This Yummi / Machavelli guy is so close to Mignini that I suspect that he is Migninis official internet translator. I’m serious.
He presents the same convoluted logic and idiotic arguments.
Not Mignini....
Massei. Mignini's plain nuts, he just makes stuff up--cheats outrageously. Massei tries to ponderously make sense of it all and call it 'logic.' Outside of that comparison I highly doubt Machiavelli's actually involved in the case.
The Supreme Court will affirm the innocent finding and will overrule the guilty finding on the slander of Lumumba. Why? Because Hellmann was very careful...in fact he gave far more leeway to the prosecution than he should have...I suspect he had to go along with the citizen jurors as Italians still seem certain the false accusation is a crime against Lumumba.
There's something going on there....
I suggest that Lumumba needs to look into charges against police. On Nov 5th, 2007 after Amandas class Lumumba approached Amanda outside her school. He asked her if she would speak to a reporter (that I suspect was offering money to Lumumba) the request of which she declined. It is certain that Amanda was being followed by police and that they saw this encounter between the two. Not only did Amanda decline Lumumbas offer but she also resigned her job in that very same conversation…( she was afraid to walk the streets)
This is interesting! Do you have a source for this outside Amanda's statement? I recall it coming up a few times and some were dubious it ever happened, but I seem to recall your version here from
somewhere.
So...does it really take mental gymnastics that there was never a need to find a black mans hair or even to review a text message for the Perugia Flying Idiots to suspect Lumumba? In fact I suggest it was Lumumbas greed that led him into the police trap in the first place. A trap sprung later that evening ...yes...Nov 5th, 2007.
That could be, it's difficult to tell just what they had on the 6th outside that which they presented before Matteini on the 8th. I've long suspected they had reason to think Patrick's bar was closed that night before they ever brought Amanda in, that's why they write the first statement as though his bar is closed that night, which she later words correctly in her note. It's possible that's simply a translation error, or perhaps with the language difficulties the nuance between the difference between no
one being there and no
customers being there, but the way they wouldn't believe him or do anything more to try to establish an alibi during his interrogation on the 6th before packaging him up with Raffaele and Amanda for their guided tour of Perugia with sirens blaring, suggests they might have had reason to believe his bar was closed, and on the seventh just went out an collected an official statement from Vulcano Gerado Pasquale.
Isn't it
odd that the police in one day could find a person who regularly frequented Patrick's bar and would say it was closed when
it wasn't, but they couldn't find a single person for two weeks to 'properly' substantiate his alibi that it was open, even though it was?
That Vulcano guy must have been a real lucky hit...
Amanda is 100 % innocent...how can there be intent if she had no knowledge of what the police promised her they were certain of? Police stated Lumumba was involved. They were positive. I believe Amanda truly thought Lumumba may be guilty. And besides...Lumumbas little greedy larceny with the reporter got his own self in trouble...black man found.
Amanda testified (at Mignini's insistence as I recall) that she was the one who first used Patrick's name, when they were demanding she reveal who she texted that night. She indicated she knew who they were talking about and they suggested it, but she spoke the name first. That suggests to me they followed the letter of the interrogation procedure, but broke the spirit by leading Amanda right to Lumumba and demanding she name him by shoving the phone in her face as I recall her testifying, and that's when they started whupping her. I just bring that up to clarify it, lest you run into someone (like Bolint!
) who knows that Mignini seemed to make a special point of asking her that question on the stand and demanding she answer it to his satisfaction.
Whatever reasons they had to suspect Patrick, black hair, test, meeting Amanda, the more grounds they had for that suspicion, the better they look in retrospect.
And speaking of snotty remarks any word from CS today? Yuck yuck!
I've not yet seen a post in this thread from CS since he became a fully-vested CTer. That ought to be a...subtle...change for him, I'm sure he's looking forward to being a conspiracy theorist, as much as he talks about them...
I found the following post
very interesting...
Number four makes me happy, I am
absolutely delighted the people of Perugia are displeased with the verdict. Overjoyed as a matter of fact. From what I saw of the crowd scene, enough of it was like how Yummi describes here I tend to believe it, as I also got the impression the (mostly) CNN and Fox correspondents were trying to avoid stating outright the populace was feeling unrestful. If they booed Mignini down too that makes it special too, but quite frankly outside the jurors who voted for acquittal in this case, the ones that didn't insist on the
calunnia conviction at least, I did wonder sometimes if Frank Sfarzo wasn't the only decent soul in that baroque city.
I especially enjoyed how he spelled it out for us all that the paragraph 1 530 acquittal means the evidence will all be untwisted and put back where it belongs, like Rudy's footprint or discarded as meaningless like it actually was notably the 'mixed DNA' and the luminol prints. The fact he cannot think of a rational reason for Amanda's alleged
calunnia either pleases me to no end!
See, this is how you read Machiavelli's posts and
be happy!
Yummi PMF said:
To all I want to say: just don't be discouraged!
It's too early for me to make a precise definitive opinion, I have to read the sentencing report.
I want to make a little summing up of things from the last days and last news:
1 - I was hearing a 530 paragraph 1 acquittal for murder, which is something that sounded unreal to all rational beings that followed the case that I know. And this is something to think about: as usual, in order to decide whether to respect a verdict, I have to read the sentencing report. But a 530 § 1 is impossible to motivate - to explain - in a logical rationale, unless the sentencing report is something extremely peculiar focused on the time of death incompatible with their alibi, but even in this case you would get contradiction of evidence and thus a 530 § 2. But this is something I have never seen, this never occurred on any important cases that I know, and specifically I can’t imagine see how this could be claimed on this case. I see the 530 § 1 as impossible to claim at the Supreme Court. This conclusion is surreal, its’ a castle floating in the clouds. It should be based - maybe - on something like a certain attribution to Guede of the bloody footprint, and a total twisting on the same of each piece of evidence that is considered in some way a prove of innocence. Otherwise it is impossible to formulate a paragraph 1. This may be the typical case of sentencing that doesn't survive the Cassazione scrutiny (and maybe – I am thinking maliciously - it is not designed to do so). Or that causes a bigger case (like the Verde case for Berlusconi). This paragraph 1 acquittal clashes with so many things on so many levels. The Rudy sentencing that acquits him of burglary and theft. Unbelievable. Never seen before such a contradictory and foolish twist (not in a trial which was not bribed or that survived in jurisprudence).
2 - One thing that I happened to notice on these days in court sessions (I was also told this, as a confirmation) is that the two professional judges - Hellmann and Zanetti - were never in agreement during the trial.
3 - When I heard president Hellman reading the verdict I was stunned before he mentioned any conclusion, not from what he said but by his trembling voice: he appeared as he was not the same person I saw during the whole trial. He always used to be energetic and humorous and spoke quickly all the times. On the reading he was stuttering, sombre, he read slowly and more than once he made pauses, two words then seconds of silence at halfway of the phrase, this before reaching the main topic of the verdict. He looked almost as he didn't feel like going on reading.
4 - A crowd of a thousand or more people has gathered in the corso before the tribunal in Perugia, shouting "murderers" to and "shame". I have never seen anything resembling this scene except for the mobs in Milan shouting "thieves" at the trials involving Berlusconi. The city is furious for the acquittal. I am furious too, but at least I feel relieved seeing there are thousands of people even more outraged than me and I feel as they redeem a little the Italians for the shame of this acquittal by those whimpy (but I think worse) judges. What a shame is this verdict for the nation. What an incredible shame. And this verdict is a licence to kill. Back to the old ages of mafia ruling. If one has a Sollecito style family he will be authorized to gang rape and kill you without fear, knowing that even if with a ton of evidence against them they will be free.
5 - One aspect that is maybe the most striking together with the 530 § 1, is that Knox has been found guilty of calunnia. This is flabbergasting. So there was no coercing, no false memories and no excuse for her false accusation. Pacelli is the only party who won entirely. The question obviously is, how can this go together with the acquittal for murder. If she is guilty of calunnia, then why did she commit it? This is - you all understand it immediately - utterly inconsistent with acquittal; this is appears as something more impossible to explain in a sentencing report. How do can you rationally motivate this calunnia?
Finally: the case is not over. A similar acquittal on appeal happened also in the Cogne case, and the process went on for eight years. In the case of Vittorio Emanuele of Savoia, another murderer, a probably bribed acquittal and unpunished crime was the final word.
Moreover, maybe the most important conclusion from all this: I think there is something extremely serious in this story. Much more serious than what most may imagine. To me, the most interesting part of the story starts today.
