Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[pilot padron]

a pair of early morning 'clean ups' and exit for today

Mignini acts like he doesn't remember exact details of this case, like it's no big deal. I doubt that any of the details are vague to him so why he behaves like that in the interview is anyone's guess. If the details are honestly vague to him then I find that even more disturbing. Either way, not a good interview for Mignini.

1) WOW
That would be quite an amazingly accurate description of another prominent figure in this case, don't you think?
Simply substitute Amanda Knox's name where you use Mignini, and substitute testimony/alibi for 'interview'.
(Out of courtesy for 'quotes', I will not modify for you with --

Read it as I suggest and weep

I can find another rare area of agreement.
I also find *my* suggested read to be horrifically *disturbing*

That disturbing feeling in a nutshell is *one of* the reasons I cannot join the 'innocence home team' here.


2) RE: Requests from Mary, halides1, Kaosium, etc

Enough is enough.

I firmly stand behind the documented fact that Amanda Knox has been called a pathological liar.
Furthermore, I firmly stand behind the documented fact that others have called her:
1) a calculated liar
2) a compulsive liar
3) a cold blooded liar
4) a brazen liar
5) a talented liar

I will not comply with requests to

1) explain *why* she was called liar by these individuals.
Obviously a 'no can do' since I found explicit error in arguments from others (and disciple) attempting to spin *why* Mary made the statement that she and several now admit was erroneous and kicked off this now overtime 'scrimmage' with its oft manipulated goalposts
( incidentally however,, I add that I most heartily agree with mostly all the above 1-5 additional documented descriptions by other individuals)

2) define, parse. and psychologically play with for days the meaning of 'classic pathological' versus pathological liar.
Suffice it to say (halides1) that I wish I had not innocently included the adjective 'classic' so as to allow detractors to attempt to water down the facts implied by the undisputed and conceded term 'pathological' which is indeed descriptive enough standing alone.

3) Define and document each of Amanda's lies.
Waste of time, cyberspace and patience since SOP here is they are not lies.
These impossible to explain excursions are instead some fancy 'communications engineering' type spin doctor euphemism such as source amnesia, memory distrust syndrome,ad nauseam.

4) In general, I have witnessed Machivelli's weeks long, epistle length daily well reasoned similar attempts 'to go there'.
I need not document for you the minuscular rewards of that commendable extensive effort on his part.

I choose not to repeat that well intentioned laborious exercise in futility.

I find nothing written by anyone *with authority* here to disallow my decision, only occasional self appointed communications engineering specialists usurping Administrative prerogatives.

So be it; end of story.
(long, well beaten expired equine story that it you made it to be).

PS:
In the interest of Mary's gracious spirit of 'compromise', please note that in light of the above 'where I will not go', you may again decide to use the borderline insulting sobriquet: 'swift retreat'.
My spirit of compromise permission granted if you regrettably need it to salvage any fraction of fractured satisfaction in so doing

 

[RoseMontague]

It seems that Mignini is accusing Amanda of having hidden the mark on her neck from investigators. He says there is even a photo. Are there photos of her in the presence of police officers with her neck not hidden? This seems to me to be just bizarre. Was she not examined by a doctor?

50'20'' CNN: None of your investigators noticed it?
50'25'' Mignini: The investigators did not notice it, because at the time, Amanda kept herself covered, she was, as described by the shopkeeper Quintavalle, covered up. However, Laura Mazzetti saw it and it was also seen, I think if I’m not mistaken or was said, by the young guy from the Marches who was living downstairs.
This girl saw it [the scratch/mark] and she stated this later in the courtroom. Moreover there is even a photo.

 

[Kaosium]

It seems that Mignini is accusing Amanda of having hidden the mark on her neck from investigators. He says there is even a photo. Are there photos of her in the presence of police officers with her neck not hidden? This seems to me to be just bizarre. Was she not examined by a doctor?

Oh, she was 'examined' alright, it's in Massei and I posted the reference on the New York board. They...ummm...used some euphemisms there, but she was definitely thoroughly examined. It's in the part where they're going over the mixed DNA in the bathroom, they're sure there was no wounds on her body.

As for her hickey, wouldn't the 'trophy' pic with her in front of all those police officers reveal this as a particularly stupid lie on his part? That's the same outfit she was wearing for the close up shot that shows it, is it not? That's the morning the body was discovered...

If I have this right, he said she tried to conceal it when there's a picture on the wall of the SCO in Rome that refutes that!

 

[Rhea]

she was, she seemed to me like she was uplifted, freed of a weight, and terrified of lumumba. That’s an impression that has stayed with me, yet i don’t understand. I remember that there was a policeman who was called, from the sco [servizio centrale operativo] in rome, who made an impression on me because he was very fatherly. She was crying as though freed of a great weight, and he was trying to console her. I remember there was also a policewoman who, well, she...[missing word?] and i’m sure that.. [missing word?] .. Well, all that picture how it was described later... At that moment it wasn’t like that. Right then, there was a situation in which i was trying to console her, to encourage her, because actually we believed that she had told the truth.

He's got to be kidding; "we believed that she had told the truth"?

Raffaele; I was at home, Amanda (possibly?) went out from 9pm to 1 am.

Amanda; I met with Patrick, we went to the cottage, he went into Meredith's room and killed her, I was in the kitchen and covering my ears.

Police at press conference the following day; We solved the case, Amanda, Raffaele and Lumumba killed Meredith in a sex game gone wrong. Case closed!


They obviously had their theory prepared before the interrogation, all they needed was some incriminating statements by them to warrant a detention.

Police-officer; Initially she gave us a version of facts that we knew wasn't correct, then she buckled and gave us a version that we knew was correct.

 

[Fuji]

Given that Hendry wrote the report, I think it is safe for the reader to assume that it reflects his opinion, and that it is based on evidence he has examined. I don't think he talks about any evidence that he just "heard about."

No, but he is apparently comfortable in reaching conclusions without having access to all the evidence he would need to reasonably do so.

??? Are facts and reality troubling only when someone is paid to talk about them?

That was not my point, at all. My point was that his conjectures regarding the break-in need not be considered seriously, as they are are reached without having the information he would need to possess in order to reach an objective conclusion.

 

[Fuji]

So here we have the police photographer "paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane" obviously knowing this particular area was extremely important (since she was paying such particular attention to it), with at least 1 professional police camera on her person yet she snaps how many photos of this area? Oh, that's right - ZERO.

This is a truly bizarre claim you are asserting here. On what basis do you reach this far-fetched conclusion? I hope it is not simply because you, personally, have not seen such photos.

Yes, it does. It tells me (and every other intelligent observer) a few things:

1) This "particular area" was not, at that time, considered important from an evidentiary standpoint.

I do not understand how you can assert this, as I have explicitly cited the court's summation report where reference is made to sworn testimony which indicated this not to have been the situation, at all.

2) Had there been any evidence at this "particular area" it quickly became trampled upon, crushed into the ground, mixed with ashes and cigarette butts, and possibly transferred to other "particular areas."

How do you know this?

3) ILE was, at best, remiss and more likely downright negligent and incompetent.

Again, this does not follow at all from the record of the court's findings.

I was just leaving open the possibility that photographs of the "particular area" existed and that I simply had not seen them.

Why would you disregard this possibility now?

 

[Kaosium]

1) WOW
That would be quite an amazingly accurate description of another prominent figure in this case, don't you think?
Simply substitute Amanda Knox's name where you use Mignini, and substitute testimony/alibi for 'interview'.
(Out of courtesy for 'quotes', I will not modify for you with --

Read it as I suggest and weep

I can find another rare area of agreement.
I also find *my* suggested read to be horrifically *disturbing*

That disturbing feeling in a nutshell is *one of* the reasons I cannot join the 'innocence home team' here.

The difference being, Pilot, there's evidence of Mignini and his minions' lies. The police just say Amanda is a liar, and the 'proof' of that is their own provable lies!

Incidentally, if I were to lock you in a cage for a year and then quiz you on posts you wrote over the past six months, when I could read them any time I wanted, do you suppose I could ask you questions you couldn't answer? Would you expect my knowledge of them to exceed yours, assuming it was my job to know them, and it was the rest of your useful life and that of someone you loved on the line?

Do you suppose I could then parse your answers for 'inconsistencies' and then come up with idiot-ass reasons why they 'prove' you guilty, and even if I couldn't, the fact you couldn't remember--or remember perfectly--was still 'proof' of your guilt?

I know you could do it to me, and I've been told I have a good memory. It sure as hell ain't perfect though, and that game is rigged worse than Three Card Monte on the streets of New York.

At any rate,

'Thanks for stopping by!'

 

[Chris_Halkides]

broken window hypotheses

No, but he is apparently comfortable in reaching conclusions without having access to all the evidence he would need to reasonably do so.



That was not my point, at all. My point was that his conjectures regarding the break-in need not be considered seriously, as they are are reached without having the information he would need to possess in order to reach an objective conclusion.

Fuji,

Let's apply your standard to Massei and the window. Massei made up a story about how the window was broken by someone within Filomena's room. No one ever tested this strange hypothesis by breaking a window in this manner. On the other hand, Sgt. Pasquali tested the hypothesis that the window was broken by someone's throwing a rock from outside. Why should we take Massei's conjecture seriously when he has no demonstration with which to support it?

 

[Diocletus]

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.

Hi--Diocletian here (well, Diocletus since Diocletian was already taken). I have posted elsewhere, but thought I would jump on here, too.

It seems to me that what Magnini is implying here is that when somebody has been arrested or perhaps in formal custody, then the police make tapes. However, if someone is simply being questioned for "investigative" purposes (i.e., has not yet been formally arrested), then tapes are not made . . . not "with Amanda or with anyone else."

It should be quite easy to prove whether this is true or not. Does the police department make tapes of its questioning of other people, who are being questioned but have not yet been arrested? If yes, then Mignini is lying. If no, then the point at which the taping of Knox should have started, per the policy that Magnini suggests, is the point at which Knox was formally placed under arrest.

 

[Diocletus]

Indeed. I could also refer you to page 50 of the translated Massei report to corroborate your understanding:

"On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci [police photographer] mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli. She said: "We observed both the wall... underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and we noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and none of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled; nothing" (p. 142 declarations of Gioia Brocci)."

Is this the witness who is supposed to be telling us that there were no tiny pieces of glass on the ground underneath the window? Because the only things this witness said she was looking for were: (i) marks and such on the wall, and (ii) the trampling of vegetation. She never says that she was even looking for tiny pieces of glass.

So who does say that they looked for tiny pieces of glass and didn't find them?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ominous words and Matteini's admission

It seems from the interview that they zeroed in on Amanda very quickly.
SNIP
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.

PhantomWolf,

Malkmus turned up a citation which reads in part:
Quote
Monday, 5 November 2007 -- Ominous words:"It is not excluded that in the next few hours one of the many persons interviewed in recent days might be converted into a suspect." Endquote (highlighting mine)
Unfortunately the original link to this summary of the news articles of the time no longer works. In addition to the above, Judge Matteini acknowledged that Amanda was arrested prior to her mother’s arrival in Perugia on November 6th, to preclude Amanda’s leaving. We also have reports from Amanda and indirectly from Laura that Amanda was shouted at on November 3rd (hope I have the date right).

 

[Fine]

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?".

_________________________

Kevin,

You're mistaken. That's excusable. You're not the prosecutor. Raffaele had told the cops, on November 5th, that Amanda left him the night of the murder. But how do we excuse Mignini's equally fragrant mistake?...........

Mignini: "This approach has been kept by Raffaele during the hearing for validation of arrest, and afterwards was abondoned as Sollecito's defense became more, let's say, supportive of Amanda." (Mignini CNN Interview, English Translation, page 4.)

During the hearing before Judge Matteini (November 8, 2007) Raffaele was no longer supporting "this approach." He was no longer claiming that Amanda had left him. Indeed, as we can see from the Matteini Report issued the day after the hearing, Raffaele had withdrawn this story while being interrogated by the cops on November 5th, and when he withdrew his story he told the cops that Amanda had forced him to tell that story. This account is confirmed by entries in Raffaele's Prison Diary.

Raffaele's "Amanda left me" story seems to have survived only minutes---no more than hours---the night of November 5th at the police station. But Mignini thinks it survived for days!

So, did Mignini not read the Matteini Report..........or did he not understand it???
__________
The Matteini Report: HERE

///

 

[Rhea]

Raffaele's "Amanda left me" story seems to have survived only minutes---no more than hours---the night of November 5th at the police station. But Mignini thinks it survived for days!

So, did Mignini not read the Matteini Report..........or did he not understand it???

The guilters claim that even to this day Raffaele doesn't corrobotate Amanda's alibi.

 

[spartacus]

Excellent read! I couldn't help but chuckle over this part:



Him and everyone else! My first question would probably be thrown out by the judge, however I suspect it might be the only dichotomy relevant in this instance:

'Are you corrupt or are you incompetent?'

I think the significant part of that post was (using his words) it would be "practically impossible" for that knife to be used for murder since there was no blood and the tmb test was negative showing that no bleach had been used on it. There fore it was not cleaned and if not cleaned there would have had to be blood on it. Also that no statistical significance was given for the LCN DNA.

 

[Rhea]

I think the significant part of that post was (using his words) it would be "practically impossible" for that knife to be used for murder since there was no blood and the tmb test was negative showing that no bleach had been used on it. There fore it was not cleaned and if not cleaned there would have had to be blood on it. Also that no statistical significance was given for the LCN DNA.

I remember reading once that a defense expert told Amanda's family the DNA on the blade of the knife could belong to half of the population of Italy …

Since I'm no expert I don't know if that is possibly true …

 

[Matthew Best]

the DNA on the blade of the knife could belong to half of the population of Italy …

Well, there you go then. That makes it "consistent with" Raffaele's DNA, doesn't it?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So every person declared Guilty in a Court of Law is guilty and every person declared Not-Guilty in a court of law isn't guilty? There are no miscarriages of justice and the courts get it right every single time?

So courts/judges aren't authorities on the law? If they aren't, then who is? I look forward to an entertaining answer.

 

[Rhea]

Well, there you go then. That makes it "consistent with" Raffaele's DNA, doesn't it?

And consistent with Meredith's DNA (on the knife).

Amanda's father said that in an interview, if I remember correctly …

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll agree that they should be a authority on the LAW, but a legal case doesn't rest on the law, it rests on the evidence...

A legal case doesn't rest on the law? Oh, that's rich!!!

But the evidence is why convicted murderer Amanda Knox is sitting in prison right now. You do understand that, right?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

BTW...

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

You posted the above twice...what exactly does CMAN mean?

Ooops! The spell checker missed that one. It should be CMAK, which stands for Convicted Murderer Amanda Knox.

AK parents defence is that

1. There was no intent.

Intent for what?

2. The charge against them was brought to silence them.

Huh?

3. Show all the accessory charges brought against others by abusive prosecutor and convicted criminal Mignini related to this case and that are only an attempt to silence those who disagree with him.

Again, huh?

4. Call witnesses who prove that the police have lied in other areas of this case.

I bet they aren't even real police.

5. Call PL and question his interview with the Daily Mail where he states that he was beaten, called a dirty black, and held w/o food or water. And if the police or prosecutor has since spoken w/ him about this interview...which BTW Daily mail stands behind.

Interviews with the Daily Mail are not evidence, unless admitted to the record.

6. Ask to see a copy of the tape of the interrogation.

No.