Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

I believe the purpose of that dangerously self-sabotaging post was to serve as an excuse for why no one in the media asked for her opinion in the aftermath of the acquittal. It makes it look like she has lost credibility because of her past behavior, not because of her current beliefs.

Good point. She also oughta lay off the crack.

 

[Mary_H]

There will never be any blame on Mignini for "wrongfully prosecuting" Knox and Sollecito. Even Claudio Pratillo Hellmann himself stated the prosecution could not be criticized, and that the suspects were rightfully prosecuted. Moreover a large number of judges and magistrates had authored a conclusion of guilt on Raffaele and Amanda, in no way the "blame" could fall on Mignini.

Guess we'll have to wait for the movie. Hope Mignini has an isolated retirement cottage somewhere. Maybe on Elba?

 

[RoseMontague]

How could they possibly acquit him? Is this just fallout from trying to prosecute Amanda and Raffaele on the 'staged' break-in? What a weird loophole.

The preliminary judge drop the charge since there is absolutely no evidence he committed a burglary. They only found evidence he did not do it.

Of course they can't convict someone for a burglary if they assume the burglary was staged. The judge is simply wrong on this. They did not find evidence that Rudy did not steal Meredith's money and credit cards, in fact they found Rudy's DNA on the purse. They also found a presumed blood substance and a human hair on the broken window frame but here they give the benefit of reasonable doubt, no proof they belong to Rudy. Go figure.

 

[Diocletus]

The preliminary judge drop the charge since there is absolutely no evidence he committed a burglary. They only found evidence he did not do it.

Finding the body of the person he murdered inside the house that was burgled isn't evidence that he was the burglar? LOL. You Eyetalians sure do have a funny way about you.

 

[Mary_H]

Good point. She also oughta lay off the crack.

 

[RoseMontague]

Follain's new book cover:

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>They only found evidence he did not do it.

Get back to us on that one, wouldja?

 

[Diocletus]

There will never be any blame on Mignini for "wrongfully prosecuting" Knox and Sollecito. Even Claudio Pratillo Hellmann himself stated the prosecution could not be criticized, and that the suspects were rightfully prosecuted. Moreover a large number of judges and magistrates had authored a conclusion of guilt on Raffaele and Amanda, in no way the "blame" could fall on Mignini.

I believe that Hellmann was saying that he would have charged the crime. He obviously thinks that everything that went afterwards is a bucket of hogwash.

How about Mignini's involvement in the interrogation and the lack of investigation?
How about the lying to the press?
How about the outrageous and prejudicial "arguments" he uttered in court?
How about his failure to pursue exculpatory evidence?

Ironically, Mignini's own trial will now occur in the press/media. Hope he enjoys it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Comment from thoughtful on defense lawyer interview:

In this article, Bongiorno says that she believes completely in Raffaele's innocence, and that if she hadn't, she couldn't have defended him (even though this would have been her duty as a lawyer) because she and another woman lead a group dedicated to denouncing violence against women.

She describes one moment when she and her team were yelling with triumph and joy, because when they blew up photos of the crime scene and examined them in detail, they found that there was plenty of dust on the floor and also hairs, proving that it had not been washed.

This is an interesting detail. I wish we could have known where the floor was dusty: in the room, in the hall between Meredith's room and the bathroom, in the bathroom? Presumably all these things were said and shown in court.

This is evidence that someone did not do something.

 

[Rolfe]

I think the thing that I can't get my head round as a scientist is the deference to previous analyses of the evidence. We don't do deference in science. If an earlier investigator interpreted something wrongly, we're not constrained from pointing this out. The earlier publication doesn't get any sort of free pass as the "established truth" if the reasoning or results can be knocked over.

Dr, X published Y.
OK, Dr. X was wrong about that, and here's why.
Fair enough.

No funny stuff about Dr. X's opinion having any special status, or immunity from challenge.

Time appeal courts took the same view.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe that Hellmann was saying that he would have charged the crime. He obviously thinks that everything that went afterwards is a bucket of hogwash.

How about Mignini's involvement in the interrogation and the lack of investigation?
How about the lying to the press?
How about the outrageous and prejudicial "arguments" he uttered in court?
How about his failure to pursue exculpatory evidence?

Ironically, Mignini's own trial will now occur in the press/media. Hope he enjoys it.

Is there any way that Mignini could have possibly been in the dark about Curatolo's pending drug charges? Is there any way that he did not know that Curatolo had been asked about the crime the next day and said he saw nothing? Is there any restriction in Italy for just making stuff up in your closing remarks? And the changing excuses on not taping the 5:45AM statement, what is up with that?

 

[Mary_H]

Comment from thoughtful on defense lawyer interview:

This is evidence that someone did not do something.

Ah. Right you are.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks again for the response. The footprints are all at best compatible. The DNA of Amanda on the knife means nothing since it was found in the kitchen of the apartment she was living in.

Raf's on the bra at worst was mixed with many others that could also be Koko's or the Third Man.

The blood in Filomena's was most likely put there when the police and others walked from room to room. IIRC it was a spot in the middle of the room not part of a footprint trail.

Apparently DNA doesn't drop everybody in the same volumes. Amanda seems to be a shedder while others not so much. Rudy's DNA would have been found in many more places had the police done a better job, for example the towels that were spoiled.

The only DNA of Amanda is on the knife and in her bathroom, which proves nothing.

Mach, do you believe that someone could have killed Meredith with Rudy and left no DNA? Did the police find DNA they didn't identify besides the DNA on the bra clasp?

I don't know what they think, but by my understanding Raffaele Sollecito did leave his DNA in the murder room. And I've read the whole Vecchiotti/Conti report.
He did also leave his footprint in blood, by the way.
Four DNA traces of Rudy were found in Meredith's room. One of Raffaele Sollecito. None was found of Amanda, but I am wary about those numbers, because sampling follows a method itself selective. Nobody will know, for example, who was the owner of the long straigth light coloured hair, nor who had grabbed the victim's hir or who covered her mouth: no male DNA could be recovered from those areas. Often you need a Y-haplotype to spot DNA on a victim's body.
On the other hand, I can note that a mixed luminol trace with DNA of Knox and Meredith was found in the alleged burglary (or staging) room, but no trace of Rudy (DNA or fingerprint) was found there where he supposedly climbed in, and searched the room.
Moreover no trace of Rudy was found in the bathroom, where he supposedly must have been to wash himself, while he was dirty with blood and maybe wounded and he supposely touched several things (light interruptor, faucet, bidet); only Knox and Meredith's DNA was found in this bathroom. This bathroom is obviously an extension of the murder scene, since it was a location for the murderer's activity and his interaction with environment.
And, a Knife was found with Amanda's DNA on it which has the victim's DNA on it. I know that you would believe a contamination, but I see no basis for that, in my opinion it is not possible to make this claim even based on the C&V report. I've read the report rather carefully.
A final note: Amanda's false accusation was a story in which she was in the kitchen while someone else was killing Meredith. She would have been guilty in that case too. A person doesn't need to be physically in the murder room to be guilty of murder.

 

[komponisto]

The preliminary judge drop the charge since there is absolutely no evidence he committed a burglary. They only found evidence he did not do it.

From the Micheli report:

L’attività di cosiddetto depistaggio, svoltasi in un secondo momento, non fu orientata a bella posta per incastrare il G.. E’ pur sempre verosimile ritenere che il G. non vi prese parte, conformemente all’assunto accusatorio
The so-called sidetracking, which happened at a later time, was not done in such a way as to incriminate G[uede]. It is nonetheless probable that G[uede] did not take part in it, in agreement with the prosecution's assumption.

The prosecution assumed from the beginning that the burglary was staged. They never charged Guede with it in the first place.

 

[Machiavelli]

From the Micheli report:

The prosecution assumed from the beginning that the burglary was staged. They never charged Guede with it in the first place.

The report here says they never accused him of staging, not that nobody ever accused him of burglary. Private parties did accuse him of burglary in the preliminary hearing and brought elements that they believed to be evidence on this, which were discussed.

 

[komponisto]

Follain's new book cover:

How telling it is who they chose to put on the cover. No one thinks Follain is in the pocket of Gogerty-Marriott and the "Knox PR machine". And yet, somehow he and his publishers have managed to "forget the real victim".

Candace Dempsey's cover had pictures of both girls.

(And the audacity of Follain calling his book the "definitive account" is ludicrous. The definitive account will be the Hellmann-Zanetti report.)

 

[Machiavelli]

I believe that Hellmann was saying that he would have charged the crime. He obviously thinks that everything that went afterwards is a bucket of hogwash.

How about Mignini's involvement in the interrogation and the lack of investigation?
How about the lying to the press?
How about the outrageous and prejudicial "arguments" he uttered in court?
How about his failure to pursue exculpatory evidence?

Ironically, Mignini's own trial will now occur in the press/media. Hope he enjoys it.

Absolutely no. Hellmann explicitly declared that it would be wrong to criticize the prosecution.
And, as I said, there is a big number of judges and magistrates who subscried to the guilty scenario and who still do, so it makes no sense to "blame" MIgnini.

Some of the points you make against Mignini, are false, or judements made by the US press, and by some minority Italian gossip magazines.
There are no "prejudicial" arguments, except those that you believe they exist because you leart about them by the falsely reporting English speaking media. There is no lie to the press; there is instead a big number of proven lies by the press, for example the CNN interview falsely reported.
There is no unlawful interrogation; instead there is a defendant who was convicted for calunnia, which means proven to be a malicious liar beyond doubt.

 

[komponisto]

The report here says they never accused him of staging, not that nobody ever accused him of burglary. Private parties did accuse him of burglary in the preliminary hearing and brought elements that they believed to be evidence on this, which were discussed.

He was accused (and acquitted) of stealing Meredith's phones. He was never charged for breaking into Filomena's room. Your "double jeopardy" argument completely fails with regard to this offense.

 

[Machiavelli]

He was accused (and acquitted) of stealing Meredith's phones. He was never charged for breaking into Filomena's room. Your "double jeopardy" argument completely fails with regard to this offense.

Moment: the double jeopardy rule does not apply just to single offenses, but also to a whole case; non bis in idem, not to discuss twice the same topic (no matter if charge changes name). He cannot be found guilty of burglary on this case, or better he cannot be sentenced to prison time on this charge, no matter if this charge was not pushed from the preliminary investigation to the trial. But in any case, even if topic is discussed in court - prevented that he cannot be sentenced on it - there is still the fact that there is no evidence against him. It is impossible to demonstrate that he broke the window and climbed through, started a burglary, and produced the whole evidence alone. To prove this is just impossible. There is absolutely no evidence. No evidence of burglary, no evidence of his climbing through the window, no explanation for his leaving bloody footprints, no DNA trace of him in Filomena's room or in the small bathroom.

 

[Diocletus]

Absolutely no. Hellmann explicitly declared that it would be wrong to criticize the prosecution.
And, as I said, there is a big number of judges and magistrates who subscried to the guilty scenario and who still do, so it makes no sense to "blame" MIgnini.

Some of the points you make against Mignini, are false, or judements made by the US press, and by some minority Italian gossip magazines.
There are no "prejudicial" arguments, except those that you believe they exist because you leart about them by the falsely reporting English speaking media. There is no lie to the press; there is instead a big number of proven lies by the press, for example the CNN interview falsely reported.
There is no unlawful interrogation; instead there is a defendant who was convicted for calunnia, which means proven to be a malicious liar beyond doubt.

Wrong. What you say is false.

There is a whole list of lies to the press that was recently posted here. Whether or not Mignini was the source, he was the captain of the ship and is responsible and should have put a stop to it.

The interrogation was illegal. They hit her, they lied to her, and they yelled at her. Mignini is responsible for this because he was first in the building and heard her screaming, and then conducted hours of additional interrogation. He is lying about what went on. You want to prove me wrong? Then produced the tapes.

Mignini made sensational and prejudicial charges in court that had no basis in fact (the PR offensive, Italy v. USA, etc).

As for the other judges that "believed" Mignini. First, they are obviously stupid as can be determined by simply reading the Massei report. Second, their stupidity derives at least in part from the false and incomplete evidence and arguments Mignini placed before the court.

I can't wait for the Monster of Perugia to come out.