going to win their appeal, and I'd tell them so. Your completely unsupported (and unsupportable) level of certainty in this regard merely serves to mark you out as a poor logician.

Just as a final aside (and I don't even really expect an answer, far less a cogent or well-informed one): why do you think that the published medical/scientific evidence on gastric transit doesn't show that Meredith almost certainly died before 10pm on November 1st 2007? And please show your working

 

[Alt+F4]

And by the way, I would find it equally ludicrous if a person were to write on here that Knox and Sollecito were definitely going to win their appeal, and I'd tell them so.

They will lose their appeal, I just don't know if it will occur in June, July or September. The rest of your post is not worth commenting on, its nothing other than a "how dare you think I'm wrong!!" rant.

 

[LondonJohn]

One of the fine-thinking commentators elsewhere has opined that, in his/her opinion, Sfarzo (and/or Dempsey) should be shouting from the rooftops the parts of Perugia Shock that Mignini has identified as potentially defamatory. In his/her opinion, an innocent person would be saying something like: "I can't believe Mignini objected to me saying a,b or c. There was nothing wrong with me saying a, b or c. What's his problem?"

Now, where to start on this? I think (or, more accurately, hope) that if this commentator runs through things again in his/her head, (s)he will see exactly where his/her reasoning has failed. But I'll spell it out anyhow: if a person accuses you of criminal defamation, and a court seemingly agrees that there's a prima facie case by ordering your blog to be taken down, then it would rank as complete stupidity to repeat the alleged defamatory statements in any way, pending a proper legal process. If Sfarzo thinks that the "a, b and c" that Mignini alleges are defamatory to him are not defamatory at all, then the correct (and in fact only) course of action for him to take is to instruct his lawyers to argue this in front of the Florence court. If he can convince the court that Mignini's allegations are actually groundless, then the court order will be overturned and it's likely that Mignini will never get to bring a court action for defamation.

The one thing that Sfarzo should not be doing under any circumstances (and I'm quite sure his lawyers are advising him accordingly) is to repeat the contentious statements from Perugia Shock in public before publicly saying that in his view they are not defamatory. I would have thought that would be fairly clear to most people who'd thought it through for more than a couple of minutes, but it seems I might be wrong in that assumption....

 

[LondonJohn]

They will lose their appeal, I just don't know if it will occur in June, July or September. The rest of your post is not worth commenting on, its nothing other than a "how dare you think I'm wrong!!" rant.

Your answer is about what I expected. How about my final question though? Are you going to ignore it too as a "rant"?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

roller derby queen

Indeed it is. Whether it's July or September the result will be the same, AK and RS will lose their appeal.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Alt+F4,

Given the fact that you were wrong about Ms. Dempsey changing her blog and that you never acknowledged your error, can you provide me with a reason to trust your analysis of the appeal or of supporters of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito? In addition, you are ignoring that fact that I rebutted the claim that Ms. Knox's supporters are motivated by lust.

 

[Alt+F4]

Just as a final aside (and I don't even really expect an answer, far less a cogent or well-informed one): why do you think that the published medical/scientific evidence on gastric transit doesn't show that Meredith almost certainly died before 10pm on November 1st 2007? And please show your working

I'm an expert in one area, the subject in which I have an advanced degree and have been working in for 17 years. Unlike you, I understand that all the Google reading I do doesn't make me an expert, or even well versed in any other subject outside my field of study and work.

There is a reason why people go to real life doctors rather than rely on the "well-informed" of opinions of folks like you. If you are indeed a forensic pathologist than please except my apologies, if not, I'll go with those who actually put the years of work to obtain a real life professional status.

 

[LondonJohn]

Alt+F4,

Given the fact that you were wrong about Ms. Dempsey changing her blog and that you never acknowledged your error, can you provide me with a reason to trust your analysis of the appeal or of supporters of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito? In addition, you are ignoring that fact that I rebutted the claim that Ms. Knox's supporters are motivated by lust.

I think you'll probably find that Alt+F4 will still be trying to argue that she wasn't wrong at all about Dempsey changing her blog....

And I too find it reprehensible that some commentators (Alt+F4 among the most persistent offenders) are intent on trying to bring Knox's sexuality forward as a chief motivator for many of those who argue that she (and Sollecito, don't forget) were wrongfully convicted in the first trial. I think a psychiatrist would be able to carry out a very interesting case study on those who promote this particular argument, and why they choose to do so.