Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RandyN]

Out of respect for fellow JREFers, I make only the comment that I was personally flabbergasted at the way CNN cherry picked from the full 2 hour Interview to give the hatchet job impression they wanted of the Prosecutor.

Compare the full interview with what viewers were shown.
Then make your judgment call.

Add a quick thanks to the six Volunteers and the Administrators who did all the translating and cyber stuff to make this available for all

To be fair CNN did cherry pick this...

After reading the full interview as compared to the CNN broadcast interview I feel they were far too easy on the convicted abuser of power.

If the interviewer had a full grasp of the facts in the case he could have easily torn Mignini into shreds. As it was he missed at least a hundered chances to call him out for distortion and outright lies.

Thanks for translating it...it is certainly as telling as the Massei report. If you're into twisted logic that is.

 

[RandyN]

I was stumped by this one for a while, but I think it's an abbreviation for........

Convicted Murderer Amanda Nox (sic)

Say no more

Yes well I was moderated for questioning a certain groups inability to actually come to the main thread and present the facts as they see them. And I think I used a term that rhymes with Howard. And so my question was chopped off.

But you have indeed solved the riddle...CMAN Oh and I forgot I was also edited for describing someones avatar as being fairly accurate...yuck yuck...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

To be fair CNN did cherry pick this...

After reading the full interview as compared to the CNN broadcast interview I feel they were far too easy on the convicted abuser of power.

If the interviewer had a full grasp of the facts in the case he could have easily torn Mignini into shreds. As it was he missed at least a hundered chances to call him out for distortion and outright lies.

Thanks for translating it...it is certainly as telling as the Massei report. If you're into twisted logic that is.

I agree, I think you have to be somewhat delusional to think that the full interview makes Mignini look good. He's clearly trying to skate over awkward points like the initial reasoning behind the allegation of staging, and exactly what happened on the night Amanda cracked and accused Lumumba

That's when he's not outright lying about what Raffaele and Amanda said. Raffaele never said that Amanda wasn't with him, he merely agreed that it was conceivable that Amanda had popped out to murder while he was asleep and been right back there when he woke up. While the sillier guilters try to make something out of that, there's nothing remotely extraordinary about such a statement - it's conceivable my girlfriend snuck out of bed last night to murder someone while I was asleep. I guess the guilters either sleep alone, or in a vault with a time lock.

As was recently said of Stefanoni, the only real question to ask Mignini now is "So, are you incompetent, corrupt or both?".

 

[Draca]

CNN Mignini Interview

12’51’’ CNN: Why wasn’t there any video or transcript of those hours?

13’00’’ Mignini: Look, that’s, I was at the police station, and all the…let’s say…when I made investigations in my own office, I taped them. I taped them, we have an apparatus for that, and I transcribed them. For example, there’s the interrogation of the English girls, Meredith’s friends, it was all taped. The interrogations of Amanda in prison were taped, and then transcribed, and we have the transcripts of… But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not in the confrontations with Amanda or with anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe. Video is very important…I completely agree with you that videotaping is extremely important, we should be able to have a video recording of every statement [verbale di assunzione di informazioni] made Because what is said is very important, but it’s maybe even more important how it is said, the non-verbal language. Because from the non-verbal language you can [missing words].

15’14’’ Mignini: It isn’t only Amanda, it’s always like that. But I wanted to say that I agree with him that it’s fundamental, only there’s a problem, especially when the witnesses are so numerous, and in fact just recording, I mean recording the sound, isn’t enough according to me.


The man has just said that they purposefully did not record the interrogation do to budget problems. This is unbelievable.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The man has just said that they purposefully did not record the interrogation do to budget problems. This is unbelievable.

I think you should re-read it, that's not what he said at all. He said that the tapes haven't been transcribed due to budget problems, which would indicate that the tapes exist... one has to wonder why they haven't just produced the tape then...

 

[HumanityBlues]

I think you should re-read it, that's not what he said at all. He said that the tapes haven't been transcribed due to budget problems, which would indicate that the tapes exist... one has to wonder why they haven't just produced the tape then...

I can't tell what the **** he's saying honestly. I can get an idea, but the guy is really a rambler.

Heres the full statement:

"Look, that’s, I was at the police station, and all the…let’s say…when I made investigations in my own office, I taped them. I taped them, we have an apparatus for that, and I transcribed them. For example, there’s the interrogation of the English girls, Meredith’s friends, it was all taped. The interrogations of Amanda in prison were taped, and then transcribed, and we have the transcripts of… But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not in the confrontations with Amanda or with anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe. Video is very important…I completely agree with you that videotaping is extremely important, we should be able to have a video recording of every statement [verbale di assunzione di informazioni] made Because what is said is very important, but it’s maybe even more important how it is said, the non-verbal language. Because from the non-verbal language you can [missing words]."

The operative language that appears to answer the question (bolded above): ..."in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn't done, not in the confrontations with Amanda or with anyone else." Does this mean they record everything but "in the confrontations"? It kind of sounds like this, but then he says the reason they don't transcribe these confrontations is because of budget cuts. But he already says they don't record them anyways...

This is either a really bad translation, or Mignini really is just hoping that by saying enough sentences the questioner won't follow up, or Mignini is just really really dumb.

Someone else can try to take a stab of it, but that paragraph makes no sense.

EDIT: I also suggest for anyone with a good sense of humor to read the section trying to justify Curatolo's testimony. Boiled down I think Mignini basically says "he's under oath, so we have to believe him".

Here's a snippet: "Because if he says that he saw something, he exposes himself, he’s under oath so he exposes himself to an accusation of perjury if he’s not telling the truth, so we have to believe him. Otherwise justice, without witnesses…it’s not as though we had a film of the crime, if only that could be the case."?????????

It almost seems like a joke.

 

[HumanityBlues]

This is what Drew Griffin said about Mignini: "“Mignini doesn’t really answer questions,” “He…talks and talks, going round and round and returning to certain things. I had to keep bringing him back to the evidence, to what’s actually being presented in court."

YES, I agree!

Based on a reading of this rambling interview, that description is pretty dead on.

 

[bri1]

Halides1

I can't recall did Amanda's defence team raise the possibility of “memory distrust syndrome” through any expert testimony?

No, because the statement was disallowed from the criminal proceedings against Amanda. Some of us thought it was a strategic error by the defense, and that as soon as they knew the statement would be used as part of civil proceedings that would take place 'alongside' the criminal case, they should've called expert testimony.
But it's not anything more than this, a strategic mistake. The parrallels between Amanda's 'confession' and the cases documented as 'false memory syndrome' are too striking to be a coincidence, and any psychologist who knows anything about internalised false confessions or false memory synfrome could've testified to it.

 

[Draca]

I think you should re-read it, that's not what he said at all. He said that the tapes haven't been transcribed due to budget problems, which would indicate that the tapes exist... one has to wonder why they haven't just produced the tape then...

I'm not sure what he's saying. He wouldn't bring up budget problems though if they forgot to record the interrogation. So they either couldn't afford to tape the interrogation or transcribe it. Either way it is really pathetic. I lean toward him saying they couldn't afford to tape it; I'm sure if it just needs to be transcribed we'd all pitch in a few bucks!

If they couldn't afford to tape it, that doesn't explain why notes weren't taken, since they didn't forget. And what is he saying about voice only? Is it possible they have a voice recording?

 

[bri1]

I'll ask it once again, slooooooowly, so you might understand:

1) Was CMAN found guilty of murder or was she not?

From wikipedia:


2) Is the wikipedia account accurate or inaccurate? If it is inaccurate, why have you not corrected it?

3) (goes toward mental state) At 2:56 UTC on July 21, 1969, did US astronaut Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon?

Did you read the wikipedia article, or haven't you even bothered to do that, before you came here trolling?
It says, right there, at the top: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2011)
A read of this thread would've revealed a dispute about the article which even the founder of wikipedia got involved in. The page was hijacked by guilters ganging up on anyone more objective who tried to make changes.

Maybe you need to go away and educate yourself on the case?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think there are several reasons for asuming he means the transcribing.

1) He was talking about the transcription of the interviews with Meredith's friends, and Amanda's prison interviews immediately before.

2) He says that it "isn't done" which is indicates whatever he is talking about is of the present tense, it hasn't been done yet, not that it was something that wasn't done.

3) He finishes off the though discussing the lack of budget for transcribing.

 

[Matthew Best]

Just finished reading Mignini's interview transcript.

I think I am starting to understand why the wheels of justice move slowly in Italy. The man can't shut up! He rambles, and drones on and on - does he get paid by the hour, do you think?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Oh my! Mignini certainly does come through as a rather poor liar.

Recalling him from the TV, sweating, rambling with those little eyes going left and right - CNN definitely had a lot of great material to pick from here

 

[Matthew Best]

I think there are several reasons for asuming he means the transcribing.

1) He was talking about the transcription of the interviews with Meredith's friends, and Amanda's prison interviews immediately before.

2) He says that it "isn't done" which is indicates whatever he is talking about is of the present tense, it hasn't been done yet, not that it was something that wasn't done.

3) He finishes off the though discussing the lack of budget for transcribing.

I think trying to pin down exact meaning in what Mignini said by analysing his words is a pointless exercise. He could mean one thing, he could mean another. You'd have to cross-examine him in questions demanding simple "yes" or "no" answers to find out what he really means.

 

[bri1]

BZZZZZZ!!!! Wrong.

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A (Judge/Court) is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S (Law).
2. Person A (Judge/Court) makes claim C (Knox is guilty) about subject S (Law).
3. Therefore, C (Knox is guilty) is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A (Judge/Court) is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S (Law), then the argument will be fallacious.

Unless you are prepared to claim that a Court of Law is not a legitmate authority on the Law, then as you can see, your claim doesn't hold water.

Thank you for playing, please drive through.

BZZZZZZ!!!! WRONG yourself.

Whether Knox is guilty or not is not only a question of law, it is also a question of fact. The judge may be an expert in law, but the idea of juries (even 'professional' juries as in Italy) is that we are all qualified to come to a conclusion as to the facts of the case. Therefore anybody who knows all the facts of the case (i.e. not you!) has as much 'expertise' in this as the jurors.

Plus, an appeal to authority can be fallacious even if the authority is qualified. Legitimacy of authority will also depend on trustworthiness and consensus. Here's a link so that you can educate yourself: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Appeal to Authority

You should find this sentence extremely instructive: "spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject " hmmm- CS, I think you're the least qualified person here to spot a fallacious appeal to authority!

I think it's clear who needs to "drive through" here. I won't thank you for playing. Firstly because you haven't contributed anything to the discussion, and secondly because to me at least this whole thing isn't just 'playing', it isn't just an excuse to argue with people on the internet. It's a horrific murder where a young woman lost her life, and a miscarriage of justice where two young people have lost their freedom and reputations.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, my friend, this reply is prompted mostly by an acknowledgement of your past skills as a fair, very knowledgeable courteous poster, and not by acceptance of your continuing persistent pleas for me to ease up on the preamble to my post.

1) 'When and how Amanda lied' is not only an obviously markedly moved goalpost that I politely previously asked to be spared....it is an entirely different playing field.

No, it isn't. It's inherent in your original claim.

Out of respect for your devotion to your cause, do you really want me to go there ?

I most certainly do. I want it so much I can almost taste it.

Surely, since the 'pathological' debate brought into play all the other certainly distasteful to you terms other than pathological that people definitely used to describe Amanda's penchant for being less than truthful.

Do you really want to endure yet another a thru z list of things you probably would rather not see in print again about when Amanda's statements were for example only as she admitted 'the best truths that she can remember' ?
By elementary introspection of that statement alone, she self categorizes what she is saying as something less than the full truth.

I want it more than anything.

2) Again, you do not spare me , the sophistic 'parsing' nitpicking I requested when you now say that you said Amanda was not a *classic* pathological liar.
You now add 'classic' and seek to veer us off into the realm of psychology.
I *per chance* presume, but find necessary to remind you exactly of what you said and not permit the digression out of courtesy to our readers.

It was your word, dear, not mine. What did you intend when you first wrote "classic pathological liar" if not a reference to psychology? I'm not veering, I'm trying to get us back to where we started from.

As a reminder, and again, sorry to have to go there, but this is exactly verbatim what you said that originally stimulated my reply.
(The reply which admittedly now is a deceased and since overly beaten equine that I promise to 'spare' henceforth)

Note absence of any 'classic' modifier in your original.

Finally, even her own lawyer alluded to her 'problems with truth'

A lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga, told reporters Friday [09 November 2007] that his client had given "three versions and ... it is difficult to evaluate which one is true."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004005696_italy10m.html

Stop fogging, my friend. Describe and document Amanda's lies.

 

[Mary_H]

To me, this is the funniest thing Mignini says in that passage: "...I completely agree with you that videotaping is extremely important, we should be able to have a video recording of every statement [verbale di assunzione di informazioni] made Because what is said is very important, but it’s maybe even more important how it is said, the non-verbal language. Because from the non-verbal language you can [missing words]."

I mean, sure, you guys can have your stupid videotapes of everything if you really want them, but I mean, isn't body language really more important than words? We don't care what people say; we want to use our investigative intuition to guess what they really mean.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It seems from the interview that they zeroed in on Amanda very quickly. The belief in the burglery being staged seems to have been very quick to be formed, pretty much right away, and thus the belief that it was someone known to Meredith. Since the two Italian girls were away, that just left Amanda, who become their chief suspect.

What really stands out for me is that it is clear that the police believed that Amanda was involved before the 5th. This confirms other statements, like knowing she was guilty when she was eating pizza instead of curled up in bed crying. Thus it really does make me wonder how they can claim that she was a witness and not a suspect on the 5th. That I don't believe. I also don't believe that they just happened to decide to look at the phone.

I believe they were sure she was involved, they'd already checked her phone calls and knew what they'd find on her phone. Not only that, but they had checked out Patrick's phone calls after seeing she'd texted him, and found his phone near the cottage at about the right time, so they had their suspects, all they needed was to break Amanda's alibi, which they did by getting Rafaelle to admit that he could be sure that Amanda hadn't left, and with that they used his failure to back her, the footage of her (now known to be Meredith) arriving at the cottage, and the text message to Patrick as a blugeon to get her to confess to what they already believed they knew.

Now that doesn't mean that Amanda is innocent, but it certainly explains the Police actions at the time, and does so far better than their inconsistant attempts to explain their own actions.

 

[Kaosium]

I think there are several reasons for asuming he means the transcribing.

1) He was talking about the transcription of the interviews with Meredith's friends, and Amanda's prison interviews immediately before.

2) He says that it "isn't done" which is indicates whatever he is talking about is of the present tense, it hasn't been done yet, not that it was something that wasn't done.

3) He finishes off the though discussing the lack of budget for transcribing.

I hope most of the reporters get the same out of that as you and Draca did, I'd just love for him to be besieged by those who thought he was saying the tapes existed but hadn't been transcribed. I highly doubt that's what he meant though, otherwise those tapes would have been seen during the trial, maybe played on TV--which they do in Italy for high-profile cases. Plus they've already said, with three separate lies, that it wasn't taped. This would be the forth, and one that supersedes the previous three.

However I think he may have been caught in a particularly silly lie. How on earth does a modern facility like the police station in Perugia not have automatic taping equipment set up in a country where every suspect 'interview' must be taped in accordance with Italian law? Where also, as he points out, they are wedded to body language cues to an inane degree as Giobbi also revealed in the Crimesider segment with Paul Ciolino? Do they 'miss' all the confessions that start as 'witness' interviews because of the requirement that the statements be taped? Did he really think anyone would believe it was for budgetary reasons?

For crissakes they have tapes of Amanda and Raffaele in the hall, how could they not have cameras automatically ready to go in the interrogation chambers? The only thing that gives me pause here is that is so easily checked that it's tough to believe he would say something like that were it not the case, but then again he's probably never faced an adversarial press in his life. He might be so delusional he figures no one will bother to ask, or put together that what he said is just absurd.

 

[RoseMontague]

Mignini states that he was in the building when Raffaele and Amanda were questioned. I was under the impression that they called him and woke him up and then he drove over. So at 1:45AM Mignini just happened to be there?

11’03’’ CNN: No one hit her?
11’06’’ Mignini: No, look, absolutely not. I can state this in the most positive way, and then, let’s say… I wasn’t there when she was being questioned by police, the rooms are quite far away… you don’t know but I was… it’s quite far, there’s a corridor, and I was with the director, Dr. Porfazio, and she was being questioned in a different place. I also remember that passing through, I also saw Sollecito who was alone in a different room; he was also being questioned, as I recall. I don’t exclude…well…it’s clear that I wasn’t there, but I don’t believe that anything whatsoever happened, and in my presence absolutely not.