Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

1. I can see physical evidence of staging of the break in (complex point, requires an elaboration)

I see evidence of a break in. Simple point, requires no elaboration.

2. Multiple attackers Autopsy report and analysis of murder scene implies more than one attacker (another complex point; I wrote on PMF recently about this one)

I see evidence of 1 attacker and no evidence that anyone else was even present in Meredith's room, another simple point, requires no elaboration.

3. Series of lies told by Amanda Knox before her last interrogation (between nov 2. and 4.): Knox’s account of facts is riddled with lies and inconsistencies, it is entirely fictional and unacceptable (this is another complex point to unfold)

I see evidence the cops are lying liars.

4. Amanda’s false confession in a spontaneous statement and her hand written note; her subsequent refusal to correct it and failure to give a consistent version and to explain the reasons for the false confession. Her inconsistence in describing circumstances of how her false confession occurred. Anna Donnino’s witness report.

I see very clear evidence of her explanation and a solid convincement that she was coerced.

5. Raffaele Sollecito’s changing of alibi and his various lies and his final failure to provide a version of fact. In addition to this, another series of proven lies by Amanda Knox on their alibi.

I see very clear evidence that the cops confused Raffaele with a bunch of lies and false statements.

6. Antonio Curatolo and Quintavalle as eye witness as further corroboration of their lying.

Too funny.

7. Nara Capezzali and Antonella Monacchia’s credible witness reports, about a time of death and dynamic compatible with their guilt.

Nara may have heard a scream, who cares? Antonella heard an argument between two Italians, what does that have to do with Amanda and Raffaele?

8. A series of luminol footprints with very peculiar features, showing they performed an operation of cleaning the scene; this area of evidence is based on the distribution and features of the footprints, and on the lack of alternative explanations related to normal activities (complex evidence, requires long elaboration)

Here is a more simple explanation of the luminol prints. We don't know who made them, when they were made, and with what they are made of.

9. Bloody footprint on the bathmat only compatible with Sollecito and not with Rudy Guede (requires a visual elaboration) also contains the logical implication given by the lack of explanation for the isolation of the print, the absence of a trail of footprints or other footprints (further evidence of cleanup) and lack of plausible explanation for it if attributed to Rudy Guede; moreover, its analogy relation with the luminol footprints, and the its obvious being out of place opposed to the movements showed by Rudy’s shoeprints (person wearing shoes, walking out in a straight dierection).

It looks more like Rudy's print on the bathmat to me. The footprints fade out as Rudy reached the door, the last print so faint there was not even a positive blood test. Was the next step out the door or back to get the keys? No way to tell from this evidence.

10. Amanda Knox’s blood in the small bathroom, and the claim it was not there the night before, without any plausible/likely alternative explanation.

Maybe she didn't see it? It is just a drop or two. Is that plausible enough?

11. evidence of cleanup on the bathroom floor and on the bathroom door, determined by the spattered bathmat (with stains on the edge and incomplete footprint) on top of a clean floor, and track L9 showing a cleaning of the bathroom door

I tried to discuss Rep 140 at PMF.org. Unfortunately, they are more interested in banning people than a discussion. I did posts some links to some really nice pictures of this and would be happy to discuss this with everyone here.

12. double-DNA luminol stains in Filomena’s room (analogical relation with point 8)

See answer to point 8 then.

13. Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp, unaffected in my opinion by the arguments in Vecchiotti’s report

See the video's. Read the report.

14. Meredith and Knox’s DNA on the knife; also in this case Vecchiotti’s arguments are totallu unconvincing

Stefanoni is a lying cheater and a voodoo frog disectionator.

In all this system of evidence, one important point has to be made.
There is an aspect playing a further role which his a logical evidence, what is called argumentum a contrariis; which is the argument that consists in the weakness or lack of alternative explanations. The systematic weakness of alternative explanations or the complete lack thereof creates a proof itself, it plays a role in determining the weight of each area of evidence.

I believe Rudy did it.

 

[Kaosium]

Frank has a new entry, and it is a powerful, if difficult, read.

Meredith, rest in peace.

That was a powerful piece, and a bit...presumptuous. It does remind one of just how far gone the prosecution was in this case. There was a piece that John Kercher wrote which included him in remembrance wishing he could have gotten the last presents Meredith had bought for them, he thought they were destroyed in forensic testing.

Anyone whose seen the crime scene videos knows that's not true, they were destroyed by arrogant unfeeling police who trashed them for no reason along with the rest of her things. Just like their justice system did their best to destroy the family with lies, hate, incompetence and delusions.

So all things considered, there's parts of that piece by Frank that just hit the bulls-eye.

 

[Kaosium]

I see evidence of a break in. Simple point, requires no elaboration.

I see evidence of 1 attacker and no evidence that anyone else was even present in Meredith's room, another simple point, requires no elaboration.

I see evidence the cops are lying liars.

I see very clear evidence of her explanation and a solid convincement that she was coerced.

I see very clear evidence that the cops confused Raffaele with a bunch of lies and false statements.

Too funny.

Nara may have heard a scream, who cares? Antonella heard an argument between two Italians, what does that have to do with Amanda and Raffaele?


Here is a more simple explanation of the luminol prints. We don't know who made them, when they were made, and with what they are made of.

It looks more like Rudy's print on the bathmat to me. The footprints fade out as Rudy reached the door, the last print so faint there was not even a positive blood test. Was the next step out the door or back to get the keys? No way to tell from this evidence.

Maybe she didn't see it? It is just a drop or two. Is that plausible enough?

I tried to discuss Rep 140 at PMF.org. Unfortunately, they are more interested in banning people than a discussion. I did posts some links to some really nice pictures of this and would be happy to discuss this with everyone here.

See answer to point 8 then.

See the video's. Read the report.

Stefanoni is a lying cheater and a voodoo frog disectionator.
I believe Rudy did it.

LOL! You make it sound so simple Rose! How could otherwise bright people be stumped by this for four years now if it's so simple? Ockham would approve, he might even give you a lex parsimoniae for that performance.

Which one is 140? I never did get the numbers down. I've not been over to that one in a while, though a day or so I read Michael's for a little while. I caught your appearance there and your being shown the door lest you overstay your welcome by a single minute by that Guerantes guy whose name I just butchered. I just cannot get how...unpleasant some of them can get about people politely disagreeing in their presence. It's like he thinks he'll get some dread disease because you were there...

...like cooties!

 

[Machiavelli]

HAHAHAHA....Donnino? You mean that person who explains to the suspect (not witness) that she certainly must be suffering memory loss due to shock???...that compelling nit wit errr witness?

That alone discredits her to all except the foolish....the short list would include Mignini and Massei.

...

Donnino did not explain that nothing "certainly" happened. You are adding the word "certainly" where there wasn't.
Absolutely not. This does not discredit Donnino at all. In your eyes, everything you don't like you may discredit it. But certainly she is not discredited by the law. In order to be a credible witness, in this case, the the requirement is there must not be elements of evidence to that the witness is lying.
Because of the absence of these elements, the witness is credible.
The judge is simply not allowed to establish a witness like Donnino may be lying, without any element.

 

[Kaosium]

Donnino did not explain that nothing "certainly" happened. You are adding the word "certainly" where there wasn't.
Absolutely not. This does not discredit Donnino at all. In your eyes, everything you don't like you may discredit it. But certainly she is not discredited by the law. In order to be a credible witness, in this case, the the requirement is there must not be elements of evidence to that the witness is lying.
Because of the absence of these elements, the witness is credible.
The judge is simply not allowed to establish a witness like Donnino may be lying, without any element.

Fair enough, I do recall Anna's testimony as being credible when I read it, which was a while ago.

So...ummm....how did Curatolo and Quintavalle get on your other list? What did you think they were telling the truth about???

 

[Matthew Best]

By the way - just a curiosity about your thought - are Mignini, Comodi and the police officers involved also totally innocent of committing any crime in the context of this investigation, in your vew?[sic]

I have no idea. The Italian "justice" system is rather opaque to me, so I suppose it's quite possible.

Is Rudy Guede totally innocent of committing a break in?

I suspect not.

Or your presuption [sic] of innocence focuses [sic] on Amanda Knox alone?

No. You seem confused about what "presumption of innocence" means. It doesn't just mean you believe everyone to be innocent who hasn't actually been convicted.

 

[Machiavelli]

Fair enough, I do recall Anna's testimony as being credible when I read it, which was a while ago.

So...ummm....how did Curatolo and Quintavalle get on your other list? What did you think they were telling the truth about???

I have no definitive judgement on Curatolo and Quintavalle.
But I think Curatolo may be credible because witnesses testified about the disco buses running that day. And because he never changed his story. Also since I herd part of his testimony and his statements, I can say I could not see any specific element to state he was lying.

About Quintavalle, I may only consider the possibility he could be mistaken about he person he recalls. But there is no element to say he was lying. And because Quintavalls's testimony is bolstered by his employees, who recall of that day and they confirm that morning he did say he saw a girl in the shop.
The arguments brought by the defense against Quintavalle are unsupported, inconclusive, if you look at the actual documentation they refer to.
The first time the police entered his shop, he said he didn't recall anything. This is just normal, what is expected. Every Italian shop owner would just give this as first answer, most people at a first, uexpected question, by default, in case of the slightest doubt or uncertainity or just for precaution, they answer they don't know anything, have nothing to say, they are not witnesses. Nobody wants to be a witness. This is normality except egregious cases of super-witnesses who have peculiar information. We took a year to find the first witness in the Aldrovndi case.

 

[Machiavelli]

Repeat.... repeat........repeat.......repeat.

You say the same thing over and over and over again.... over and over and over and over and over and over again.

You don't?

 

[Machiavelli]

I have no idea. The Italian "justice" system is rather opaque to me, so I suppose it's quite possible.

You are dribbling the point. I am not asking you about the law. What do you think Mignini, Comodi and police officers did, in terms of facts?
Do you have precise ideas about it?
Do you have a presumption that they did not do actions such as fabricate evidence or violating the law?

I suspect not.

You "suspect" Guede is not innocent of staging?
And on what evidence? Do you think a burglary was proven?
And how can you assert that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, if you are not sure that Guede committed a burglary (it seems you only suspect something)?

No. You seem confused about what "presumption of innocence" means. It doesn't just mean you believe everyone to be innocent who hasn't actually been convicted.

So you confirm that your concept of presmuption of innocence is only about Amada Knox. The rest of humanity - which means everyone who hasn't been convicted - is not included.

 

[Kaosium]

I have no definitive judgement on Curatolo and Quintavalle.
But I think Curatolo may be credible because witnesses testified about the disco buses running that day. And because he never changed his story. Also since I herd part of his testimony and his statements, I can say I could not see any specific element to state he was lying.

Then are you assuming he was mistaken then? One thing that doesn't lie is science. It is one of the facts of this case that Meredith started eating somewhere between 6:00 and 6:30, thus the odds that Meredith hadn't been stabbed by 11:30 when Curatolo's testimony indicated Raffaele and Amanda left are negligible. 9:00 is unusual already, we know about when she ate and there was nothing in her duodenum.

So if Toto saw them during that time then Amanda and Raffaele couldn't have killed Meredith, it's that simple.

About Quintavalle, I may only consider the possibility he could be mistaken about he person he recalls. But there is no element to say he was lying. And because Quintavalls's testimony is bolstered by his employees, who recall of that day and they confirm that morning he did say he saw a girl in the shop.
The arguments brought by the defense against Quintavalle are unsupported, inconclusive, if you look at the actual documentation they refer to.
The first time the police entered his shop, he said he didn't recall anything. This is just normal, what is expected. Every Italian shop owner would just give this as first answer, most people at a first, uexpected question, by default, in case of the slightest doubt or uncertainity or just for precaution, they answer they don't know anything, have nothing to say, they are not witnesses. Nobody wants to be a witness. This is normality except egregious cases of super-witnesses who have peculiar information. We took a year to find the first witness in the Aldrovndi case.

Does it really matter though? They didn't need bleach, and they didn't use bleach, and the crime scene wasn't really cleaned, that's what those shoeprints in the hall say, that's what those luminol stains say, that's what the shoeprints and the mess in the murder room all says--no clean up. Maybe a little something in the bathroom, perhaps Rudy started sopping up with towels in the murder room, but no magic wand clean up, so why would she be lurking around bleach she didn't need, that was never used, for a clean up that didn't occur?

 

[CDHost]

JREF off topic

Thank you. And thank you for linking the whole thread, which I somehow missed and never got to see any responses. It's a shame that "you know who" is so obsessed with clicking violation, because it was on topic and relevant. It obviously was not taken down for copyright violation as it is still viewable on a public URL. Regardless, it's amazing to me that some people praise these sites as the "most popular" and "most respected" websites on the case----then when we analyze and discuss them, all of the sudden they're off topic and hysterical hot flashes ensue. Give me a freaking break. The blogs are part of the story of this case and we have every right to discuss it. And those clicking violation every other post need to get over it.

I understand and agree with your frustration. As long as I've been here, the moderation has been terribly unfair. I get that fair moderation takes more effort than it is worth. But the moderation issues are why I mostly stopped posting here. And I agree with you what made this case unique was the social event. Very much like SCO v IBM this case has a political context.

A long time ago I created a JREF off topic thread on my blog to give people a place to discuss anything like this without fear of moderation. Feel free to take this or any other conversation you are getting carded for there. And of course there is Bruce's injustice Forum where you can rather freely discuss PMF and TJMK.

 

[RoseMontague]

Which one is 140? I never did get the numbers down.

Rep 140 could be considered evidence that somebody cleaned the front of the bathroom door, causing a long drip with blood/water down the inner side panel of the door. It is certainly an odd place for blood to be found. Another theory is that somebody with bloody clothes/towel may have rubbed against it as they entered the bathroom or that it is not a "drip" at all, just a defect or natural streak in the wood/stain on the door that had a spot of blood on it. I will post the pictures.

The problem with a cleanup here is why clean the door and not the very obvious light switch? There is also what appears to be a fingerprint in blood at the outer edge of the circle on the light switch picture that I was curious about. I would appreciate any thoughts on this you may have.

 

[Diocletus]

I can tell you but I will not do it here: I tell you that you should ask Hellmann.

It's not Hellmann's job to test it--it's the cops' job. And your old "I know but I can't tell you" trick is just a childish evasion.

Here's what we all understand: the semen stain is exculpatory evidence and it wasn't tested because the cops and prosecutors are incompetents and liars.

 

[RoseMontague]

But there is no element to say he was lying. And because Quintavalls's testimony is bolstered by his employees, who recall of that day and they confirm that morning he did say he saw a girl in the shop.

From the appeal:

As is apparent from a reading of Chiriboga's testimony, the question Quintavalle posed to his assistant occurred around the time of a television interview which he gave after the witness statements of October 2008. In the transcript of Chiriboga's examination it reads:

<<PRESIDENT - And when did he recount this to you? WITNESS - I don't remember the exact date, but it was the day they went to interview them>> (transcript of hearing 26 June 2009, page 72).

It is therefore incomprehensible that Quintavalle's question to his assistant following the witness statements to the Public Prosecutor, almost a year after the episode itself and on the occasion of a television interview, could constitute certain and credible verification of the witness's story.

Come emerge, infatti, dalla lettura della deposizione della Chiriboga, la domanda del Quintavalle alla propria collaboratrice venne posta in occasione di una intervista televisiva da costui rilasciata dopo le sommarie informazioni dell’ottobre 2008. Si legge nelle trascrizioni dell’esame della Chiriboga:

<<PRESIDENTE – E questo racconto quand’è che ve l’ha fatto? TESTE – La data precisa non mi ricordo, ma quel giorno che sono andati a intervistarli>> (trascrizioni udienza 26 giugno 2009, pag. 72).

Non risulta comprensibile, dunque, come la domanda del Quintavalle alla propria commessa, dopo le sommarie informazioni al pubblico Ministero, a quasi un anno dall’episodio raccontato, in occasione di un’intervista televisiva, possa costituire un riscontro di certezza e credibilità al racconto del testimone.

Massei either has no clue or is being very disingenuous with this one. Quint did not ask his employee that day if they also saw AK, it was a year later at the time of his TV interview.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is what Quint had to say about the TV interview:

Quintavalle only decided to make contact with prosecutors after intense pressure from the journalist Antioco Fois, a regular customer of his shop. These statements then allowed the witness to participate in broadcasts on national TV networks. A fact that, in the deposition, Quintavalle sought to play down. In fact, when asked the question "Don't you remember an interview done with TG2?" he replied, "TG2? TG2 came and filmed me in secret, I said: 'Look I have nothing to say, nothing to declare'. Then with the camera they took over the counter of the shop [i.e. presumably the camera was now visible] and I told them that they should do nothing, they had to go" (transcript of the hearing 21.03.2009, p.111); while in this regard, the assistant Chiriboga affirmed that Quintavalle had reported having given this interview and, when asked by the President "So what did Quintavalle say about this interview?" the witness responded "He said: 'I have been interviewed', we said: 'But at what time?' He said he was interviewed after we went out to lunch" (transcript from the hearing of 26.06.2009, p.70).

LOL. I wonder how much he was paid?

 

[Diocletus]

By the way - just a curiosity about your thought - are Mignini, Comodi and the police officers involved also totally innocent of committing any crime in the context of this investigation, in your
view?

Here are their crimes:

1. Denial of Right to Counsel: The Supreme Court has already determined that this happened with respect to the 5:45 statement (ellicited by Mignini). This also happened with earlier statements/interrogation, because she was a de facto suspect before the interrogation commenced on Nov. 5. The violation was aggravated by continuation.

2. Denial of Right to Remain Silent: Knox had a right to remain silent, and this was violated by the police and prosecution as set forth above.

3. Violation of Right to Diplomatic Assistance: The US authorities should have been called as soon as Knox was a de facto suspect, and should have been advised immediately of Knox's compliant that the police had hit her.

4. Abuse of a Prisoner. The Italian cops hit Knox and did other bad things.

5. Denial of Speedy Trial: The trial was too slow and Knox should have been free on bail while it proceeded.

6. Denial of Right to Fair Trial: The cops and prosecution are responsible for prejudicial pretrial publicity. In addition, the cops and prosecution mishandled, destroyed and failed to investigate and disclose exculpatory evidence, e.g., body temperature, hard drives, alternate suspects, forensics laboratory results. The prosecutors made inflammatory and prejudicial statements during the proceedings that are not supported by fact.

7. Perjury: Stefanoni ("several hundred picograms") and the cops (Batistelli) perjured themselves. The prosecutors suborned and enabled the perjured testimony.

8. Obstruction of Justice: Mignini and the prosecution attempted to influence the testimony of witnesses, e.g., the English girls, the flatmates and Rudy Guede. Also, Mignini compromised the prosecution of Rudy Guede in order to improve his chances of convicting the innocent people.

9. Witness Intimidation: The prosecution attempted to intimidate pro-defense witnesses, e.g., Conti and Vecchiotti.

10. Malpractice: Has there ever been a stupider judge than Massei?

11. Practicing Law while Impaired/Convicted: Mignini has been convicted of abuse of office, and also, he's nuts.

12. Breach of Professional Ethics: E.g., perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness intimidation by the prosecutors.

The cops, the prosecutors, and the entire Italian justice system should be indicted on these counts.

 

[Diocletus]

The judge is simply not allowed to establish a witness like Donnino may be lying, without any element.

"Without any element"? There's plenty of reason to find that she is a biased witness and therefore to disregard her testimony. She's an agent of the cops, she was present in the room and therefore culpable in any misconduct, she didn't do her job right, and she has sued Knox for money.

She is biased.

 

[Kaosium]

Rep 140 could be considered evidence that somebody cleaned the front of the bathroom door, causing a long drip with blood/water down the inner side panel of the door. It is certainly an odd place for blood to be found. Another theory is that somebody with bloody clothes/towel may have rubbed against it as they entered the bathroom or that it is not a "drip" at all, just a defect or natural streak in the wood/stain on the door that had a spot of blood on it. I will post the pictures.

Thank you! Personally I doubt that is residue of a clean-up, the more likely scenario would seem to be some blood on Guede's trousers when he went inside the door caused it, and it then dripped down some. If there was more blood on the face of the door that was missed you'd figure that would have featured prominently in the picture below, meaning they would have been sure the picture included it.

The problem with a cleanup here is why clean the door and not the very obvious light switch? There is also what appears to be a fingerprint in blood at the outer edge of the circle on the light switch picture that I was curious about. I would appreciate any thoughts on this you may have.

Frankly I don't think that's enough blood to necessarily be noticed. If Guede did anything in the bathroom I don't think it was particularly meticulous due to the small traces like this left around. What I do allow is that he might have done a hasty one there simply to clean up a little after cleaning himself so it wouldn't be immediately obvious that someone had washed up after a murder. I post the pic below simply to show there was protein residue which showed up with the sprayed blood test, which may or may not have been caused by wiped up blood, but I think it not impossible he might have made more of a mess and quickly cleaned it up, while failing to notice some as he had neither the time nor the inclination to do a white glove inspection.

 

[TruthCalls]

But, to me this list is nothing. There is nothing that can be used to claim innocence, or to counter a single piece of evidence, in this series of points/judgements that you make.

Machiavelli, first, it is not up to the defense to prove innocence. It is equally effective to disprove theory or evidence provided as an indication of guilt. Proving, or at least strongly indicating illegal or improper behavior by the prosecution is most telling of all. The excuse that Mignini gave of simply failing to remember to record the interrogation, when every other move taken by Knox, Sollecito or their families are recorded, simply is not credible. Combined with the fact that no lawyer was provided and testimony from Preston and Spezi a year early of exactly the same interrogation techniques has led me to believe Knox on this point. Can she prove it? No, but the fault for that lies with Mignini. Destroying three hard drives and corrupting a fourth - drives that perhaps COULD have proven innocence - by the prosecution is completely unacceptable and not believable. I've been an IT professional for almost 34 years and have managed to render *1* drive unreadable, and that was more than 25 years ago.

How do the witnesses you cited not prove innocence, or at a minimum, remove evidence of guilt? You have one witness who's original statement provides an alibi for Knox and Sollecito. You have another witness who contradicts his own original statement, testified to by a detective, and who is contradicted by another employee at the store that morning who claims Knox was not there. Further, he was unable to substantiate his claim by providing a receipt or record of the purchase of bleach. Do you disagree of this assessment of these two witnesses, and if so, on what grounds?

 

[Machiavelli]

Here are their crimes:

1. Denial of Right to Counsel: The Supreme Court has already determined that this happened with respect to the 5:45 statement (ellicited by Mignini). This also happened with earlier statements/interrogation, because she was a de facto suspect before the interrogation commenced on Nov. 5. The violation was aggravated by continuation.

False. I have already demonstrated that this claim is false.
The Supreme Court never determined any illegal practice nor wrongdoing.

2. Denial of Right to Remain Silent: Knox had a right to remain silent, and this was violated by the police and prosecution as set forth above.

Ridiculous. Nothing proves that the spontaneous statement and the written statement were not releases voluntarily by Knox.
No right to remain silent was violated on the previous interrogation. No court ever determined this, nor anybody - except the believers who post on forums - ever claimed there was a violation of a right to silence on her interrogation.
I don't understand why you claim legal points where you were just shown wrong.

3. Violation of Right to Diplomatic Assistance: The US authorities should have been called as soon as Knox was a de facto suspect, and should have been advised immediately of Knox's compliant that the police had hit her.

On what legal basis?

4. Abuse of a Prisoner. The Italian cops hit Knox and did other bad things.

They did bad things? An interesting allegation. They are guilty of not looking nice. I'll note that.

5. Denial of Speedy Trial: The trial was too slow and Knox should have been free on bail while it proceeded.

Was too slow in your opinion? Which authority determind this trial was slow? (three years for a second instance verdict is almost a record break in Italy)
Should there be a bail only for Knox where it does not exist by law?

6. Denial of Right to Fair Trial: The cops and prosecution are responsible for prejudicial pretrial publicity.

Who determined this?
Your false statements and your arbitrary decision?

In addition, the cops and prosecution mishandled, destroyed and failed to investigate and disclose exculpatory evidence, e.g., body temperature, hard drives, alternate suspects, forensics laboratory results.

Should they take body temperature immediately altering the scene befor forensic analysis? What else do you have of arbitrary conclusions?

The prosecutors made inflammatory and prejudicial statements during the proceedings that are not supported by fact.

Oh really? Inflammatory statements? They are accusing people of being rapist and murderers. What statement do you refer to?

7. Perjury: Stefanoni ("several hundred picograms") and the cops (Batistelli) perjured themselves. The prosecutors suborned and enabled the perjured testimony.

This is nothing compared tothe lie(s) Vecchiotti wrote in her report. A falsehood written into a report, on a relevant (essential) topic isthe specific accusation and what matters to an expert testimony.

8. Obstruction of Justice: Mignini and the prosecution attempted to influence the testimony of witnesses, e.g., the English girls, the flatmates and Rudy Guede.

Oh really? And why don't you prove it instead of lying?

9. Witness Intimidation: The prosecution attempted to intimidate pro-defense witnesses, e.g., Conti and Vecchiotti.

Let's say that some pro-defence witnesses just made statements that concern the criminal code.

10. Malpractice: Has there ever been a stupider judge than Massei?

Yes, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann.

11. Practicing Law while Impaired/Convicted: Mignini has been convicted of abuse of office, and also, he's nuts.

Do you think he appointed himself to a judge office by his decision? Or do you think instead he was entitled to?

12. Breach of Professional Ethics: E.g., perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness intimidation by the prosecutors.

Why not?

Who indicts the Italian Justice system? Those buffoons who indicted Omar Khadr?